Atheist vs Religious vs Agnostic
Atheist, Religious/Theist, Agnostic. Out of these beliefs or non beliefs in relation to a God, which belief or non belief system is the smartest and most honest? Agnostic gets my vote because I don't see enough evidence one way or the other that can rule a God out or in. Which belief or non belief do you think is the wisest and why?
The big problem with this is the definition of the words. Some people see "agnostic" as a cop-out, whereas others (like you and me) see it as being open-minded. Some people say an agnostic is a person who wants to believe in God but isn't convinced, which I think is a distortion.
Likewise, some people interpret the word 'atheist' as meaning, dead set against all religion even if science was able to prove God's existence tomorrow. Whereas I see an atheist as someone who has weighed all the evidence and come to a logical decision, but who would be open to logical argument to the contrary, if such a thing existed.Thanks. I agree with every single thing you wrote, scary lol. I can usually find at least one thing I don't agree with.
Well, I did not weigh anything, it just seemed not credible to me. I rejected it as nonsense the moment I realized that the guy at the front of the church wasn't telling nursery tales.
Thanks. This is another part. There are many different ideas of a God unrelated to churches or religion. For simplicity, let's keep it to God = creator of everything.
Perhaps you misunderstood. I rejected the idea of any sort of god-thing as utter nonsense.
Thanks. Do you base this on proof or faith? To my knowledge, I didn't know a creator had been disproven already by science.
Evolution disproves intelligent design but faith is something science can't waste time disapproving. For example, pink invisible unicorn exist - ask science to disapprove it.
Thanks. I think we both know that your statement is simply a matter of individual perspective, many that believe evolution also still allow the possibility of creation. I agree evolution rules against any religious defining of a creator I have seen, but this doesn't mean evolution rules against a creator. I agree science focuses more on testable evidence rather than philosophy. Many scientists do not help their case considering many publicly state their belief or non belief, many times without proof to back them. If I asked an evolutionary biologist that was atheist, they would repeatedly give me examples of vestigal traits or parts that could have been designed better. Saying we are a bad design is lacking proof to make the claim a creator is impossible.
All that exist came from something rather than nothing makes all the sense in the world to me. Faith is the substance of things hoped for. Substance is something. It is impossible to please God without faith. This too makes all the sense in the world. We can not comprehend God, Infinite Potentiality, in His totality.
You Know what god wants - but we cannot comprehend?
Dear me.
All you are doing is filling in your lack of understanding of the way the Universe works with:
"god dunnit. I dunno wot god is, but I know it want me to have faith to pleeze it."
Utter nonsense.
Faith is faith. Nothing more. Sad really - that you are so easily satisfied with a meaningless, nonsensical answer.
Still - it did not require any thought or work on your part did it? I mean - not as though you had to learn anything.If you can't comprehend god, how you concluded that you need to please him ? If this is how you think then you contradicted entire bible & Christianity . If We can't comprehend god, yet we have written books on what god wants then if any words fall out from that book then we can safely assume that we can't comprehend god right ?.
What makes sense to me is that everything complex I observe is made from simpler things. Living things from compounds, compounds from molecules, molecules from atoms and so on.
If you posit a creator, it must have evolved from simpler things. Therefore it is no god, and if it tries to tell you otherwise it is lying or insane.
But Occam's razor tells that if we imagine an evolved creator, we don't need it because plainly that proves that our own existence is possible without any creator.
That is the problem with theists: you just don't think this stuff through. No gods are necessary, except, of course, to comfort your fears.Interesting thoughts. Possibly there was a creator or creators before molecules, it's not impossible that you could rule out. If there was creator before evolution, why would a creator create or give the same amount of power to all life that the creator has? If this happened, couldn't the creations overrun the creator? It seems as if you aren't thinking this through as you claimed others don't do in your last line. How do you rule all of these things out as impossible without faith or evidence? Thanks
Any "creator" has to have come from simpler things. Yes, our universe could be the product of a third year physics students experiment in another dimension. That doesn't make that student a "god" and he or she was plainly the product of evolution themselves.
You failed to understand the basic reality: all complex things are built from simpler things. Therefore, no original creator is possible. Your fervent DESIRE to believe otherwise clouds your mind.Thanks. You are still making assumptions. How do you know a creator of the universe would follow the same laws as the universes creation? Just because you think all complex things are built from simpler things doesn't mean it applies to everything. If I had desire to believe one way or another, I wouldn't agree with agnosticism. You guys are quick to point out faults in others when you have them yourselves.
wilmiers77posted 2 days agoin reply to this
"All that exist came from something rather than nothing makes all the sense in the world to me."
So where did that 'something' come from?
Well, you did weigh it, but in your case you were able to come to a decision quickly because the arguments seemed so self-evident to you.
Agnostic to many doesn't represent a place on the belief spectrum at all, but rather just a philosophy and piece of logic. Agnosticism -to me- is the mere recognition of the truth that the existance of a higher, creator-of-us being can be neither proven or disproven. Some of us choose to think otherwise, but most of us agree with agnosticism despite our places on the belief spectrum.
I'm an atheist cause I don't believe in any gods.
I'm an agnostic because I know I can't prove my viewpoint anymore than Brenda and Co. can prove their's.
Should evidence of a god present itself, I'd change my mind.
I don't see agnosticism as a statement of belief at all. I'd take agnosticism off of the list entirely and replace it with undecided. Additionally I'd add the term convicted atheist to denote those nonbelievers who wish to assert a definite belief that there is no god.
Your average atheist doesn't generally go around thinking 'there is no god', just 'eh, I don't believe in that crap'. But some atheists wish to make a more definitive statement. Most atheists aren't convicted that there is no god, we're just convicted that the ones we've been presented with are dubious at best and really just don't seem worthy of worshipping.
So like you have liberal christians or moderate christians and then you have extremist, fundie christians, you also have at the atheist end of the spectrum nonbelievers, and then more extreme believers in a non. In the middle of the spectrum agnosticism doesn't reside, just indecision. I know it can't be scientifically proven either way (agnosticism), as do many believers, but that doesn't mean I'm not an atheist and they're not convicted believers.
Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, as far as I can see. One either believes, or one does not, or one remains undecided perhaps for a time. One does not generally acknowledge the valid truth of agnosticism and then consequently forever remain stuck in limbo perfectly balanced between belief and incredulity.Even I couldnt have explained it as good as u did...
Agnosticism deals with knowledge.
I can no more believe in the deity rubbish than I can physically flap my arms and fly around the world. There's no 'choice' involved.
If one cared enough about the superstition they could show many places which invalidate the presupposition. Such an exercise is useless as theism (in general) is based on emotion not logic or reason. Similar reactions exist concerning deity as that of a small child learning that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and other items don't actually exist.
I can and do state; "There is no deity" just as I do other things I lack belief in. There's no reason to treat deity any differently than any other unsupported assertion. Such a statement does not tell the hearers to give up their belief.
It is all the lack of belief in whatever the proposition is.
That a person is a theist is their personal business.
They are all products of the same system, making them equal in base; differential in balancing of sensation-equation.
The entire system is corrupt, based on a human word defined as 'G/god' or no 'G/god'. Thus, none can be wiser, smarter, faster or wittier than the other. If they could, they would not belong to that system of consideration.
-James.Odd question to ask.
Example 1: "I read the bible/quran/torah to learn about "G/god" because it makes me feel better knowing He's out there"
Example 2: "I read your bible and laugh at your psychopathic G/god -who does not exist".
Example 3: "Well, I have read and came to no actual determination, that is, good or bad to know if they is such a G/god, so it is up to the individual to decide what makes them happy."
In all three examples, the end conclusion is the self satisfaction of having decided for, against or between a necessity.
None of those belief styles represent anything worth engaging on a rational/epistemological level. What "I" believe is irrelevant.Thanks. So do you see yourself above all three since you don't pick one? I find it highly unlikely that you are neither of the three. You either think you know, think you don't know, or admit you don't know, let's not make it more complicated than it already has to be. What you believe is not irrelevant because it is likely relevant that you fit one of the three choices.
The ideology of any human perspective of the consideration is, quite frankly, beneath not just myself, but all humanity. Any of the three are priori constructs. All are subjective --look closely-- from & for the human necessity. Why would any rational human being engage that kind of madness(for, against, between)? There is the undeniable complexity. An theist or atheist or agnostic -teacher, preacher, scientist or sensationalist- are all within the same subjectivity they want & need to be in.
I just prefer none of it. Am I above it? Most times, yes. As a fellow Hubber remarked once: climbing up and down the monkey bar.
Perhaps, as Miss Wright suggests, the word you are including is the issue. Better still, how you are using it and what you are using it to imply or solute.Thanks. I think we engage in the madness because it is exploration. The further we explore, the more we can learn. The more we know of others beliefs, the more we can know of our beliefs. Comparison is an excellent tool for awareness.
If you are involved, I don't think you are above it. Maybe you believe you have higher awareness for putting yourself in the catagory that others do, doesn't mean you don't share some common beliefs of creation or no creation. In belief, sometimes the monkeybar gets higher rather than a repetitive pattern.
I am implying that certain belief or non belief without evidence is only limiting to a persons mind. I am also making the argument that I believe a true agnostic concerning the belief of a God would often be wiser, more honest, and more open and aware of different beliefs. Many that have fixed belief biased to one side over the other may rarely research things that disagree with their belief.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'which is the most honest?' That doesn't make sense.
Agnosticism is a cop-out. I don't believe that someone can genuinely not know. You're never going to have evidence either way, otherwise it wouldn't be called belief, faith etc. Atheism is the denial that something exists. How can you prove something doesn't exist?
Religion (and belief in God) is about actions. If you believe in God you pray, go to church (or equivalent), maybe read the bible, teach your children about it; basically living your life in a good way so that you'll go to heaven (or whatever your religion believes in). If you're agnostic what are you going to do? Hedge your bets and act religiously just in case there is a God? That's what a sensible agnostic would do, right? I bet virtually no agnostics do that. They're not agnostic they just don't want to admit what they believe.how can you prove something doesnt exist? did you really just ask that question?
I'd have to say that being an atheist or Religious devotee is a little narrow minded. Its saying that you are sure that you know the mysteries of the universe. Ridiculous.
Atheists admit to not knowing the answers to all the mysteries of the universe, that's what makes atheism NOT a religion. They don't have a set of beliefs about the mysteries of the universe; they're happy to admit they can only answer so much and will only speculate about the possibility of what they don't know.
Being open-minded is not the same as sitting on the fence. You can have strong opinions and beliefs about what you think is most likely to be right/true. Being open-minded means listening to other arguments, respecting them and giving them proper thought before dismissing them, or admitting they are a possibility.Yes, your post was a ridiculous strawman. What is it about Xians and the dearth of honesty and courage?
An atheist is a person who isn't a theist. That's it.
As a matter of fact, you are atheist with regards to all other deities but yours. Then you get upset and casually and unrepentantly bear false witness because your particular delusions aren't given special treatment.Atheist. Someone who for some unaccountable reason have difficulty in believing in the big bad psychotic fairy in a 2,000 year old book rewritten by a bunch of old men then perpetrated with threats of burning to death and worse.
In other words, sane people.
Atheist vs Religious vs Agnostic
Who said that it was vs. Why caint it just be ...
and ..or .. with?If it’s not a rude question just how much proof do you need ?
If on the one hand you are waiting for the second coming or a Booming voice from the sky ten seconds before he wipes us all off the face of the planet then I suggest you don’t hold your breath.
Man invented the Gods, all of them. It was a man, King Hezekiah to be precise, who around 700 BC who passed the laws for a single God. The rest as they say is history. All the different religions and churches are also manmade and are a power thing. The power to dictate what you think and when you think it and they have been doing it for centuries.
In strict legal terms Hearsay is not admissible as evidence except it seems when referring to quotations and sayings from the Bible. Most of the stories are pure Hearsay and they come from many older variations of the same stories from other regions . These include many variations of the virgin birth.... all Gods were born of Virgins....it’s one of the things that made them special. The Great Flood has happened in the ancient stories of at least three other cultures.
I was watching a wonderful documentary program on TV with two Jewish archaeologists out to prove the Bible was factual. They couldn’t find any proof that Moses even existed.... now given that he came into Egypt and walked out with a lot of their slave labour, on which the entire Egyptian economy depended, you might think he might have got a couple of mentions. Nope, nothing, and where is he supposed to have gone ? Into the Sinai dessert for forty years of wandering.... Who owned the Sinai at the time ? Oh yes Egypt ! and nobody noticed ? Off into the promised land controlled by .... three guesses.... Yep Egypt again. Not a mention in dispatches or an official report from a town or city governor back to Egypt to say “Guess who turned up on the door step today....
What else did these two guys come up with ? Oh yes, If there was no Moses, no Exodus no wandering around for forty years no going up mountains and no ten commandments . The stories of the Bible fell apart in their hands.
Of course I now expect to be told that these were Atheist Jews.... and both they and I can expect a smiting any day now !Thanks. So all of this is proof to you that creation is impossible simply because of the manipulation of religion using God to control?
I wouldn't call this proof there is no creator, I would call it making an assumption based in spite of religion. If you can't prove creation impossible, why claim there is proof?Creator deity constructs fail under myriad avenues such as; unsupported assertions, begged questions, furious handwaving, and broken logic.
Objective supporting evidence the universe was 'manufactured?'
The Creator deity fails under its own broken logic. If everything needs a 'creator' then who created 'God?'
This leads to an never ending chain of gods and
indicates your particular god doesn't get credit.
If you go with time, that doesn't help Xians either. Tiamat the Dragon is 5.5 thousand years old and there are many younger who are older than your God. Once again, your God doesn't get credit.
If you then go with the 'uncaused cause' nonsense, you've invalidated your own statement about everything having to be created.
In such case the universe qualifies as well.
You can't have things both ways.
There are all sorts of other things which invalidate God, but nothing matters since the driver behind the theism is emotion.
I vote religious. You get to choose your own God. It's not so hard to believe. It's the matter of a simple decision for me. And I've always liked the convenient choices.
Agnostic's do believe in a high power but not necessarily that this "god" is Jesus Christ, Allah, Buddha (as a prophet ) or Lucifer. They believe something is turning the world and something is interacting with us. Whether it be God or some really smart "Beings" is up for discussion People who believe in a God (and aren't far right wing) typically see Agnostic's as people who are "searching" for the truth.
Atheist - is just a belief that there is no God or Satan. Most Atheist's believe there is no heaven or hell, and that when we die there is just nothingness. (by the way this is a believe/religion in it self by definition). Atheist's are not necessarily anti religion, or hate all who believe in a God or god's. The just think differently and are not convinced as others are that there is a God or higher being. In many peoples opinion, This is the weakest argument. A good many of Atheist's do not "believe" because they have not "experienced" a god or higher being. This is an extremely weak argument because you cannot prove or disprove anything out of lack of experience. Others will say that they do not "believe" because the so many things happen in this world randomly that there is no way there is a God. Or the classic, "so many bad things happen to bad people that..." and that again is a weak argument.
"Religious people" as you put it range from many different perspectives. Some believe in a God or god's, others believe a Creator that is detached from us. A detached creator scenario would be Buddhism (tho not all hold this exact view) but some do believe that we were created in some form and now are trying to reach that higher state of being where we will
then be mini gods or "Demigods". This is very close to Agnostic. While other religions like Muslim and Christianity and Catholicism believe in 1 God that created everything. That bad things about these 3 religious beliefs are:
Catholicism - Believe in a God that you have to work to no end to please, and then in the end can't please anyways. And if you have lived a life that was "uneventful" your mom or kid's or friends can pray you into Heaven. They believe all you have to do is be nice and God won't punish you to much while your here on earth. This is, in my opinion, the most abused and corrupted by it's leaders since they claim if you pay money for your sin's and do exactly as THEY say. You will be forgiven. It is self serving to the priests/leaders. Good sides are that they do promote living a good life, staying out of trouble and helping others when you can
Muslims - Muslims believe in a God that favor's Men over women. Women are nothing more then a vessel to please the man and bare children. Even after death a man who has died killing "infidels" (people who aren't Muslim) will receive a thousand virgin's who every time they have sex with them will become virgins again so that they can please the man as if it were the first time (i will be honest my first time was special on an emotional level. but on a messy level... i don't know if i want that gain). Their god is also a violent one telling them that they must kill all unbelievers.
Christianity - Christianity runs off of a belief of 1 God who loves us. God loves us and though we reject Him, He is always looking for us to come back. Always sitting there gently calling us back to Him so that he may take care of us and talk to us like we are His children. And that is the theme of Christianity, Love. (now this is Christianity in it's purist form. This is also why Christians will separate themselves from being bunched together with other Faiths like Catholics, Jehovah witness's, Mormon's etc.). The biggest flaw in Christianity is that is the most claimed (people who have no real faith but believed when they were little and no longer act or live what they were taught) and is the MOST Hypocritical of them. Christian claim to be Christians but act any way they want. They judge others, they put people down, they act a times as though they are better then others. That is why the above description i said it was "it's purest form". They do not practice at all what their faith says they are to do. At least Muslim's do what they are told. Christianity though does have it's good points. They are the most giving of faith's. Organizations like the Red Cross, Convoy of Hope and many other charitable and disaster relief agency's were born from Christian's or Christian organizations. Those who do try and fallow the Christian faith will usually be very giving, very selfless and very forgiving of others wrongs towards them. But again, people aren't always like this. We have Bible thumper's, people who stand on corners saying God hates Gays (which really makes most Christians angry they do that as well as myself). The one thing i can give Christianity when it comes to the Validity of their Faith is that the Bible is the most historically Sound piece of literature ( sound being that the things that are written in the bible can typically be backed up and verified through normal research in history. Some things are not able to be verified but at the same time they cannot be disputed. so it is the most historically sound "holy book") It's own history is one of the oldest when it comes to Religion.Atheist is a 'belief' just as 'bald is a hair colour.'
An atheist is a person who isn't a theist.
That a person is a theist is their business. But then so many people get all upset over a person not being a theist and have to invent things to 'explain' it. Sad.
TruthDebater wrote:
Atheist is the correct answer. All an atheist is is a person who isn't a theist-the 'a' prefix indicates without the following property. In this instance it is 'without theos/theism God(s)/Goddess(es).
What it indicates is theists haven't objectively supported their statement about the universe having to be manufactured {that's the usage of 'created}.
Unsupported assertions like 'creator deity' are overpriced at a 'single pence per gross.'
Such belief in 'x' is fine for the individual. It is something else if that individual expects others to pay attention to it.
I'm not up on the Australian 'Dreamtime,' otherwise the oldest creator deity construct I'm aware of is Tiamat the Dragon at some 5.5 thousand years of age. There are many younger than that who are still older than the Abrahamic deity construct.Interesting question.
I agree, the assertion "a creator exists" cannot currently be categorically proven or refuted. This leads to the question you seem to have reached: 'What do we do in the face of an assertion we can't categorically prove or refute?'.
I think it comes down to the approach we take to knowledge and justification of belief. Empiricism combined with evidentialism is a demonstrably successful approach, and has become the de facto standard; But it doesn't account for how we form all our beliefs. Illogical assumptions that have a practical benefit are common in everyday life, and some ordinary beliefs are not formed on the basis of evidence at all.
By the de facto standard such ordinary beliefs are unjustified and unreasonable. Yet we all hold such beliefs. So either we are all irrational, or the narrow scope that makes this approach so useful, also makes it too narrow to account for human belief in its entirety. If that's the case, determining what beliefs are justified or sensible solely by its standard is probably unwise.
In my own experience non-theists tend to do this quite a lot, i.e dismiss as irrational beliefs which do not conform to this approach, without acknowledging or addressing that they are also dismissing beliefs people hold in everyday life which are not commonly considered irrational.
On the other hand, some theists try to suggest there is categorical evidence for the existence of a deity, which clearly there is not. Both groups also tend to make leaps of logic from arguments about specific scientific understanding (e.g. evolution) to the existence (or not) of a deity. That leap can't (logically) be made.
I think agnosticism is an honest approach in acknowledging that the truth is currently indeterminable, but I'd suggest it's still possible to determine if a belief is justified, as justified and true are different things. But I would advise any agnostic against solely using an 'evidence' based approach to determine what beliefs are justified.Don Wposted 2 days agoin reply to this
Interesting question.
I agree, the assertion "a creator exists" cannot currently be categorically proven or refuted. This leads to the question you seem to have reached: 'What do we do in the face of an assertion we can't categorically prove or refute?'. "
Refuting it is done at the slightest glance.
Creator deity constructs fail under myriad avenues such as; unsupported assertions, begged questions, furious handwaving, and broken logic.
Objective supporting evidence the universe was 'manufactured?'
The Creator deity fails under its own broken logic. If everything needs a 'creator' then who created 'God?'
This leads to an never ending chain of gods and
indicates your particular god doesn't get credit.
If you go with time, that doesn't help Xians either. Tiamat the Dragon is 5.5 thousand years old and there are many younger who are older than your God. Once again, your God doesn't get credit.
If you then go with the 'uncaused cause' nonsense, you've invalidated your own statement about everything having to be created.
In such case the universe qualifies as well.
You can't have things both ways.
There are all sorts of other things which invalidate God, but nothing matters since the driver behind the theism is emotion.
DonW also posts:
I think agnosticism is an honest approach in acknowledging that the truth is currently indeterminable, "
Really?
Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge about a stated premise.
Q: What are you agnostic about?
A: God.
Q: A clear and concise definition for the effectively undefined letter string that doesn't; beg questions, generate unsupported assertions, handwave furiously, or lead to broken logic is ___?
<crickets chirp>
Until then there is literally nothing to look at or consider.
If one wants to pretend the g-o-d letter string has meaning then have at it.
DonW goes on to state:
"but I'd suggest it's still possible to determine if a belief is justified, as justified and true are different things. But I would advise any agnostic against solely using an 'evidence' based approach to determine what beliefs are justified."
Meaningless word salad. You're indicating a belief is 'justified' because you say it is.
Regardless of your 'justified belief, if you step 100 metres in front of a speeding locomotive you will still be turned into jam.None of those things have a bearing on the truth of an assertion. A logically valid assertion is no truer than an invalid one. E.g.
All unicorns are pink
The animal in my garden is a unicorn
The animal in my garden is pink
That argument is logically valid, i.e. the conclusion is necessarily true given the premises. However, that validity tells us nothing about the truth of the premises, which are in fact untrue. Contrast with:
All goldfish are orange
The animal in my garden is orange
The animal in my garden is a goldfish
This argument is logically invalid. The conclusion does not necessarily follow on from the premises (could be a tiger not a goldfish). However, it may in fact be true that the animal in my garden is a goldfish. The point? Logical validity of an assertion has no bearing on whether it is actually true or not. An assertion could be logically invalid, but also true. So suggesting that circular logic, and lack of logical validity indicate an assertion is be untrue, is itself untrue. In short, something doesn't have to be logical, to be true. The former does not equate to the latter and vice versa.
An assertion for which there is no objective supporting evidence is not necessarily false. That's a non-sequitur.
Invalidate? If you mean logically, see above. If by invalidate you mean disprove, I'd be very interested to the know what things disprove the existence of a deity. Can you give an example of one?
1) I think theology has given a pretty clear account of the christian concept of god. That's as good as any. 2) Who said that concept needs to meet the criteria you've suggested? 3) Some ordinary "commons sense" beliefs do not meet the criteria you set. So if god-belief is irrational, then those beliefs are also. If those beliefs are not irrational, then god-belief is not either. Which is it?
Nope, you're saying I'm indicating that. I'm actually indicating that some beliefs (including everyday beliefs) are not formed on the basis of evidence, yet are considered justified beliefs. Therefore, either we are all wrong and these beliefs are in fact not justified. Or the evidentialist approach to justified belief does not adequately address how human beings form beliefs and consider them justified. I think it's the latter.
No dispute. A belief isn't necessarily correct because it's justified. Likewise a belief isn't necessarily incorrect because it's unjustified. One has no bearing on the other. The point is that god-belief is characterised as unjustified. But it's no more unjustified (in evidentialist terms) than certain other beliefs we hold. That doesn't mean god-belief correct, it just means its no different epistemologically speaking to those other beliefs we hold.Rubbish from start to finish.
Once again;
Don Wposted 2 days agoin reply to this
Interesting question.
I agree, the assertion "a creator exists" cannot currently be categorically proven or refuted. This leads to the question you seem to have reached: 'What do we do in the face of an assertion we can't categorically prove or refute?'. "
Refuting it is done at the slightest glance.
Creator deity constructs fail under myriad avenues such as; unsupported assertions, begged questions, furious handwaving, and broken logic.
Objective supporting evidence the universe was 'manufactured?'
The Creator deity fails under its own broken logic. If everything needs a 'creator' then who created 'God?'
This leads to an never ending chain of gods and
indicates your particular god doesn't get credit.
Please address the points raised.Once again, if you have anything that refutes the assertion "a creator exists", I ask you to share it. The arguments you've presented (it's illogical and there is no evidence for it) do not refute anything. They are counter arguments, but they don't refute anything. I'd really like to know what you've found.
Actually please don't tell me. If you have in fact discovered something or formulated an argument that categorically refutes the above assertion, then you must publish with a science or philosophy journal immediately. The world will want to know what startling discovery or of feat of logic you have made. You should certainly keep it close to your chest until you get it published.
The cosmological argument and the objections to it, which you are referring to has been debated for centuries. Expressing an objection to it as some categorical proof of something, does you no credit. Objections to the argument do not prove a deity does not exist, logically or otherwise. Likewise the argument does not prove a deity does exist. Arguments and counter-arguments have been presented throughout history within the debate (Aristotle, Aquinas, Swinbourne, Leibniz, Clarke, Hume, Plantinga, Marvin, Mackie etc) and it is entirely a matter of opinion which argument is the more reasonable. Personally I think the cosmological argument is weak. But that doesn't allow us to say the assertion "a creator exists" is untrue. It does allow us to say the cosmological argument is weak, and perhaps steer us away from that line of reasoning. But no more than that.
The fact is there is currently no objective method for establishing the truth in relation to the question of whether a deity exists, regardless of how good or poor the reasoning of the arguments. If you have discovered otherwise, again I advise you to keep that knowledge to yourself until published so you get full credit. For the rest of us, philosophical arguments allow us to explore the reasonableness of the arguments. They don't allow us to determine the truth of them.
The best thing about that is that it can be demonstrated with pink unicorns! Do you have something against unicorns by the way? I don't think they're rubbish I think they're quite nice. Perhaps a nice blue one instead of a pink one, might make you less grumpy.Don W posted
[ Once again, if you have anything that refutes the assertion "a creator exists", I ask you to share it ]
I did. Twice, oh liar for Jebus. 'Astonishing' how you ignore what was written, continue prattling a falsified concept, and then accuse the writer of being 'grumpy.'
Ah, Christian 'Morality,' one just has to laugh it it.
Which one do we think is the wisest?
As in how? What are they suppose to be wise in? Religion? Life? Math? Algebra? What?
This a pretty broad question. Can you narrow your scope a little to help us figure out what you meant by being the wisest?
If you are looking for the group that has the wisdom of Santa Claus- I guess that would us Christians. So now what? Are we then the wisest? You know- we tell our kids he is the wisest of them all.Thanks. I stated it in the question. In relation to belief in a God. How do you know skeptics wouldn't know more about Santa than you?
They probably would. I totally missed that part of your post.
However, it is still a little too broad for me. God can be and is many things to many different people. Still too theoretical for me.
But anywho- have a good evening. I'm off to bed. Be well.Thanks for being honest, that always counts for something. I see it as there is not enough evidence for or against there being a God, so wouldn't the wisest be the ones that don't make assumptions and jump to conclusions without evidence?
I see agnosticism as seasonal-belief changer side. They discard scientific evidence by saying it could be possible without giving any reasonable explanation but end up agreeing with it if they find any credible person talking about it. They do the same with religious concepts. They act like striker on snooker table. (Just my observation)
Thanks. You may be right that a lot of agnostics do that. I see agnosticism as being unbiased to decide one way or the other, but to examine every side. If a person is biased to religion or atheism, this usually makes them considered an atheist or religionist. Also with unbiased, it could seem like a person sways back and forth agreeing with a religionist or atheist at times, but unbiased doesn't mean a person can't agree with ideas once in a while from each side.
If agnostics are skeptical then we can safely say that they're unbiased & open minded. But not all agnostics are skeptic and they usually prefer to stay on fence. Staying on fence is not being unbiased. If science shows empirical evidence for evolution then taking faith as parameter to disapprove it is not at all unbiased. It's living in denial which both agnostics(okay,some) & theists do.
Thanks. And what about the ones that believe evolution and the possibility of creation?
Belief in Evolution - Empirical Evidence.
Possibility of creation - Hypothesis.Thanks.
Evolution - Empirical evidence which came from hypothesis. There are also many assumptions that usually follow with evolution to fill in blanks of the unknown.
Possibility of no creation - hypothesisStar Goat vomited the Universe
Teapot made it
Invisible Pink Unicorn made it
Your ignorance of the empirical evidence driving evolutionary biology theory is showing.
Thanks. What is your evidence of the Goat, Teapot, and Unicorn? Did you observe this? Thats the difference, i'm not making claims like yourself of something I haven't observed.
What do you think drives evolutionary biology? Why do you refer to it as theory if you believe everything in evolution as fact?
If you think some evolutionary biologists have never made false claims or jump to conclusions to get more publicity or funding, i'm not going to try to prove it to you. Do you think they are always morally responsible like yourself?There is as much evidence for these as creation. Therefore you cannot prove them wrong. ?
What - you observed creation? Awesome - show me.
Your ignorance is still showing. Too bad. Try reading. When you have educated yourself a little - feel free to express an opinion.Thanks. Where did I try to prove creation right? I have written repeatedly in the thread that I agree with agnosticism. I don't think it can be proved right or wrong, there are good points on both sides. I don't think you have evidence against the possibility of creation. Where did I say I observed creation, I didn't claim creation, I claimed it is not impossible. That is different from claiming you knowing the star goat is creator of the universe. I would enjoy hearing where I am lacking so I can believe your beliefs, which religion is this?
My - that was a fast education. Please try again. Thanks. The "holes" in your education are still showing.
Yes - the teapot and star goat are not impossible are they? I mean - science has not disproven them has it? They are just as likely as creation and an infinite number of other un-dis-provable hypotheses aren't they? Yet you ask for observation. How very strange.
Good points on both sides?
Yes - much the same evidence for both.
I can see why you would be a agnostic with the overwhelming empirical evidence for creationism. Thanks. According to you, they are more likely because they are more descriptive than saying creation is possible. Stars, goats, and teapots are all observational. Since you made the claims, I thought you would have had observational evidence to back them up. Notice I didn't try to describe a creator when I said creation is possible.
What are the good points from atheism that creation is impossible?
You get very proud of youself when you feel like you one up'd an "assumed" creationist huh? Is this because you are surprised believing you are right or is it because it boosts your ego when you believe you have made someone else look inferior? A person that is dependent on belittling others for importance can't be all that wise.and exactly, precisely, how many stars have YOU observed? Not all things are observable to humans --even with fancy machines.
Thanks. I observe the sun everyday, the sun is a star. I agree not all things are observational, but the ones that are observational to everyone usually have more credibility of existing.
Passive aggressive attacks are still attacks.
You have some observational evidence of creation for me or not? No? Odd that you do not accept the Star Goat or the Teapot then? Surely it is not impossible is it? Along with an infinite number of other possibilities.
I am not assuming anything. You say creation is not impossible. OK - then neither are the infinite number of other possibles. So what?Thanks. Interesting that you point out all of my areas where you believe "my ignorance is showing", but complain and point the finger when I point out your pride is showing. Is it alright when you make direct agressive attacks, but not passive aggressive attacks, or was it that my comment struck a nerve?
It's not about providing you with evidence, you still fail to comprehend this. If I was religious or creationist, then it would be my job if you asked. Again, you fail to comprehend the difference between your more detailed description and my plain description. Sure they are possible and probable according to you since you can describe them as the creators of the universe.
You are right that an infinite number of possibilities are possible., they become more probable when there is observational evidence of them. By your descriptions of the stargoat and toaster, I would have expected you got this from observation being that you base all of your comments on evidence rather than assumptions.Sorry you don't understand. And a passive aggressive attack is still an attack - I don't appreciate you attacking me for pointing out that you appear to be ignorant of a large part of the evolutionary process.
I have not observed the teapot or the goat - any more than any one has observed "creation". I postulate them based on the "evidence" of goats and teapots - they are therefore impossible to disprove - and as you say about "creation" not impossible - so they should get equal weight along with the other infinite number of possibilities.
Evolution - on the other hand - is observable.
Why don't you list the evidence you have for creation - that you claim to be able to weight, and then list the points in favor of a creator and we can compare them to my points in favor of the stargoat or teapot.
I think we may find some similarities. Don't you?
I have never once said that creation is impossible. Not once ever. your misunderstanding of the term "atheist" is what puts that out there. Sure - creation is possible - by any number of the infinite possibles. So - infinity:one against. It does not even require a creator in this case. It could have been a sneeze by the great green arkleseizure "created" the universe. A cosmic accident.
So - far as i can tell - there is nothing to weigh in favor of a creator - or creation - other than - "it must have been created because I don't understand science enough to see any other ways."
But - any one tells me they know who "created" us and they have some roolz for me - ? That is where I tend to be 100% certain they are wrong
Thanks. You are very funny. Again, you complain about something being an attack when I didn't complain about you calling me ignorant. I enjoy your perspective of how anyone besides yourself is wrong. But then again, this is likely your entire point to begin with, disagree, insult, then claim others are attacking you, amazing. Interesting, at least I explained when I said your pride is showing, but you have no explanation of why you think i'm ignorant.
Sorry you can't understand that "creation is possible" doesn't equal a description such as "stargoat vomited universe".
Again, you fail to comprehend that it isn't my job to prove creation to you, I could care less whether you believe it is possible or not..
One of the biggest reasons I believe it remains possible is because we don't know our origins as in abiogenesis. No one has a clue of how the first life started, only how it changed. There are infinite possibilities because they can't be ruled out. Also if the universe had no designated purpose or creator, why would evolution of life have purpose and a creator?
If you are so interested in evolution, why are you asking me to define abiogenesis?
Which type of evolution is observable? I would figure someone as wise as yourself would specify which one, what do you observe us evolving into 3,000 years into the future?
I do applaud you for keeping your mind open to some extent to admit creation is possible. Sorry you think everyone that believes creation is possible doesn't understand science as good as you, then again, who does anything as good as you?
I agree with the last part, the point is to have rules for yourself, not worry about others rules. Belittling those that don't see things as you to feel superior to them isn't a rule I would keep.Thanks. It seems you do indeed keep this rule.
Passive aggressive attacks are still attacks, but I am certainly enjoying your semantics, ignorance and inability to actually say anything of substance. It is not my job to educate you. Please feel free to read up about evolution.
ciao
Thanks. As you claim I make attacks, you make personal attacks calling me ignorant. Again, only you are right. Maybe someday I will have your wisdom and awareness. Thanks for the enlightenment.
Saying you are ignorant of something was not a personal attack, so please do not take it as such. It was certainly not meant as an attack - merely to point out that you did not know something, which is what ignorant means.
I am ignorant of any number of things myself, although - correct me if I am wrong - but I understood that the actual position of an agnostic is not that he has not decided yet and is keeping an open mind - but that it is not possible to know an answer to the question.
My self - I do consider myself to be open minded also because - although I reject the notion of a personal god and evolution most certainly disproves the idea that we were created in our current form - if it stopped by and made itself known - I would change my tune pretty sharpish.
I am ambivalent to the idea of "creation" simply because there is an infinite number of possibles and the only people who seem certain of it are religionists. As I know where they get their belief system s from and know they are mistaken that there is personal god - that means I put no weight to their arguments because of the massive assumption they make.
Any time you care to present the the evidence you are "weighing" in favor of creation - I am listening.
ciao
Thanks. I actually agree with you on ignorance. Like you figure I don't know the subject to call me ignorant, I figured you didn't know your pride was showing, so please don't take it as a personal attack. You are right on the position of agnostic. This is why i'm not trying to prove a creator. My belief is that a creator is possible, not that I can prove it existing and neither can I disprove it.
I agree with you on religionists. But calling them or anyone else ignorant isn't going to make them see how you see things, even if everyone is ignorant to an extent. It is common sense that most people don't want to hear they are ignorant, this is because of pride.
I don't know how I could provide evidence in favor of creation when I already admitted I can't define a creator. It simply seems to me that many things wouldn't be possible without something creating possibility. Even in determinism, the prior creates what follows, whether it be conscious or unconscious. And I stated earlier, how does an unconscious universe create conscious life? This isn't an attempt to prove a creator, it is simply reasoning why I don't think anyone knows a creator is impossible.Apparently - you cannot read either. Oh well. Sorry me being honest with you comes across as pride. Your ignorance once again comes to the fore and makes itself plain.
What was your point again?
What was the evidence in favor that you claim to be able to weigh up?
I am afraid your question is too simplistic and makes too many assumptions. Conscious? Create?
Dear me. Try reading.
Thanks
Thanks. So reading about evolution will tell me how an unconscious universe creates conscious life? I thought evolution and abiogenesis are different, so how would evolution tell me how life started?
Your "being honest" isn't the part that comes off as pride, it is your insults and ridicule when people don't see things the same you see them.
Still fishing trying to lead me into assumptions that you can ridicule huh? You can't read where I said I can't prove for or against a creator and you repeatedly ask the same questions. My point was to show a creator is possible, a point you already admitted agreeing to.
How is my question both simple and assumptive, if it was simple, wouldn't it be easy to understand and answer? What did I assume in the question? Do you think the universe is conscious or unconscious?Please stop asking leading, assumptive questions and provide the information I asked you for to back up your assertion that you are "weighing up " evidence.
I never said you said you could prove a creator - just that you said you were weighing up the evidence in favor. Please provide this evidence.
Thanks.
Thanks. What are the leading assumption questions. The universe must be conscious or unconscious correct? I thought the majority Atheist belief was that conscious life evolved by natural circumstances by unconscious means. Is this wrong?
If I thought the evidence favored a creator, I would be religious. I think the evidence doesn't favor either side. You asked for my reasoning of why it seems possible to me and I told you. Many things seem impossible without something creating it's possibilities. It seems probable to me that there may have to be intelligence in order for the end result to become intelligent.Please provide the evidence you are "weighing up" in favor and stop asking questions. I will not answer any more of your leading assumptive questions until you do.
I preferred the dog.
Thanks. Are you messing with me right now? The questions are part of the evidence I am weighing up. Questions lead to evidence, did you not know this? If the questions are assumptive, please explain what part you would like me to specify so i'm not throwing darts.
Please provide the evidence you are weighing up and stop asking questions.
Thanks
Thanks. Why are you so demanding? All take and no give? I think it shows evidence that life couldn't become intelligent without someone or something creating the possibility of intelligence. Do unconscious, unintelligent materials have possibility to create intelligence by themselves without consciousness?
Marine - please stop asking questions and provide the evidence which you are "weighing up."
Thanks
Thanks. Back to calling me names again. Who was I the other month, soonerorlater? You and the cagsil fellow seem to agree and take each others sides pretty often, although I don't call you each others names. When both of you fail or can't answer something, the end result is to always flee or change the subject.
Evolutionary theories seek to explain the observed facts.
Don't tell me that. Are you going to disapprove empirical evidence of evolution with blanket statement like this ? Either you go with empirical evidence or just make statement for the sake of it with gut feeling,which one is it ?
Hypothesis which is still yet to be disapproved with any empirical evidence.
Evolution isn't a belief. Evolution is a commonly observed fact seen in every birth. No offspring is a clone of the parents.
Please. Learn what evolution is.
Evolution is changes through time in a given populace. Very simple.
Those who believe in 'Creation' are more than welcome to that view.
I used to be a lot like what you have described here. But now, well in relationship to the question, since I stopped worrying about it and stopped giving a crap about God, religion and all that nonsense; I say the wisest are the atheists. Why? Because we are not waiting around for something to be proven in theory. Instead, we just go with the evidence, and spend our time wisely on the important issues such as the cure for cancer, AIDS, or the swine flu.
Seriously, whose got time to waste like that?
Hands down- atheists are the wisest of them all.That is an arrogant statement. As fitting as the right-wing fundamental avatar you are sporting. Why is it that your regard of non-god is wiser than the pitiful yes-god or maybe-god?
You have time, obviously, yet would rather waste your time farting about nothing than actually engage rationale. Wait, don't tell me, ex-religionists, aka atheists, are rational. HA! Boring, mate, very boring. That is as predictable as the sun "rising" or "setting". Both wrong. Both so needy, so vain and ultimately a ticket to death. Not to worry though, your counterpart will be right along side you in it and you have an eternity to argue the points of why you're both dead.
BTW, the Germans, French, Americans and Swiss have had a cure for cancer, aids, etc for years. Seems the proud atheist/agnostic scientists/botanists, roaming the Amazon jungle they know nothing about, prefer to line their pockets, while the masses continue to suffer at man made creation. Good show! What is the next disease they have planned for humanity? Do tell. And explain how you plan to blame the "non-G/god" for it.
Bacause according to your belief system the entity responsible for all human suffering does not exist~!!!!!!!
Yes, yes, rational indeed.
In the words of the Mad Hatter: "Yup, that's what it is, two days slow.' But... "A very merry un-birthday to you!"
Atheism, the lack of theism, isn't a biased position.
A particular believer is more than welcome to objectively support their premise. Until then its simply something someone else believes.
"They act like striker on snooker table."
I've never seen this saying before; what does it mean?
I've understood these terms thusly:
Agnostic: Doesn't believe in any particular religion, but considers the existence of some sort of deity to be possible.
Atheist: Believes there is no godlike creator or overseer of existence.
Religious: Believes the teachings of one (or more, in some cases) religion.
As to which is wisest, well, I think I they all have their merits. I can't say that any one of them is more conducive to wisdom than the others.Atheist would be the most forlorn for me.
Without hope for Gods love.I'm pretty sure an atheist isn't worried about whether they have God's love or not.
No, it keeps us up nights. I so want something I do not believe in to love me.
Though why wouldn't it? Didn't it make me? Didn't it create the brain that sees its existence as ludicrous and impossible?
Would it be ok to fake it? I could go to church and pray like mad. I would feel idiotic, but maybe that's what I need to do to be loved?
So ridiculous :-)Religious people always harp on about God's love, like an atheist is going to go 'oh, that's why I feel weird ... I don't have God's love, better go to church!'
srwnsonposted 7 days agoin reply to this
Atheist would be the most forlorn for me.
Without hope for Gods love."
Yes, I'm sure you're devastated about being forlorn and without hope for Santa Claus', and the Tooth Faerie's' love amongst myriads of other entities you lack belief in.
If any entity created universe and species to live in it i wonder what makes him love them because universe is expanding(that allows him to create more than one species of same type instead of wasting time loving the one created earlier) and creator has full resources to live without-loving his own creations. I see no good reason for universal creator to waste time in such activity. That entity can always create another species or part of universe if it fails to love it.
(( Feels weird to post thought like this from agnostic perspective ))Thanks. I don't know, and how do you know it's a him if there is an it? You make good points, there are points on both sides of the coin that go for or against a creator. Such as, how does a universe create universal laws and order if coming from chaos and randomness without some intelligence? There are infinite questions on both sides when there is no empirical observational evidence to examine and compare. If there are infinite questions, why should there be finite beliefs?
Cause until someone gets the right answer
(or recognizes it) there will continue to be an infinate number of questions.
Imagine if you will Ya are working on your car under a shade tree.
It won't start!
I tell ya; "Hay you need to connect the batery"
You reject this as a posability!
You put a new starter on it.
You put a new ignition switch!
Ya put a new nutral start switch on it.
Nothing works! Your head is full of unanswered questions.
Grand Pa said that whenever I find myself that confused; go back to go and see what kind of good options that I had previously rejected.
A single answer gotta be somewhere! Maybe we missed it before?Thanks. It's hard to find the right answers when there is little empirical evidence which all sides could agree with. There is a difference between troubleshooting whats wrong with a car/parts you can observe and test compared to ideas and objective you can't observe and test.
If the car you were working on was a new promotional model with no others of it's kind, doesn't matter how much you troubleshoot, you may never find the problem/solution if you have never seen or worked on the car.You are correct AND YET if it is a gas burning compression engine there are basic truths.
IF it is getting Gas and it is getting compression and spark at the right time ... It will start.
When looking for any kind of answers to any kind of problem we should, as they say; keep it simple, stupid.
Look for the simplest and easiest answers first before getting caught up in the runaways.
HiTeck answers are better explained when expressed from a simpletons prospectice.Thanks. And if the car was ran by a new energy source you have never seen before, you would be screwed lol. The most you could do was use your past knowledge and experiences to make guesses of how to make the fix. The guesses could lead to solving the problem or the assumptions could lead to making the problem even worse. Often, atheist and religious assumptions have made the problem worse I believe.
Yes and maybe ?? if the car ran on an unknown power sourse Maybe there wasn't anything wrong with it except for our perseption of it and while trying to fix it ... we broke something that was otherwise just fine. lol
Hey Jerami, think about what you said here. An unknown power source? How would a car, a physical thing built by man, operate on an unknown power source. Get real.
TruthDebater wrote:
Thanks. And if the car was ran by a new energy source you have never seen before, you would be screwed lol.
A new energy sourse that I had never seen would be unknown to me.
But yes .. I didn't formulate my sentence properly.
Thanks for pointing that out. I would imagine I slip like that more often than I realize. And sometimes don't sp. Ck. lolActually Jerami, I was only pointing out that you slipped on his mistake of the physical world we live in. It wasn't so much directed at you.
When TruthDebater brought up that it was a new unknown power source, apparently it would be new, but wouldn't be unknown any longer. That's all.I understand completely. and not a problem. I was just keeping that train of thought going.
I understand that too on keeping it going, but the foundation fell apart upon his statement. Keeping it going is the same as the argument that there is a real god.
All based on assumption with no substance.
Have a great time with though.Thanks Cagsil. There is a difference between believing a creator can't be proven for or against, and comparing it with proving a God. I weigh both sides, not just the one that has you assume everyone is conspiring to prove a god and bring you to a light. Calm down.
Thanks. I didn't say unknown, I said new. I don't understand "his mistake of the physical world we live in" Please explain.
How do i know that creator is he or she or it ? Assumption it is,just like many people with belief in bible assume that creator love them.
Order out of chaos ? Any action if attempted within the finite limit it turns out to be reaction which limits itself within the finite limit. So anything within finite limit has pattern and hence the order.
Universe is expanding so we'll always get infinite possibilities in universe. Finite beliefs ? I doubt there are any. We humans imagine a lot for beliefs, Atheists came up RAELians movement when they thought about alien possibility of seeding in this planet. Pagans came up with gaia theory calling this planet is alive and we're part of it. Like this there are many beliefs but due finite numbers we've finite imagination and that number of possible beliefs.Thanks. If what you say is true, then observation wouldn't effect the location of photons in quantum physics. If there were fixed patterns, in their finite limit, shouldn't they have fixed predictable locations?
Maybe you are right there are no finite beliefs when taken to the quantum level, but many are closer than others. How much can a person believe about a paperclip? The belief wouldn't be very complex. Compare it to belief of creation or evolution and the paperclip is almost non existent.
I agree with much of your last part.wouldn't effect the location of photons in quantum physics. If there were fixed patterns, in their finite limit, shouldn't they have fixed predictable locations? (makes the scooby-doo noise).
location(s) v fixed finite v fixed predictable?
now your are way off the reservation TD.
the paperclip theory as the string theory is wound up so tight, even a cat wouldn't play with that ball of yarn...Thanks. You are very animated. A paperclip is a simple item. A simple item can have simple or finite beliefs of it. I didn't think it was that hard to understand to be called a theory.
Yes, If something has patterns and order in it's finite limit, shouldn't it have fixed location uneffected by observation along with predictable patterns on future experiments?
We're not thinking in terms of olbers paradox where things are different to that of observation. Pick pencil or any item then things that can be done with it are finite irrespective of our observation.
Interesting perspective. Now indulge a thought: instead of AN entity which creates, consider the entity is creation itself, all of it. Ever expanding, increasing. This removes the three indigenous priori of G/god is, G/god isn't, G/god might-be. In fact it removes the term G/god and opens the door for boundless possibility.
The three priori are only limiting humans, to the degree where unless they manifest a reason beyond, will be removed from their present 3d image, so as not to hinder that expansion. It has been happening for thousands of years.
As stated quite often, the human mind was designed as a machine, a tool, to do, without indulgence. When humans indulged the tool itself, they became slaves to it and lost the understanding of who they were. All three perspectives are now trying to find the answer of how to escape that stasis and restore themselves to the origin of their being. What they are missing is they do not need to know whether yes or no or perhaps-if Creator exists, instead they should engage Creation from creations perspective of the human.
It is more rational to do than it is to perceive.I have to disagree on many things. But to put simply, if we assume creation=creator then all religious concepts end up being drama in humanity. And creation will learn and adapt as universe expands (similar to gaia theory -use wikipedia).
Absolutely correct. Again, religious does not necessarily mean dogmatic, but any belief system.
Incorrect. Again, Creation IS the Universe within -the aleph or breath- as well as the universe without. Not just earth and the thing on it.
Twenty One Days posted:
As stated quite often, the human mind was designed as a machine, a tool, to do, without indulgence."
It was? The objective supporting evidence it was designed is _______?
I don't see how anyone can be anything but agnostic...I am rooting for the atheist side....but I can't quite conclude just yet..
Thanks. There are many good points from the atheist side, but what is your main reasoning for wanting them to come out right with no creator?
Indeed you do... but they are fun, how else can you spend time banging your head against a wall without it actually hurting ?
Although in contradiction to my own statement there are times when wading my way through the rediculous ways the God squad find to convince themselves they are right does give me a headache !Thanks. The way the non God squad runs circles with the God squad is on an equal level. If the non God squad was truly wisest, they would rise above the circular arguments to admit creation is not impossible. If the God squad was the wisest, they would rise above the circular arguments to admit no religion clearly defines a God or creator without contradictions.
Yeah? But then you have creation being taught as "science" in schools.
Why would I not want to put a stop to that exactly?Thanks. I disagree with any assumptions being taught in schools. Saying this, schools teach many assumptions not God or religion related. A lot of science is probability, while probability doesn't say creation is possible, it also doesn't say it's impossible. I think they should teach the minimum reality of what we do know without all the assumptions in filling in what we don't know.
Surely the purpose of schools is not only to teach what is but to try and stretch the pupil to think for themselves and to try and achieve more out of what we know today.
If you restrict and dictate what a teacher can teach because of narrow minded bigotry then how will we ever find the answers we seek ?
I offer the case of the Scopes Monkey trial of 1925 as a wonderful example . Teacher John Scopes was accused of violating the state's Butler Act which made it unlawful to teach Darwin’s theory of Evolution. To save you having to look it up The Butler Act was a 1925 Tennessee law prohibiting public school teachers to deny the Biblical account of man’s origin.
We are now in the year 2010 and many of Darwin’s original theories have since been proven as scientific fact. Even the Pope on behalf of the Vatican has conceded the point about Evolution. Yet a large percentage of US Americans still deny Darwinism in favour of the Biblical seven day creational story.
To deny the scientific explanation for the creation of our planet or to stop teaching such theories just because there were no eye witnesses and so therefore there is no proof is a ludicrous suggestion. If you want proof look to the sky and beyond, if you look closely you can see it happening.Thanks. To stretch the mind, you have to leave it open. Not fully decided when there are unanswered questions. A lot of things have changed since 1925 including slavery, are you surprised that court decision went the way it did? But now there are more open minds that enforce teachers from being religiously biased. Who keeps them from being scientifically biased?
I agree much of evolution has been proven fact. The parts that haven't been proven fact is the role consciousness plays in evolution. Why? Because no one knows the abiogenesis of consciousness. I don't disagree with the fact that life evolves, I disagree with the terms of how and why it evolves.
TruthDebater wrote:
Thanks. So all of this is proof to you that creation is impossible simply because of the manipulation of religion using God to control?
I wouldn't call this proof there is no creator, I would call it making an assumption based in spite of religion. If you can't prove creation impossible, why claim there is proof?
Are we talking about the Creation theory ala Genesis here, in which case surely no more proof is actually needed by any logical or rational mind.
This is merely a nice little story told around camp fires made from Yak, Oxen or Camel crap to try to explain to simple folk where and how the world around them came into being. As it was told by and later written down by people who also believed the world was flat I wasn’t sure that any more proof was actually required to highlight the fact that this is hardly a sound scientific theory about the existence of a God or that the world as we know it was merely called into existence upon the whim of a supreme being.
If that is indeed your reason for your agnostic belief then so be it you will die an agnostic. There are enough very well documented theories of how and when the Earth was created backed up by centuries of scientific observation which continue until today. The Humble telescope has shown us the wonders of creation of stars being born in the star nurseries called nebulae many caused by the death of other stars. This is happening all over the universe and we can see it happening. If there is such a thing as a Creator then it’s name is Gravity.
Why would anyone believe this insignificant little spec of a planet is anything special requiring some sort of divine intervention ?
The arrogance of mankind, driven by religious believes attempts to put himself above the other animal species of our world, this is wrong. We are just another animal species, you don’t see the other animals seeking out or even requiring the need for a God figure their only concern is the day to day survival of their species and to pass on their genes to the next generation.
Can you tell me Mankind is any different ? Man created God to satisfy his own needs not the other way round. To come to any other conclusion is simply just not logical.Thanks. No, I am not relating to Genesis or any other religion in attempting to define a God, I am just making the claim that a creator is not impossible, although some have already decided this way without empirical evidence.
Who said anything about divine intervention? I think many including myself think we are significant because of probability. The probability of life forming on a planet that allows life/intelligent life is close to nothing considering all known planets without life. I think our intelligence with our ability to explore the universe makes us very significant with qualities other known life doesn't have.
I agree much religion separates man from animals, but I believe evolution is correct for the most part, hope I didn't disappoint you. I think we have higher awareness than other life, with higher awareness comes unified belief in attempt to have people in agreement without slaughtering each other, but it sometimes backfires when so many contradictions are written and taught. If two animals were about to fight until death, if they had ability to reason and find common ground, maybe both could walk away alive and satisfied.
We/mankind is/can be different because we are aware of instinct/emotions/impulses and can manipulate them. When much other life not showing moral character, senses something in their environment, I think they often act on instinct or impulse with little to no ability to reason and logically make a choice.
You are probably right on why man created and tries to define a God, but I don't think you have a clue or empirical evidence that a creator undefined by any religion is illogical."I am just making the claim that a creator is not impossible, although some have already decided this way without empirical evidence."
It isn't impossible? I do note you've already decided this without objective supporting evidence.
{You're hoist on your own petard}.
I appreciate what Merlin said here & at the same time, you are also right that the flaws of existing believe systems/religions are not a proof that God/ a creator deity doesn't exist. However, the concept & definition of God is flawed & irrational which is another reason why atheists find it difficult to believe in such omnipotent being. Meta-ethics & philosophical arguments against God has advanced a lot since last century & any educated man with little bit knowledge on the recent findings of these fields will obviously find it hard to believe in such Creator thing. If we take the universal definition of God for granted, then we all know its Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscience perfect being without any flaws. If we take ALL THESE QUALITIES for granted, then GOD becomes logically impossible & self contradicting. The existence of such being becomes absolutely irrational. For instance: Let me present you three absolute qualities of God:
1. God is omnipresent -> God is every where -> God is wholly good…then where comes evil from?
2. God is omnipotent: Could God create a stone so heavy that even HE could not lift it?" If so, then it seems that God could cease to be omnipotent; if not, it seems that God was not omnipotent to begin with.
3. God is perfectly moral: Morality is in always doing that which is RIGHT. Doing what is RIGHT requires one to know what is right from what is WRONG. God always knows what is right from what is wrong because God KNOWS EVERYTHING. But doing what is right and NOT doing what is wrong implies that there is an option to choose from. Therefore, there should be CHOICES of right and wrong that God can choose to do, from which he picks the right thing to do. However, God can NEVER pick the wrong thing to do, because He always picks the right thing and because He KNOWS what the right thing is. But if God can NEVER pick the wrong thing to do, it means he has NO CHOICE in the matter, i.e. He cannot help but pick ONLY the right thing to do. He CANNOT bring himself to do the wrong thing. But God is all-powerful and can do ANYTHING. But God cannot go against His own nature -- which is to ALWAYS do the right thing. Since, He is incapable of ever doing the wrong thing, He is also limited by His own nature in all the things he can do. Thus, God cannot have the CAPACITY or the potential to do the wrong thing, because that would mean that there exists a possibility for that potential to do the wrong thing, to manifest. But there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY even, for God to ever pick the wrong thing to do. Thus, without any choice in the matter, God does not have free-will to exercise both this potentials and then choose his potential to do right all the time.
Thus u see...The existence of a All knowing All powerful God is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE -> to be precise the existence of perfect being is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE -> meaning believing in God is ABSOLUTELY ILLOGICAL! Therefore, if u ask who is the smartest & intelligent among agnostics, atheists & religious people, based on logic & rationality? The answer would be OBVIOUSLY the ATHEISTS!Rishy,
1. Sin is human attribute because God gave free will. Sin is without God's love. Sin is a human choice; be with God or turn from God. Free will = choices.
2. Create a rock that can't lift is negative. God is positive and not suicidal.
3. We do not have the capability to comprehend an infinite God. You made vast assertions and than deduced them. Wrong! God's thoughts are in infinite dimensions to man. God calls things that aren't as if they are. In other words, what God says is reality.
Human logic is like dung to God.No - Human logic is like dung to believers.
Sreveileb, ot gnud ekil si cigol namuh, on.
the mirror side is unbelief. still it looks like (s)elfish language
yabba, dabba, doo Mr. Poobah!
Watch out you don't trip over your ISM. LOL
Tell me 'bout the 800 year old peeps agin. I likes that story.
wilmiers77...Human logic is like dung to God.
So u agree that God is illogical when it comes to Human logic...That's a very interesting line of logic you have there.
Logic and reason isn't part of the theistic universe.
The God concept involves the most evil, horrendous, inhumane concept there is-eternal torture. Because 'God' does it its; righteous, loving, yadda yadda yadda.
What's interesting is many Christians have no problem with the concept-with one exception. Until they, personally, have the 'ticket for the Hell train.' Boy, does their 'tune' ever change!
I would like to know, creation or no creation, which has the highest probability and why do you think so? Please do not say, "because we evolved" if you say no creation, creation and evolution are not incompatible, evolution and religion are incompatible.
Whichever you think has highest probability, please write the evidence and the logic for your belief.um, are you requireing we answer a question your way? Do you not see the evolution process, or are you just pretending it does not exist?
Thanks. What do you mean? I just stated I believe creation and evolution are compatible.
Clearly, they are not, because creation posits the world was created in seven days (see Genesis 1.1-2.3). Birds and water creatures were created on the fifth day (Genesis 1.20-1.23), and all other creatures, including humans on the sixth day (Genesis 1.24-1.31).
Creationism, by definition, is "anti-evolutionism." Any form of creationism, be it "evolutionary-creationism," which seems like a contradiction in terms, or "intelligent design" believers, is in opposition to evolution theory.
Evolution theory excludes the idea that a divine being is anywhere involved, while any belief including creationism of any sort clings to divine intervention. Evolution is entirely based in scientific evidence, and try as creationists might, the latter has no basis in fact.Thanks. If you would have read a quarter of the posts, maybe you would be aware that i'm not a creationist.
I never claimed to be a creationist or follow creationism. I simply say it's possible. If the creationist religion has came together against evolution, I disagree with them. There is no opposition between the possibility of creation and evolution until it is created. How do you figure "evolutionary creation" is a contradiction? Living cells could be planted and have evolved over time.
I don't think evolution excludes intervention, to exclude divine intervention, evolution would have to explain abiogenesis. Darwin also didn't know the proper meaning and usage of the word "consciousness" and the main role it plays in evolution. No matter how bad you want it, science still can't explain how an unconscious universe produces conscious life.science still can't explain how an unconscious universe produces conscious life.
===================
Never thought of it that way!! Very thought provokingI have been saying sense I came here that I STRONGLY believe that the truth lies somewhere between Atheism and "Religion"
And that belief gets stronger each day.Truth comes from science, never from religion.
Truth does not come from science.... NO NO NOT
Awareness may come from science, But that awareness only concerns those things that it forcses upon.
Truth ?? What is Truth realy?I think truth is unbiased to science or religion, but learns from both.
I have a question
Truth is what truth is; regardless of what people see when they are looking at it.
The scientific approach is a position or posture from which people observes stuff.
After having observed STUFF, a system was developed that analyzes how that STUFF interacts.
Science is a system created out of mankind’s attempts to understand his environment.
Scientific knowledge is mans best attempt to explain how stuff works.
Try as it may , science can not fully understand exactly how everything is relative though it declares that everything IS.
So does scientists have faith that everything is relative.
Is that truth ?? I don’t know.I believe a full understanding of the application of scientific method provides the answer.
Religion is unable to withstand any close scrutiny like this. One is imagination, the other definable, visible, usable and viable.I think religion falsely claims to know truth while science sometimes falsely claims to know the most probable or closest to the truth, but neither know the truth, only the truth knows the truth until it is discovered through imagination or observation. Thanks.
When we talk about relativity, we talk about "reference frames" In other words, viewing an event requires that we view it from a point of reference, which in almost every case is a point of reference which will have different results when viewed from another point of reference. However, we can easily "transform" one point of view to another using calculations to confirm that the results of the event we observed are valid or not.
What we realize from these various points of reference is that there is no "absolute" point of reference anywhere in the universe where the results will be identical to any other point without having to transform them.
They don't have faith until they transform the results, whereupon they have an understanding.
Jerami, I would suggest you may want to read up on reference frames to get a better understanding.
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sframes1.htm
Thought provoking? How so?
[Frankly, his statement was ridiculous and I was astonished he even posted it]
Nonsense. There is nothing to explain. What you call consciousness is nothing but feedback.
A brain is nothing but chemistry and electricity. Nothing more, and it is 100% physical. Kill the chemistry and you kill the mind.
Disconnect the feedback and you aee unconscious,. It is that simple.I don't know about you but I am more than the sum of my parts.
No, you are not. You may think that, but you are not.
We see that plainly with brain studies of people unfortunate enough to have damaged parts of their brains - cancer, war, whatever. Those show absolutely that you are only the sum of the parts and nothing more.
Thanks Pc. If we knew how to create consciousness, we could create life from scratch. Think about it, we already know the elements that make up life, the only reason science can't create life is because science can't create consciousness from scratch. The neuroscience books and deterministic approach lied to you. A 100% physical? More like 100% mental since the mind controls the physical operations. The only way for you to know what happens to energy and consciousness after it leaves the body is for you to have diseased already. I thought science states energy is never destroyed?
We are very close to creating life. It will be "conscious" because it will use feedback as all life does. I wonder what nonsense you will spout after that.
Yes, 100% physical. Take away your oxygen and see how much good your "mind control" does you.Thanks. I don't know where you get your information from, but the creator of the first synthetic cell says we have a long way to go before creating life from scratch. Are you smarter and wiser than him? What do you know that he doesn't? Who is really spouting the nonsense?
It is the mind that reminds the body to breathe oxygen. All actions come from mental thoughts, not physical determinism.I said we are close. What is a long time? A hundred years? Five hundred? So what? It will come.
Mankind has been making cheep coppies of those things that Nature has created.
Nature created Sunshine ... Mankind ..?.. light bulb.
Nature created potatoes ... Mankind .. ? .. potato chips.
And the list goes on ... OH .. I almost forgot the building blocks of all that is .. Atoms !!! Mankind can split them ..Thanks. If you don't know what a long time is, how do you know what close is as you claim?
Life has been created from scratch. Life doesn't have to be 'conscious.'
Thanks. If life has been created from scratch and you know this, why don't you tell all of the scientists in the world how to replicate it. Surely if you know how it happened, you could replicate it.
They probably could if they had the very same millions of years time span that was required to do it.
Thanks. I don't think time span is relevant if you know all of the conditions in which life began. With our technology, i'm pretty sure we could simulate the conditions if we knew them. We do not know the conditions, this is why so many theories remain about how life began. It only takes nine months for a single cell to be born into a human, how long does it take for a single cell to begin?
The data *has* been published so others can replicate it.
"Surely if you know how it happened, you could replicate it"
[boggle] Are you able to think or do you just type all sorts of nonsense?
*If* I had the knowledge and *if* I had the equipment I could replicate life from scratch.
Its really sad that I had to stop and point out the obvious to you.
You know, I don't give a rancid flying burrito fart that you're superstitious and very uneducated. The depths of your cowardice, dishonesty, and the amounts of red herrings and handwaving you do is astronomical.
If you aren't going to address points raised then why pretend you're interested in 'discussion?'
The only thing you're accomplishing is further showing the lack of morality inherent in Christianity.
Christianity would be much further ahead if people like you didn't post at all. The avenue you, and myriad other Christians, take denigrates the institution to no end. This saddens the hell out of me.Thanks. Did you get all of your frustrations out? Feel better?
What data has been published on how to create life from scratch, got links? Are you sure about this claim? If you don't know how life began, how do you know it wasn't created?Poor baby! It sucks to be a rabid dishonest and uneducated cowardly troll like yourself. That's right, ignore the points I raised. How Christian of you.
'Created' begs myriad questions, moron, and if everything must be manufactured then your God must be, too. Pay attention.
<link snipped>Thanks. Wow, nice language, i'm not surprised.
I LOVE the fact that you posted that link, too bad you post links without researching or reading previous posts as you accuse me of since you think the creator of the synthetic cell created life from scratch. lol
Maybe if you would research before posting, you would know that the synthetic cell is altered life and not created life. Thanks for the education.
"How do you figure "evolutionary creation" is a contradiction? Living cells could be planted and have evolved over time."
'Creation' collapses under its own contradictions.
"I don't think evolution excludes intervention, to exclude divine intervention, evolution would have to explain abiogenesis."
Please educate yourself as you're simply embarrassing yourself. You're speaking on a subject you know nothing about.
Are you posting drivel from 'Answers in Genesis' or some other site?
"Darwin also didn't know the proper meaning and usage of the word "consciousness" and the main role it plays in evolution. No matter how bad you want it, science still can't explain how an unconscious universe produces conscious life."
Unbelievable. How horrifically fascinating that you think your paragraph above makes any sense.
I'd really like to know whether this stuff comes from you or a website. I'm not being unkind here, I'm simply having trouble taking you seriously any longer.I don't recall saying that you were a creationist, simply that creationism is not compatible with the theory of evolution, and I did read more than a quarter of the posts. Perhaps you, TruthDebater, are waffling or not expressing yourself as well as you could be.
Thank you, stoneyy, for making sense and for saying much of what I was about to put here.You're more than welcome. I'm greatly saddened by the avenue these people take. They're driving more and more people away from Christianity who may not be equipped to handle it.
Christians are their own worst enemies and demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of the institution.
Why does it have to be either ... OR ?
Kinda like ... Root bear ... OR .. Ice cream ?Thanks. I agree with every single thing you wrote, scary lol. I can usually find at least one thing I don't agree with.
We can't deny evolution to some degree.
I still have a huge problem with the concept of all life springing forth from a single celled ameba.
I refuse to believe that mankind evolved naturally from an earth worm.
Evolution AND intelligent DNA manipulation possibility?Evolushun is wot a total package innit. Ya caint have like a bit wot don't clash with yer religious nonsense and then make some stuff up wot sez god dunnit instead.
There ya go switching up my words making it look like I said it that way.
I often agree with much of what you say.
I guess it is all or "nothing" with you!
You are just as; if not more hard headed than "Religionists"
When someone doesn't agree with you 100% You attack them exactly the way that you say that they do.
Civilization has existed numerous times on earth.
What makes you think that mankind hasn't evolved "MUCH" higher than our present state, before their extinction on earth?
You do not know how high that they may have evolved.
Or when they first came to be?
Perhaps that happened long enough ago for them to be called "The ancient of Days"
Perhaps high enough to be called "Gods"
Perhaps high enough to "STILL" be out there watching over us.
If the earth goes through another extinction event “JUST MAYBE” that highly evolved species will reseed the planet again, and A new BOOK will be written in an attempt to explain it all.
If so; I am sure that it too, will be rewritten, translated, interpreted, to the point of obscurity.
And there will be someone like you, that knows what ain't, .. that jumps to conclusions that and says "therefore" My beliefs must be all that there is to know!.
We really, really don’t know what we don’t know. Ya know ?
And anyone that says that they do are being dishonest with themselves.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
One more thing to say before I have to go out into the world.
So far I have heard theories that have their back against a wall. A BEGINNING.
What makes people think that time travels in ONLY one direction?
OH yea ! the laws of physics, which was written by Mankind.
These laws were based on time traveling in one single direction. Therefore it has to be true?????Wow - finally you get it.
Simple fact is Jerami - you cannot "deny evolution to some degree."
That will not work. You can't say - "oh - well evolution happened, but only some of it, because that doesn't make sense - because that means god did not do it, so it must be different to what evolution actually says." Because this is indeed denying evolution.
You do not think we evolved from something as simple as a worm, as evolution says we must have done?
What exactly have you invented to replace this with?Jerami wrote:
When someone doesn't agree with you 100% You attack them exactly the way that you say that they do.
Wow - finally you get it.
Mark Knowles wrote ...
Simple fact is Jerami - you cannot "deny evolution to some degree."
==========
I said ... Why NOT ? It is a free country!
I sometimes agree with you to some degree !!!
I don't think that I have ever heard any theory that I agree with "Totaly"
Remember ... things like 2+2 = 4 isn't a theory.
The fact that you have a problem understanding cell replication, DNA and evolutionary forces based purely upon natural trial and error doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way.
There are many things I don't understand doesn't mean I dismiss them out of hand or try to rubbish those who do understand these things.
What I can dismiss as utter rubbish is the theory that the Earth and everything on it was created in seven days by a supreme being.
I would have hoped that by pointing out to the Creationist's that such a happening would have put man and the dinosaurs on the planet at the same time. Funny how dinosaurs never got a mention in the Bible....!
Not to mention the “let there be Light” statement that would seem to indicate this supreme being invented the Sun after he invented the Earth.No disrespect intended. Will comment to your post later
I "gotta" go now.Merlin Fraser wrote
What I can dismiss as utter rubbish is the theory that the Earth and everything on it was created in seven days by a supreme being.
=====
I couldn't agree with ya more on that issue. NOT seven consecutive days as we know them.
Ya gotta remember (As Mark and Earnest says) A goat herder wrote this down as best as he understood what he was told. ??
And then it was rewritten and translated ; AND THEN we interpret it as we choose??
I'll not take that conversation any further.
Science tells us that about ten thousand years ago the earth came out of the Ice Age. Science also tells us that there was a meteorite slammed into the earth during the time of the Ice age.
That event wiped out most of the remainder of humanity that the Ice didn't get.
Mankind has thrived upon the earth on numerous occasions.
If you believe in evolution and given the chance; WE could evolve into a much higher state than the one that we are in?
What makes ya think that mankind has not already done that? ... AND ... After each Mass extinction event ,,, That higher evolved civilization reseeds our earth. Creating life on earth all over again??
And the 2012 thing? We just cant know what "THEY" know.
What does it take to fall under the category of a God anyway??? To be an "Ancient of Days"?? To have powers that no one on earth currently has????? To do things that no one else on earth can do???
How evolved might we be today, if a number of Mass Extension events had not happened?
Maybe those events didn't get everybody? And they (the survivors) evolved and has prepared a place for us when we pass over? And until that day they look out after us?
I like my idea of evolution and creation much better than either one by itself.
Jerami,
No problem I'll look forward to reading your response, but afterwards given your response to Mr. Knowles; EG
"What makes you think that mankind hasn't evolved "MUCH" higher than our present state, before their extinction on earth?"
I made have to sit you down for a short lesson on Geology and fossil records....Would he understand it is the question. Honest question, not an insult.
Merlin Fraser wrote:
Jerami,
No problem I'll look forward to reading your response, but afterwards given your response to Mr. Knowles; EG
"What makes you think that mankind hasn't evolved "MUCH" higher than our present state, before their extinction on earth?"
I made have to sit you down for a short lesson on Geology and fossil records....
===================================
stoneyy wrote Would he understand it is the question. Honest question, not an insult.
-------------------------------------
I believe that the comment that I made that day suggested that civilization may have evolved "MUCH" higher than where we are today. Before an extinction event. And these higher evolved ancestors just might have survived in some way that we are unaware. And with their help civilization was created all over again.
Possibly this ancient of days have been looking over us ever since. Just a possibility.
Jerami Wrote:
Mankind has thrived upon the earth on numerous occasions.
If you believe in evolution and given the chance; WE could evolve into a much higher state than the one that we are in?
What makes ya think that mankind has not already done that? ... AND ... After each Mass extinction event ,,, That higher evolved civilization reseeds our earth. Creating life on earth all over again??
Yes I believe in Evolution pretty much as Darwin explain it, as I said earlier most of his original theories have been proven because most of his work was done based upon long term observation and many modern day naturalist and zoologists have taken his work forward.
Geology and archaeology have proven beyond doubt that there have been mass extinctions, long periods of extremes both hot and cold all of which have played their part in our evolution however I think I would have to challenge the ‘We’ve been here before’ theory of yours.
During a career in the Oil Industry I was privileged to meet and work with many great and distinguished Geologists who went to great lengths to help me understand the various sedimentary layers that make up the Earth’s crust. They explained that each layer is a step back in time and they showed me that where there are huge movements in the Earth’s crust many of these layers can be seen and analysed on the surface. In other places we drilled deep wells in search of oil and gas and they showed me the basement layer..... A point below which no animal fossil records exist.
Modern day forensic Science states that is extremely difficult for an event to take place without leaving some evidence of that event behind. A conclusion that would seem to be borne out by Archaeological discoveries of man’s activities hundreds and even thousands of years in the past.
Slowly, slowly the Sciences are finding and piecing the bits together and for certain we haven’t found all the pieces yet, maybe we never will but in all events right back to the extinction of the dinosaurs we have found evidence of their existence.
Sad to say that in all that time we have found nothing that would indicate that an alien life form ever existed or even visited here nor is there any evidence that mankind has passed this way before.
Sorry to say but I think we are it, the pinnacle of man’s evolution to date.
Although having said that I think your theory maybe somewhat prophetic given present day man’s stupidity and inability to see that he may indeed be the cause of his own extinction.
So be it ! We can but hope they get it right next time round.We may be getting dumber. Our brain size is decreasing, which may be meaningless (organization is more important than size) but it has been suggested that we don't NEED to be as smart anymore because there is so much civilization that protects the dumb from themselves and eliminates any need for them to be creative in obtaining food and shelter.
I think there is a lot of truth in that. If civilization collapsed, most survivors would be dead within a week. Just not smart enough to adapt to changing circumstance. Others would die quickly because of physical problems - overweight, diabetes and so on, but for a lot, it would simply be lack of brain power that would do them in.Hey PC.
I think you're right we are certainly not getting any smarter that's for damn sure.
There does seem to be a modern day trend that says why bother to learn anything if you can just Google it ?
I have been to parts of the world where the natives live withing sight of where they were born and travel as far as they can walk or travel in their boat for fishing. Their life is dedicated to survival and they do it with few modern day aids.
They are the ones who will survive...not us.
Without electricity for an extended period few of us would survive into old age.Were not getting any smarter? Is this fact or faith? Look at the strides in technology and universal knowledge in the last 200 years and compare it with all previous life knowledge before that. Then you down the Internet that you type and learn on everyday. Convenient knowledge doesn't mean it's bad knowledge. Sure tribes can survive better than technologically advanced in their environments, but do they also futher technology in exploring other planets in case ours becomes uninhabitable?
We're talking about individuals, not the advances of society as a whole.
It is a fact that cranium size is decreasing. As I said above, that may be meaningless because structure and organization obviously play a part. It may also be simply that a lack of physical needs decreases the need for a large brain - an elephant needs more brain mass than you do.
As a opposing point, IQ scores seem to be increasing in some places. But IQ only measures a certain type of intelligence, so we may still be less generally clever than our arboreal ancestors.
So no, we aren't talking about "faith". We're just exploring facts and advancing hypoteheses.Thanks. The advances of society as a whole is from the advances of individuals.
I don't think brain size or IQ scores determine if we are more intelligent than ancestors. I think it is close to obvious we are more intelligent. With the different levels of technology comes different levels of interaction and memory capacity. I find it hard to believe that our early ancestors had the same memory or learning capacity as we do today, no matter how big their heads were.No, it isn't obvious. In fact, the argument that the comforts of society make cleverness less important is somewhat compelling.
Thanks. What is the main argument that it has made cleverness less important?
We merely Know more, we still just as stupid.
It is thought the cranium is shrinking because hefty jaw muscles like the Neanderthal had are no longer needed.
Sorry didn't mean to confuse you I think PC and I were talking about the Herd not the Cream.
But even then take away the tools they use and see how smart they are and for how long when it comes down to basic survival.
We had a power outage that lasted two days and the shops had to close because the cash registers couldn't work. Then they had to re open to give it away because the refrigeration was off they had panic and near riots....
No offence, But, It seems to me that there is some evidence of highly intelligent peoples from the past.
We haven't found the campfires yet but there is lots of smoke;
from hieroglyphics on the walls of the pyramids, to remnants of building structures that can not be duplicated even today.
Ancient golden artifacts that appear to be men sitting in jet airplanes. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Science sometimes come across evidence of “Something” that it can not explain. Then stores that evidence in the closet until that time that it can be integrated into its understanding such as it is..
How large is that closet?
The earth has shifted its axis… What used to be valleys are now 5,6,and 7 miles under the ocean.
To say that we know what used to be in those valleys would be incorrect at best.
Concerning those things that are and are not? I will try to keep an open mind.What if there were?
Possibilities come to mind.
1. They are just like us and they will exploit and destroy us.
2. They are interested in studying primitive civilizations and will study us without letting themselves be known.
3. They are aghast at what they see and will destroy us.
4. They will rescue us from our stupidity.
As nothing unusual has happened, only number two is possible. However, I think we are starting to understand that the realities of long distance space travel make any of that extremely unlikely. I am certain there is plenty of life in the Universe - it's a big place and the chemistry works the same everywhere. Life will arise, evolution will happen, sometimes intelligence will grow, but I don't think any of it ever came here.Call me crazy if you will, ... I think that the three dimentional world that we live in is but a fraction of what is.
Crazy? No. But you are in for a bitter disappointment.
I think that everyone are in for a big suprise.
Good one Jerami. I think that you should all attempt to contact that which dwells in all things, for therein is the truth which has been hidden from you, within you. If I were a betting man, then i would say, "What harm could it do to force myself to believe something i think is in error, if to not believe it could be so costly to my continued existence, maybe in the act of being open enough to reakize that nothing exists to prove or disprove an eternal entity, maybe I will find definitive proof satisfactory to me, that such an entity exists.
No. All there is is death and decomposition into component atoms. There's nothing functioning to realize anything.
There is more in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in all of our philosophies
Meaningless word salad although I'm aware you're having fun.
I hope you don't mind if I have some fun addressing the post as if it was serious.
Objective supporting evidence there is a 'Heaven?'
But, if you strictly go with the writings in that stone and bronze-age tome called; {trumpet flourish} "The Holy Bible" [trumpet flourish] hard data can be extracted from that:
[begin]
The Temperature of Heaven and Hell
The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed from available data. Our authority is the Bible: Isiah 30:26 reads, "Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sin shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days."
Thus Heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as we do from the sun and in addition seven times seven (49) times as much as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all.
The light we receive from the moon is a ten-thousandth fo the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of Heaven.
The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the point lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation. In other words, Heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the earth by radiation.
Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth-power law for radiation (H/E)^4 = 50, where E is the absolute temperature of the earth - 300K. This gives H as 798 K (525 degrees Celcius).
The exact temperature of Hell cannot be computed, but it must be less than 444.6 C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulphur changes from liquid to a gas.
Revelations 21:8: "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."
A lake of molten brimstone means that its temperature must be below the boiling point.
We have, then, temperature of Heaven 525 C. Temperature of Hell less than 445 C. Therefore, heaven is hotter than Hell." [end]
So, go to Hell both for the climate and the company.
[begin]
The Temperature of Hell
A thermodynamics professor had written a take-home exam for his graduate students. It had one question:
"Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with a proof."
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or some variant. One student however wrote the following:
First, we postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for souls entering hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since, there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls an volume needs to stay constant.
So, if hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
Of course, if hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, than the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
It was not revealed what grade the student got.
[end]
Hey Mark, why are you even bothering. You keep talking to someone who is technically talking to himself...
*Marine? I made that statement about a month or two ago also, however someone told me that "TruthDebater" wasn't Marine, and that she would resurrect "Marine" if need be.* However, I didn't believe her and can see "TruthDebater" being "Marine".
Just a thought.Thanks. You see everything you assume you are right on, just like your friend mark knowles. I notice you two back each other up pretty often.
First off, your words and mentality are exactly the same. It appears as if you and "Marine" are the same. You don't like it, then too bad.
Secondly, I wasn't talking to you in the first place. I was talking to Mark. DUH!Thanks. I wasn't aware that it was a private forum that I couldn't respond to. Since it is too bad, I will start calling you Mark since you both believe and share the same mentality. You also have both stated there is no creator or God when neither of you know. Mark, if you didn't want me to interrupt, you should have sent your friend Cagsil an e-mail instead of typing it in the public thread I started.
Ignorance is wonderfully blissful.
I can make the statement there is NO god. The reason I can make that statement is because you cannot prove it otherwise. Besides, from what humanity has discovered so far within our reality, there is no evidence whatsoever there is a god.
So with that said, talking to you is worthless because you have nothing meaningful to say, because all you do is twist words, like "Marine" did. More evidence that points to you being him.
My post was specifically addressed to Mark. As for Mark and I being the same person, you're reasoning is flawed, because Mark and I do have DIFFERENT knowledge with regards to what you are talking about. So, that goes to show you don't pay too close attention to anything said.Thanks. You making the statement when you can't prove either way is nothing more than a baseless assumption. You are right I can't prove it otherwise, but it proves itself an assumption. What evidence is there that there isn't a god?
You think anything is worthless when someone doesn't agree with you Mark, much like your friend Cagsil. You both also twist words to benefit your image. More evidence you are one of the same.
Both you and Cagsil believe your knowledge is elite to others and will attempt to humiliate or insult anyone that disagrees with you. True wisdom huh? I pay attention to most things said, this is why I see you and Cagsil agreeing so often and backing one another up.Again, you seem to overlook or NOT PAY ATTENTION to the statement I made. In reality there is no god, no proof one exists nor has one been yet discovered. So, therefore to speak of one as though it actually exists is pathetic attempt to support religious scripture of a god/creator.
So, please....your argument fails.Thanks. Something can be a reality without yet being known. Gravity was a reality before it was known. To make assumptions is a pathetic attempt to support beliefs one can't be certain of. Your argument fails.
God talks to himself, eternally. He needs a friend. Would you be his friend?
A creator can also be called a god. How do you know this when no one else does? Thanks.
No problem, as long as one is a secular humanist like Prof. Dawkins.
Thanks and cheers
Theist.
If you practice your religion as the scriptures instruct you to,
with blind faith,no matter if you are Jew,Hindu, Muslim or Christian, you will become a theist. The question is, can you have a blind faith on your religion.
I do, and therefore I believe.We are all gods, but subservient to the ultimate entity, that which we call the universe.
Now you are claiming the Universe is an entity?
Prove it's not. We are inside of it, and ultimately fits the description of god, because it is inside of us, and may be more equate to a Super-verse or Mega-verse when the string theory and membrane theory are introduced into the mix. Gotta go, God's calling on the lan-line, CYA
I think when it is learned how to create life from scratch, a lot more questions can be answered. When I see science put unconscious non living chemicals together to create a living cell, maybe I will then believe a creator is impossible.
Hell will freeze over first. It ain't goina happen.
Thanks Earnest. Why do you think they are close if they have supposedly known the conditions in which life started for quite a while now?
Thanks Jerami, why do you think so?You don't have to be a religionist or a scientist to see the foot prints.
When we look back over the past 100 years, see where it started and the direction that we have been advancing, to see the clift that we are but a couple of steps from going over.
And no one knows where the breaks are????People have only been saying this for thousands of years! I suppose one of these centuries they will be right! Finally, they will be able to say "Aha, I told you so!"
TRUE But have we ever been so close to total annihilation before?
What are the agricultural harvest in Europe looking this year.
Antarctica is melting, oceans being polluted. More hungry people in the world than ever before. Economic failure,etc. etc. I could go on all day.
The signs are all over the place. How far can we stretch a rubber band before it snaps?? How many hungry can we cram into a Volks Wagon. we are about to find out how far we can stretch that rubberband..I suggest the true christians get another ark ready, just in case! A two man canoe should do the job this time around! LOL!
Current scientific projects and their projected time frames, super computers and their capacity to rip 20 years of the number crunching.
Earnest, um, that's 21, years.
BIG Hi btwHi beautiful lady.
I still haven't worked out how to get to your blog! I tried from redgage but the link said "screw you" and wouldn't open!
TruthDebater posted
I think"
There's a hefty track record of objective supportive evidence demonstrating you either are unequipped for that capability or are unwilling to do so.
Your imaginary buddy be braised!Thanks
Again,
If you don't know how life began, how do you know it wasn't created?I've answered this several times and you've ignored it to continue drooling.
Address the points previously raised.Waiting for hell to freeze over Stoneyy?
Hell freezes over every year. Hell, Michigan and Hell, Norway.
No, I'm aware the blooming idiot will never address the points raised. And I'm fully aware of the theist tendency to 'move the goal posts' as well.
Question: Why do some posts not allow them to be replied to?
Wouldn't this make agnostics more intelligent and open minded in not deciding for or against a creator, considering ""no one"" knows how life began? The origin of species doesn't explain the origin of life as many like to use for or against in their arguments.
Well, i guess you can say they are opened minded but i have seen in my own experience is that all it is sometimes is a lack of commitment to one belief or the other. Eventually in all things you have to "pick a side" and if you don't you will eventually be written off. I respect people who have the polar opposite of my beliefs and views. But i have a hard time hearing people out who kind of have a make shift, half way between, no real point as to not have to offend anyone system of beliefs. I try and respect everyone's belief system. But some times you just gotta make up your mind. But again, it is hard sometimes to determine if there is a god and which religion has it right. i respect the agnostics that search for the truth.
Thanks. Shouldn't agnostic purposely lack commitment or bias to one side over the other considering no one side knows the answers of how life began?
I agree that many often write others off that don't fit into their belief or the opposite belief. I think you have a good point to people being between beliefs. It is nearly impossible to debate belief without offending anyone because of the need to be right. I don't think agnosticism is the need to be right, it is the need to learn.
I don't think religion or atheism has things right or we would know far more than we do now without all of the repetition and circular arguments, but I think both atheists and religionists can all be learned from. When you think about it, it is impossible for either atheism or religion to be right when no one knows the origin of life.You're a lying sack of Xian canine excrement.
Well first off TruthDebater. Agnostics typically cant be put in a box like Christians or Evolutionists cause since they are open to either side since they are "searching" you can run into agnostics that believe in Creationism, evolutionism, or anything else that comes down the line. the way your talking, and i could be wrong, you seem to be pushing more towards agnostics being atheists which believe there is no god at all. if thats the case you can build a decent case for either side. but i could name you at least probably around 15 Atheist scientists who set out to disprove the Bible. Now they werent trying to disprove there was a God. they were just trying to discredit the bibles origins and if they were able to do that then all would crumble. but like i was saying. its humorous to me to see how more atheist Scientists set out to disprove creationism by disproving the bible end up getting converted through their own studies. if you look WAY up to the Top or just "ctrl F" and search my name on the page you will see a long list of what i put to respond to the original writer of this thread. I personal though think that there is way to much going on in this life to believe in the big bang or even just "natural evolution" i really enjoy debating myself, and i have been in many real debates not "cock fights" but real debates and i have been on the side of Creationism, side of Evolution and everything in between. Why? because i find it humorous how ill prepared people are to defend their believe systems. whether it be religious or not. If people are truly honest with themselves. they will find that most of not ALL their belief systems are founded around what their parents or friends believe OR someone they respected like a professor or Pastor when it comes to religion. Very Very Very few people know what they know through hard, practical study of what they believe in and what they dont believe in. Why? way to time consuming. a tell tell sign of someone who doesnt know what they are talking about is when they lose their temper. anger is just a sign of one losing control of the situation. If you believe what you believe because you have sit down and studied both sides of the story and with the least amount of bias as possible. Then you have the right to debate. if you havent.. then all your doing is arguing pointless opinions and 2nd sometimes 3rd hand knowledge. Oh and by the way TruthDebater in NO way am i saying your one of these people. i dont know you and i wouldnt dare to make that presumption that you are ignorant of what you speak of. I respect all opinions and all belief systems whether i agree of disagree with them. So please donttake any of this as if directed to you. "D have a good night
Thanks. I agree with most of what you have written here. I don't purposely try to push agnosticism towards atheism or religion. I don't know if there is a creator/god. I disagree with many in religion and atheism, then other times I agree with them on some points. As for any religious or atheist text trying to prove or disprove a creator, I think all fail.
I also agree on big bang and evolution. There are many answers people want to believe they know when we are still lacking much information. I agree on belief systems often not being thought out without contradictions, I think research and debate adds awareness and clarity to belief.
I am amused by anger as well, I think it shows lack of control and insecurity in belief. I also think it shows the emotional attachment to a persons personal belief, even ones that claim to be logical get mad. How does logical belief get upset and mad?
I agree as well as arguing circular pointless opinions most often with little to no progress in knowledge for either belief. I think some are here for conversation while some are only here for controversy. I also try to show empathy in respecting others beliefs without ridiculing them to feel superior. Afterall, I think we are all on the same pages of things we don't know rather than everything we assume to know. Thank you.
A problem for you perhaps. Good luck with that.
Put them in a cage and let THEM battle it out!!! Luck is for suckers; the truth stands alone.
Trial by combat doesn't leave you with truth.
Thanks. What do you think trial by insult is? Combat of words maybe?
What greater truth is there than death? Would you fight to the death for what you believe? Or just blow the hot air of dogma?
No answer huh? Dig deeper D_Max; dig deeper.
If you stand for it; would you die for it?
yes i understood what you meant by it... i was more thinking on the lines of... "how was the relevant to what truthdebater said"
and to answer your question honestly... there are only 2 way i wish to die. in 2nd place, for my family. in first place. My faith. I beg that my death will come one of these 2 ways if not both. I see no point in dying in my sleep, peacefully and quietly. I wish to die in the place of someone else, and for what i believe in.
Related Discussions
- 44
Agnosticism vs Atheism
by Sophia Angelique 12 years ago
This perception by some that Agnosticism is somehow more holier than Atheism is nothing but splitting hairs.Neither runs their lives by God.By virtue of the fact that agnostics say that they don't know if there is a God or not, it's quite obvious that they certainly don't run their lives by one,...
- 19
When speaking of religion and someone says they are an "agnostic", how should a
by Mike and Dorothy McKenney 10 years ago
When speaking of religion and someone says they are an "agnostic", how should a Christian respond?
- 16
Why do so many people have misperceptions about atheism and agnosticism?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 11 years ago
Why do so many people have misperceptions about atheism and agnosticism?
- 135
Do you really know the difference between agnostic and atheist?
by Cattleprod Media 14 years ago
I find most people are clueless. They say they are atheist, but can't properly form an argument as to WHY, or they say they are agnostic, with zero clue as to WHAT that is.Ignorance, above all, is our weakness. Not religion. Although ignorance and religion are good bedfellows.
- 204
Atheists, do you despise Jesus or just religions (in general) that worship God?
by savvydating 10 years ago
Atheists, do you despise Jesus or just religions (in general) that worship God?Such God worshiping religions would include Judaism and Islam. Also, did something happen to you to make you angry about "God" or is this just a scientific decision you made in college?? Many atheists demand...
- 10
What is a good religion for an atheist to start with?
by Keith Schroeder 8 years ago
What is a good religion for an atheist to start with?