Agnostic no more - SciForums.com

whatsupyall

11-21-02, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Adam
How does believing in god explain anything? If anything, it provides an easy crutch or way out when you can't find an explanation. That's not explaning anything.

How does "super duper chance" explain anything? And yes, an intelligent designer is proven, deny it all you want, but your stupidity doesnt change FACTS, sorry Adam...
Easy way out? Thats a lie, the fact is people turn to atheism because they cant handle the idea of God, giving them responsibility to be good and forgiving. Thats the whole reason why people become atheist, because they are weak, impatient, IGNORANT, and coward, they do what the world tells them, monkey see monkey do...

Originally posted by Adam

It's like saying "I don't know what happens when we die, but I'll suddenly believe the soul turns into a giant pink doughnut orbiting a distant chocolate star". Why? It provides no answers, doesn't hold up under any kind of rational scrutiny, and basically explains nothing.

Thats your last attempt as an atheist, IMMATURITY..WHO EVER BELIEVES IN A GIANT PINK DOUGHNUT? OR PURPLE SQUID MONKEY? OR BOB THE INTERDIMENSIONAL SCIENTIST? OR NATURE AS "CHANCE"? ONLY RETARDS OR DUMB PEOPLE DO, ALL OF THOSE THINGS CANNOT BE PROVEN, SHE SIMPLY BELIEVES OF A PROVEN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, PERIOD...NOT PURPLE SQUIDMONKEY, U ADDED THAT YOURSELF IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE FOOL OF US, BUT THAT JUST PROVED YOU HAVE NO STANCE IN YOUR BELIEF, all this time i have debated with atheists, THAT IS THE BEST ARGUMENT YOU CAN COME OUT OF, HOW PATHETIC, THERES DEFINITELY NOTHING SCIENTIFIC ABOUT THAT,NOTHING...PERIOD...

Originally posted by Adam

Why accept "I don't know everything so I'll go believe in god"? Why not instead try to learn the unknown things?

PS: Say hi to your bodacious sister for me. :p

We dont know everything, BUT WE KNOW THAT THE UNIVERSE IS IN LAW AND ORDER, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGNER IS PROVEN, "CHANCE" ISNT AND IS PROVEN A LIE...PERIOD..

note: Counselor, Im an expert in debating with atheists, just ask and ill help you out, they have nothing, believe me, I laugh at atheists, to me they are a joke...Just lost souls....

Cris

11-21-02, 01:52 AM

Coffee,

I lasted about 5 years before I rejected religion.

If you are looking then try Deism http://www.deism.org/ it is the most rational religion around. This was the religion of most of the founders of the USA.

whatsupyall

11-21-02, 01:59 AM

Once again another lie...The fouunding fathers were mostly catholic christians and protestant, and only few were deists...IF YOU READ WEBPAGES FROM "POSTIVE-THE LIARS-ATHEISM.COM" OR "SKEPTICS.COM" YOU WILL NEVER GET THE TRUTH, THEY DONT HAVE COMMITMENT TO TRUTH...I have read some ofthem and they change some of the original quotes TO FIT THEIR OPINIONS AND LIES...

Adam

11-21-02, 02:06 AM

Whatsupyall just demonstrated, better than I ever could, the folly of religion.

Thanks Whatsupyall.

Xev

11-21-02, 02:09 AM

*A tentacle drags whatsup into another dimension*

Worship Cthulhu, Coffee.

Cris

11-21-02, 02:11 AM

whatsup,

Mostly? A few? How many founding fathers do you think there were?

Can you list them and provide evidence of their religious beliefs?

CounslerCoffee

11-21-02, 08:52 AM

Adam:
Why accept "I don't know everything so I'll go believe in God"? Why not instead try to learn the unknown things?

PS: Say hi to your bodacious sister for me

Im still going to do that Adam. Im still going to hold science to the highest regards, if science proves that there is no God then I wont believe anymore. But as of yet it hasn't. Maybe Im just trying to cover my ass and don't even realize it.

Okay.

Whatsupyall:
Counselor, Im an expert in debating with atheists, just ask and ill help you out, they have nothing, believe me, I laugh at atheists, to me they are a joke

Don't laugh at them. Most atheist are nice people. Besides its not nice and you should be respectful of other peoples beliefs.

Are you going to start a spiritual practice? Meditation? Prayer?

No and yes m0rl0ck. I plan on praying, but have yet to choose a religion.

Adam:
Whatsupyall just demonstrated, better than I ever could, the folly of religion.

Thats not the folly of religion, its the folly of some guy. Just because hes getting some stuff wrong and cant prove that God doesn't exist doesn't mean that God does.

You can't prove God, then again you can't disprove it either.

fadingCaptain

11-21-02, 09:02 AM

Whatever you do, please don't start posting in CAPS.

~The_Chosen~

11-21-02, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
I have not picked a religion yet (I probably wont), I don't like churches, all they really do is cause more trouble then there worth. Just remember, Im the same coffee. I just believe in God now.

Don't pick a religion, weak-minded people rely on religioin, strong-minded people either take advantage of it or don't simply need it.

Im going to "borrow" something from a atheist and slightly change it. I believe God excists, but if you prove me wrong, I will become a atheist. I wish I could expect the same in return although I doubt it.

I'm in your position. Think like an atheist/agnostic but a theist.

If you can't prove yourself to me, I do not understand how you could hold these beliefs.

You are a "weak-theist" or a "strong-agnostic" (like me). I'm glad you realize the potential of taking up this type of belief, you are still a freethinker and you can be on the more positive side of things. :)

CounslerCoffee

11-21-02, 11:21 AM

Thanks for understand Chosen. FadingCaptain I hate caps.

Don't pick a religion, weak-minded people rely on religioin, strong-minded people either take advantage of it or don't simply need it.

Thats one of the reasons why Ive not pick one. I dont need it and its not going to help me in anyway. I just choose to believe in God.

Markx

11-21-02, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
I have not picked a religion yet (I probably wont), I don't like churches, all they really do is cause more trouble then there worth. Just remember, Im the same coffee. I just believe in God now.

Im going to "borrow" something from a atheist and slightly change it. I believe God excists, but if you prove me wrong, I will become a atheist. I wish I could expect the same in return although I doubt it.

If you can't prove yourself to me, I do not understand how you could hold these beliefs.

Once you realize that there is a God, then next step is to search for right religion. You don't have to listen to what churh say, wouldn't you rather be interested in what your heart says? To me my answer was Islam, it happened more or less in a same way what you said but I studied for a while beofore making any decision. May God guide us all to right path.

Thor

11-21-02, 11:37 AM

Another brave soldier falls *salute*

Even though I'm not fond of the idea, I'm gonna say Good Luck anyway and all the best :)

Isn't agnostic one of those inbetweeny people, they'd like to believe in a god but also know that there is no proof....that's what a philosophy student told me anyway

Rock On...I guess

Thor

m0rl0ck

11-21-02, 11:38 AM

No and yes m0rl0ck. I plan on praying, but have yet to choose a religion.

You might want to check out the unitarians:

"We believe that personal experience, conscience and reason should be the final authorities in religion, and that in the end religious authority lies not in a book or person or institution, but in ourselves. We are a "non-creedal" religion: we do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed. "

http://www.uua.org/

http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/index.html

Cris

11-21-02, 02:53 PM

Yup.

UU is pretty good.

Thor

11-21-02, 04:36 PM

Jesus the Christ
Who's he :D

Tiassa

11-21-02, 04:43 PM

SYLLABICATION: ag·nos·tic

PRONUNCIATION: g-nstk

NOUN:
1 a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

ADJECTIVE:
1. Relating to or being an agnostic. 2. Doubtful or noncommittal: “Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous ‘acquisitiveness’ for discovering patterns” (William H. Calvin, New York Times Book Review August 10, 1997).

ETYMOLOGY: a– + Gnostic.

SYLLABICATION: a·the·ist

PRONUNCIATION: th-st

NOUN:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

SYLLABICATION: the·ism

PRONUNCIATION: thz'm

NOUN:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

OTHER FORMS:
theist —NOUN
the·istic , the·isti·cal —ADJECTIVE
the·isti·cal·ly —ADVERB• The above entries are from the American Heritage Dictionary, courtesy Apple's Sherlock 3.didnt u look up the meaning of agnostic???
ur STILL agnostic

it means u belive in god but not in organised religions

so if u dont pick a church ect then ur agnostic (Asguard)By what definition?

Even without a belief in a "personal God", Counsler's position still equals a form of theism. A recognition of the concept of God is often vague, and it is only social or "peer" pressure that lends toward conformity of that concept to dogmatic rules. A belief that God is or the God exists does not require a religion to enforce it. God will represent to Counsler what Counsler chooses to allow it.

People do create gods--the specific ones. But as you move through religions, there exists a greater sense of God--common attributes awarded various deities: eternal life, existence, "supernatural" abilities, and, above all, a Plan.

Generally speaking, theists make the error of assuming that the Plan, or that God can be known. Yet at that base common level, God represents the theoretical answers to questions science cannot answer. Why are we here? What purpose is there to life? Armstrong acknowledges these questions in A History of God, the vitally important examination of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity that propelled her to the literary forefront, and is also mentioned in the early pages of A.L. Basham's Classical Hinduism.

Nobody can answer those questions definitively, and while some have no quarrel with the idea of doing things without any real reason, some people do look at all the suffering seemingly inherent to the human condition, and cannot let that stand without scrutiny.

My own hope for Counsler's search is that he bear in mind a form of Sufi principle. God is not a goal or end-point. Christianity, for instance, looks at life as a long struggle between good and evil, the quest of the soul to seek out and find union with God. From Sufism and other philosophies, though, one gets the impression that to attain Godliness is not a goal in itself, but rather a starting point: once you have attained the godly form, you can begin on the truly important work. In that sense, God is kind of like a plumber's degree or certification; having attained the certification merely means that you can start rooting through the sewage. Or a medical degree, for a cleaner, more appetizing analogy. Sure, you may have your degree, but all that means is that the important work of saving lives can begin in full effect.

And such it is with God. Accepting that God exists merely means that a seeker has chosen that path to find the answers to the unanswerable. Theism, without any special, self-centered focus on a personal God, is among the human philosophies most open to progress. Where we criticize religions in general for making God a definitive idea and thus closing avenues of inquiry, discovery, and growth, so, too, do we find that narrowing among the atheist proclamation.

In any argument between atheism and religion, I'll side with atheism; I dare any Christian to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is objectively to be considered the word of God. Islam and the Koran? I would challenge even the witches, but they have no formal doctrines, and the elective relationship with a personal goddess carries no inherent, formal threat.

But when atheism puts itself against the history of the idea of God, the plethora of workable attributes found within various religious determinations, it has the tendency to strike the possibilities of religious thought in advance, based simply on the failure of those possibilities to actualize in the past.

However, if this standard is applied to something so basic and human as God, what can be said of the more complex charades such as rule of law, national boundaries, or even "rights"? What most atheists fail to recognize is that these things are equally as subjective as assertions of God and religion.

Thus I tend to think that a bland theism unattached to any specific construction of God leaves ethical grounds for consistency in the acknowledgment of other human-conduct level assertions intact.

Why is murder wrong? Rape? Because it is. Because we're humans and we shouldn't be treating each other that way. But when you cut down to the objective standard demanded by atheism, some people do encounter the internal friction that comes from selectively or even arbitrarily advocating various standards. In this sense, everyone is "religious", though not everyone "theistic".

As such, as an atheist, having rejected God on such practical grounds, I soon found myself, on my integrity, rejecting other mythical constructions. It cost me a lot; my compassion, my communication, my radiant sense of human trust that, thankfully, I've seen affirmative signs of in the last few years. It took me six years to climb back out of the hole I dug by adopting atheism; the philosophy didn't work for me ... so what? At least, standing on level ground again, I can promise myself to not make that mistake again.

And that's why I'm thrilled by Counsler's declaration. It would be wrong to say that I could care less which God he adopts; the truth is that I would rather he officially adopt none. As such, he might find himself in the unique position of building bridges between the atheistic and theistic factions, so that the one might understand the other, and the other the one.

• This self serves the other self, and that self the one; together, they become one another. (Anonymous Sufi saying)

Objectively speaking, I have found atheism to result in a lack of unity among people. The idea tends to foster division, and because of its smallness, atheism is unable to restrain the passions of its adherents. This has become problematic, as atheism seems just as divisive as, say, Christianity has been noted to be.

My deepest hope is that Counsler feels somehow empowered to contribute to the rightness of people and the world, to harmony and peace, to knowledge and passion--to happiness, in other words.

To happiness--I shall raise my pipe.

Congratulations of a certain order to Counsler, and also my best wishes. Unfortunately, by a self-comparative standard, he has chosen the tougher path. But it is also the path that brings the greatest rewards.

blessed be
in harmony and peace
thrice strengthened
by the wishes of my heart,

Tiassa :cool:

Zero

11-21-02, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Wow. Three responses in less then one minute, is that a record?

It all shows we care about you awww :o

And my two cents' worth would be to tell you to adopt a viewpoint that will help you grow and will give you a solid foundation on which to anchor yourself. For some people theism works, and for some agnosticism(?) works, and for others atheism works. I just chose atheism because it worked for me, not because I believe it to be any superior to other viewpoints.

I just hope you've carefully reviewed all the pros and cons of what you're leaving, what you're getting into and what you're not going to get into. The real test of your decision will be a time of crisis. How well your views help you then will be a good indicator.

_________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos

whatsupyall

11-21-02, 05:02 PM

Counselor, I will not ask you to join a religion u donot prefer. From one buddhism sprouts about thousands of thousands of denomnation, in different countries, thailand have their view of Buddha, some believe he is god, some dont, etc.

From one Hinduism sprouts about thousands upon thousands of denomination, some are atheist, some are not, some believe in gods, some believe in a god.

From judaism sprouts out muslim and christianity....
I am impressed with Muslims unity, they remain one, but the governments have different perspectives as well. Muslim's original founder is Ishmael, son of Abraham, and their greastest prophet is muhammed...Ishmael left his brothers after Abraham died and he went on his own with his own followers and wives, historically speaking, he was very strong, violent, and feared by his weak brother Jacob, the 2 were enemies...

Judaism, Im imprseed with these as well, like muslim, it remained ancient, old, and are still the same 2000 years ago without improvement, VERY TRADITIONAL. This religion is the seeds of Jacob also son of Abraham, brother of Ishmael (who are sworn enemies then, till this day muslims and jews hate each other). They are still waiting for their coming messiah, because they didnt recognize the humble, poor Jesus who fulfilled it...

Christianity is founded by Jesus the Christ, BUT CHRISTIANITY NEVER SPLITS from the seed of Abraham and Judaism, it is the improved judaism "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it"- Jesus. Roman Catholic church founded by Jesus himself contained all the judaism tradition, AND NOT ONE LACKING, the synagogues traditions, etc. with St. Peter as the first leader...
But from here on, because of disputes and human corruption, people made their own sect and claim it is God's will, like hinduism and buddhism, theres over 25,000 denominations of christianity today, and each one of them claim to be the real Christian church, some believe Jesus is god, some dont..There are even those who call themself "Non deonimnation christian", what a scam, theres no such thing, thats another word for "Non denomination denomination", it is still deonimantion the fact that u have to read and follow the authority of the apostles in the bible,.etc..

COUNSELOR, I WILL LET YOU BE THE JUDGE....IF YOU WERE TO PICK A RELIGION, I RECCOMEND THAT YOU WILL BE ABSOLUTE, DONT BE WARM OR LUKEWARM..IF YOU WANT TO BE A BUDDHIST, BE IN THE ORIGINAL BUDDHIST SECT (THERES THOUSANDS OTHERWISE U WILL CONFUSE FROM)..

IF YOU WANT TO BE IN HINDUISM, BE IN THE ORIGINAL HINDUISM...

IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW CHRIST, THEN BE THE ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN, THE UNIVERSAL COMMUNITY OF BELIEVERS FIRST FOUNDED IN ROME BY ST. PAUL WITH ST. PETER AS THE HEAD..(IN LATIN "ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH").

THEN YOU CAN BE IN JUDAISM, AND MUSLIM, THE ONLY STRONG RELIGIONS STANDING IN THIS WORLD THAT ISNT DIVIDED...

BUT IT DEPENDS WHAT YOU CAN HANDLE, HOW MUCH DISCIPLINE ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE TO YOURSELF FOR THE LOVE OF HUMANITY...FOR LOVING YOUR FELLOW MANKIND IS HOW YOU SHOW LOVE FOR GOD....

BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU, THE FACT IS, OUT OF ALL THE RELIGIONS IN THE WORLD, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE MOST COMPLETE, FULLNESS OF MORAL VALUES, WE HAVE SOLUTIONS TO EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM THIS EARTH WILL FACE, FROM ABORTION, TO INTERNET, TO TEEN VIOLENCE, TO DRUGS, TO SUICIDE, ETC..CIVILED WAY TO LIVE, THE TRUTH....JUDAISM, BUDDHISM, HINDUISM, AND MUSLIM ARE TOO UNDEVELOPED AND ANCIENT TO RECOGNIZE THE WORLD'S ISSUES..

there are 9 major practiced religions in this world today, and i gave you the top 6 religions, and I just want to tell you I became Roman Catholic not because of "parents consent", but because of RESEARCH AND UNDERSTANDING, I got my whole family back into the faith.....THE MORE YOU HUNGER, THE MORE YOU PUT EFFORT, THE MORE YOU THE TRUTH UNVEILS ITSELF INFRONT OF YOU...

note: Ignore my behavior, trust me I am a hardcore sinner, but being in this post is my way of getting back to my faith for I was lost in the world for 2 years now, clubbing, violence, sex, drugs, etc. and Im trying to clean myself up, I was a catechist teacher 2 years ago, and im trying to get my faith back, so again im sorry for my language and temper....may God forgive me...

EDITED= Sorry but I cant help it but I have to say this...I donot reccoment Hinduism because it has no stance, they allowed atheism, agnosticm, and belief of multiple gods, even the original one, there is notmuch solutions to problems as well..
I also donot reccomend the original Buddhism because prophet Buddha, historically speaking never claimed to be God. this is more of a philosophy. Buddha, meaning "The enlighten one", the awaken one. Is more of a philosophy and it is WAY TOO OLD AND ANCIENT, THERE INDEED IS NO SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS OUR SOCIETY IS FACING, JUST LIKE MUSLIM AND JUDAISM, WAY TOO TRADITIONAL, MAYBE GOOD FOR THEIR SOCIETY, BUT NOT HERE IN THE US, CATHOLICISM U CAN APPLY EVERYWHERE, IN CHINA, MIDDLE EAST, US, ETC...
So I reccoment The Community of Rooman Catholic Churrch, AND I KNOW IT HAS BAD REPUTATION AND BAD NAMES, BECAUSE THE WORLD ALWAYS TALK SMACK AGAINST IT. WHEN THE PRIEST MAKES MISTAKES, THE WHOLE WORLD WILL KNOW ABOUT IT, THE MEDIA, TRASH TALKING, FALSE ACCUSATION, EVEN FROM THE SO-CALLED CHRISTIANS...BUT THEN AGAIN, THAT JJUST SHOWS THAT THE HATRED OF THE WORLD, PROVES THE GENUINITY OF THE CHURCH....

Zero

11-21-02, 05:13 PM

All the trash talking about the RCC is only because of a few who gave the whole a bad name. The media's excessive and obsessive interest in the sexual affairs of a few priests is sickening to me. They are judging an entire group on the basis of a few bad apples.

Whassup, all the religions have their virtues and weaknesses. All have produced UltiDestroyers incarnate and all have also produced exemplary people as well. One can not be pointed out as being inferior to another. Though I do agree about the quasi religious cults that terrorize people...

_________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos

CounslerCoffee

11-21-02, 08:23 PM

Thanks everyone for supporting me.

Whatsupyall:
BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU, THE FACT IS, OUT OF ALL THE RELIGIONS IN THE WORLD, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE MOST COMPLETE, FULLNESS OF MORAL VALUES, WE HAVE SOLUTIONS TO EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM THIS EARTH WILL FACE, FROM ABORTION, TO INTERNET, TO TEEN VIOLENCE, TO DRUGS, TO SUICIDE, ETC..CIVILED WAY TO LIVE, THE TRUTH....JUDAISM, BUDDHISM, HINDUISM, AND MUSLIM ARE TOO UNDEVELOPED AND ANCIENT TO RECOGNIZE THE WORLD'S ISSUES..

I have a serious problem with the Catholic Church. They look into each little sentence in the bible way to much. Secondly the bible never covers the Internet, never mentions abortion, and I surely don't remember reading about drugs. So how can they say that these things are wrong or right?

The bible is very old. Which is why I choose to believe in it, interpret it for myself, and pull out any of the stuff that I feel is wrong. Humans were born knowing right from wrong, so its easy to see where they messed up in the book. Its about compassion, faith, understanding, and acceptance. Not "Gays are bad" or "Abortion is murder." I will pick for myself what I believe to be wrong, not what the church believes to be wrong.

(Q)

11-21-02, 09:15 PM

So I've made a choice. I have decided to believe in God. Science cannot explain everything. But God does explain an awful lot more then science does.

Science cannot explain everything, yet. That does not mean science will explain everything in our lifetimes of course, but it's certainly no reason to take the easy.... nay, irrational way out. We are making progress considering that science and we as a species have only originated a mere drop in the bucket on the geological time scale. Science is still in its infancy.

I'm very interested to hear why you think God explains an awful lot more than science does. God explains with miracles and mystery. Science explains with observation and experimentation. God demands faith through subservience. Science demands only one faith -- that no measurements taken are ever influenced by the supernatural.

And although you've made the decision to believe in God, which I will respect, I would have to say quite frankly, I cannot support your decision. Sorry.

CounslerCoffee

11-21-02, 09:43 PM

(Q):
Science cannot explain everything, yet. That does not mean science will explain everything in our lifetimes of course, but it's certainly no reason to take the easy.... nay, irrational way out. We are making progress considering that science and we as a species have only originated a mere drop in the bucket on the geological time scale. Science is still in its infancy.

I'm very interested to hear why you think God explains an awful lot more than science does. God explains with miracles and mystery. Science explains with observation and experimentation. God demands faith through subservience. Science demands only one faith -- that no measurements taken are ever influenced by the supernatural.

And although you've made the decision to believe in God, which I will respect, I would have to say quite frankly, I cannot support your decision. Sorry.

Its okay (Q). I understand. We all have different opinions, I don't expect everyone to just jump up and say "Coffee is right!" This is my decision, not anyone else's.

I will try to explain myself as best as I can. I think as a example I will use the six concepts of evolution.

1. Cosmic Evolution (The Big Bang)
2. Chemical Evolution (Higher elements evolve)
3. Evolution of stars and planets from gas
4. Organic Evolution
5. Macro Evolution (Changes between animals and plants)
6. Micro Evolution

Did I get all of those? Yeah I did. Only Number six has been observed and documented. All the rest is theory and speculation. What if instead this happened:

1. God created the universe.
2. God started to create planets.
3. God made Earth.
4. God moves on and makes other Earth like planets.
5. Man started to evolve on his own.

Yes, I believe in aliens. To think that God only created one planet like ours is ridiculous.

I think the best example that I can use (besides evolution) is the powering force of the Atom. Apparently its Gluons... now that's crazy! I have never seen a gluon, no one has observed a gluon. Its all taken with a leap of faith that there are gluons. The same with the first 5 steps of evolution. Scientists have faith in science, I have faith in God. Is there really a big difference here?

Tiassa

11-21-02, 09:54 PM

Man is made in God's image.

Now:

- Humankind has evolved, and is a product of an ongoing sequence of interrelated events.
- This process has seen the Universe go from fire and dust to Life.
- Nature is not extraneous (can anyone demonstrate that nature is, in fact extraneous?)
- Thus, we might say that Humankind has evolved in the only way that it possibly could; that is, there is no other, better possibility, else the "we" debating these issues would not be human, but something else.
- Chaos constrained reflects its constraints. There is a game or computer program that shows this by limiting the graph area to an equilateral triangle, and the variable coordinates to three. Essentially, if you mark 3 points of a triangle, and put 2 numbers from a die at each point, put a pen down anywhere inside the triangle, roll a die, and draw a line segment halfway to the point indicated, you can over time create a fairly regular, repeating pattern of triangles.
- As the factors determining the shape and nature of humankind become more known (and thus the possibilities limited) we will find that humankind could not have evolved otherwise.
- God, in its most abstract, encompasses all factors of existence and nothing more.
- Thus, evolving the only way we can, it is fair to assert in the poetic that humankind is made in God's image.

That's the two-minute scribbling of the idea.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Markx

11-21-02, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Its okay (Q). I understand. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. . Scientists have faith in science, I have faith in God. Is there really a big difference here?

To me it sounds like you have been hanging out with muslims. :p
Check out your pm on friday. ;)

spookz

11-21-02, 10:12 PM

so ahh... is the party still on? or are we gonna mourn instead?

whatsupyall

11-21-02, 11:35 PM

Counselor, last advice. BE AS SKEPTICAL AS POSSIBLE IN YOUR SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH. There are things I used to doubt when i was a teen, but my research gave me the answers that I was longing for..People misunderstood faith in general...
Reserving to faith in your spiritual life means, being patient, kind, etc. All this is faith (meaning trust and loyalty), EVERYTHING ELSE BE SKEPTIC, that way you will be a very very smart believer of God, be skeptic in the field of science and religion, learn every possible concepts, dont reserve to one idea, trust me, KNOWLEDGE COMES FROM GOD, and yes you can Fill your doubts with faith, this means your very spiritually strong, but why gamble? After all your young and have the time to learn the truth....The answers are there for you to find...

Angelus

11-22-02, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by whatsupyall
How does "super duper chance" explain anything? And yes, an intelligent designer is proven, deny it all you want, but your stupidity doesnt change FACTS, sorry Adam...

Theres no such thing as chance. There's also no such thing as god. Show me proof and I'll believe. So far all you've shown anyone is poor logic and misuse of the caps lock key. And your right, stupidity doesn't change facts, sorry whatsupyall...

Originally posted by whatsupyall
Easy way out? Thats a lie, the fact is people turn to atheism because they cant handle the idea of God, giving them responsibility to be good and forgiving. Thats the whole reason why people become atheist, because they are weak, impatient, IGNORANT, and coward, they do what the world tells them, monkey see monkey do...

You seem to be fond of taking other peoples words and twisting them around. Whether this is because you are incapable of original thought I don't know, but maybe if I tried it you'd see how annoying an pointless it is.

Easy way out? Thats a lie, the fact is people turn to god because they cant handle the idea of mortality, giving them responsibility to be good and forgiving without a reward afterwards. Thats the whole reason why people become theist, because they are weak, impatient, IGNORANT, and coward, they do what the world tells them, monkey see monkey do...

Originally posted by whatsupyall
Thats your last attempt as an atheist, IMMATURITY..WHO EVER BELIEVES IN A GIANT PINK DOUGHNUT? OR PURPLE SQUID MONKEY? OR BOB THE INTERDIMENSIONAL SCIENTIST? OR NATURE AS "CHANCE"? ONLY RETARDS OR DUMB PEOPLE DO, ALL OF THOSE THINGS CANNOT BE PROVEN, SHE SIMPLY BELIEVES OF A PROVEN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, PERIOD...NOT PURPLE SQUIDMONKEY, U ADDED THAT YOURSELF IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE FOOL OF US, BUT THAT JUST PROVED YOU HAVE NO STANCE IN YOUR BELIEF, all this time i have debated with atheists, THAT IS THE BEST ARGUMENT YOU CAN COME OUT OF, HOW PATHETIC, THERES DEFINITELY NOTHING SCIENTIFIC ABOUT THAT,NOTHING...PERIOD...

It's called an A N A L O G Y. Did you pass ninth grade english. Or is english a second language? If so I apoligise. An analogy is when you take a set of circumstances and relate them to another set of similar circumstances in order to prove a point. In this case the analogy was between god and other fictional or make-believe characters. The analogy's point was that to believe in anything just because you don't have all the answers is ridiculous and ultimately stupid.

Originally posted by whatsupyall
We dont know everything, BUT WE KNOW THAT THE UNIVERSE IS IN LAW AND ORDER, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGNER IS PROVEN, "CHANCE" ISNT AND IS PROVEN A LIE...PERIOD..

The universe is most definately not in law and order. I have no idea where you picked up this silly notion. I think you're confusing natural laws with sociatal laws. My philosophy teacher taught us this fallacy before. You see societal laws are laws laid down by a intelligent designer(humans) that dictate how things should behave. Things may not behave in this manner, but then they are usually punished in some way. Natural laws are merely observations of how things do behave, the apple falls, it does so because it's in it's nature to fall, not because it fears being put in prison by god. And once again you have stubled upon one truth, quite by accident I'm sure, Chance is a lie.

Originally posted by whatsupyall
note: Counselor, Im an expert in debating with atheists, just ask and ill help you out, they have nothing, believe me, I laugh at atheists, to me they are a joke...Just lost souls....

I've seen Counselor's posts and he's much better off without your help. And if your an expert I guess we must declare you master. You a now Master Debater of Sciforums. I pity you, a joke, just another lost mind...

Thor

11-22-02, 08:51 AM

A GIANT PINK DOUGHNUT
I had one of them!! How can you say they don't exsist!!

Whatsupyall, you have proved once more that you are almost incapable of intellegent debate and resort to immature name calling. You are only showing yourself up

Now, here's some advise, stop being so ethnosentric* and see the world for what it really is!!

*Note: I just love this word!!

(Q)

11-22-02, 01:10 PM

CC

All the rest is theory and speculation.

It may be theory, but certainly not speculation. There is mountains of evidence to support those theories. You may ask, "What if," but there is no evidence whatsoever to support a God theory.

Yes, I believe in aliens. To think that God only created one planet like ours is ridiculous.

We would certainly be remiss not to expect there are other life forms in the universe ( none of which have visited Earth btw) but their existence and their evolution would be similar to ours. Of course, the conditions in which their existence had originated could most likely be very different than ours, but the premise that all life, no matter where it originates and no matter what conditions are present, will struggle to survive and will evolve.

The complex cellular organisms we see today took more than a billion years to evolve, maybe longer. The first self-reproducing proteins also probably took close to a billion years to develop and evolve. All_in_all, the evolutionary process took several billion years to evolve the life-forms we see today, including man. This would hold true for alien species as well.

One does not need to take a "leap of faith" in order to make semblance of these processes. Instead, we only need to understand that there is simply the complexity of matter coupled with various forms of energy forged in a universe-sized test-tube over huge expanses of time.

Wipe clean the slate of the Earth in which no living organism survives and the entire process will eventually begin again. And after a few billion years, we would see the Earth once again, filled with new life-forms.

I have never seen a gluon, no one has observed a gluon.

Before you go off half-cocked, please take the time to read up on the latest experiments which attempt to detect quark-gluon plasma. You'll be quite surprised from the results.

Scientists have faith in science, I have faith in God. Is there really a big difference here?

Yes, a very huge difference. I'm sure by now you've been reading numerous threads outlining these differences. But as I've stated before, there is only one faith in science, and that is the faith a scientist must acknowledge that no measurement taken is ever influenced by the "supernatural." In other words, the natural cause of events have no underlying Gods manipulating the effects or the results.

UltiTruth

11-22-02, 01:34 PM

Dear musclupyall,

Originally posted by whatsupyall
From one Hinduism sprouts about thousands upon thousands of denomination, some are atheist, some are not, some believe in gods, some believe in a god.
Where did you pick this up, dear?

Christianity is founded by Jesus the Christ, BUT CHRISTIANITY NEVER SPLITS from the seed of Abraham and Judaism, ...
Is it?
...theres over 25,000 denominations of christianity today, and each one of them claim to be the real Christian church, some believe Jesus is god, some dont..There are even those who call themself "Non deonimnation christian"...
Ok, ok!

COUNSELOR, I WILL LET YOU BE THE JUDGE...
Lucky Counselor!

BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU, THE FACT IS, OUT OF ALL THE RELIGIONS IN THE WORLD, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE MOST COMPLETE, FULLNESS OF MORAL VALUES, WE HAVE SOLUTIONS TO EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM THIS EARTH WILL FACE, FROM ABORTION, TO INTERNET, TO TEEN VIOLENCE, TO DRUGS, TO SUICIDE, ETC..CIVILED WAY TO LIVE, THE TRUTH....JUDAISM, BUDDHISM, HINDUISM, AND MUSLIM ARE TOO UNDEVELOPED AND ANCIENT TO RECOGNIZE THE WORLD'S ISSUES..
You mean Abortion, Internet and "Civiled" way to live are problems this earth will face? So when will this earth face the problem of Internet and what solution does your RCC have for overcoming that?

...trust me I am a hardcore sinner, ...
Ok, I will agree with this bit. It shows.

...but being in this post is my way of getting back to my faith for I was lost in the world for 2 years now, clubbing, violence, sex, drugs, etc. and Im trying to clean myself up,...
Not the right way, I guess! Anyways, it takes time to get out of the hallucinations! But good luck.

I was a catechist teacher 2 years ago, and im trying to get my faith back, so again im sorry for my language and temper...
So even catechist teachers can't linger to faith? Then what is the point?

And where is the promised list of Religious text and scriptures (of religions you know of) that you researched upon before making comments? It is almost a month dear, that you kept me waiting!

CounslerCoffee

11-22-02, 01:39 PM

It may be theory, but certainly not speculation. There is mountains of evidence to support those theories. You may ask, "What if," but there is no evidence whatsoever to support a God theory.

So you admit that they are all theories? Right now they are just theories, later they may be proven right or wrong. So its a theory but its right... that isnt very logical if you ask me. If there is tons of evidence to prove the theories right then they wouldnt be theories.

God to me is not a theory. I cant find evidence to prove that he exist. You cant find evidence that he doesnt exist. Thats my point right there in bold. Its about faith.

The complex cellular organisms we see today took more than a billion years to evolve, maybe longer. The first self-reproducing proteins also probably took close to a billion years to develop and evolve. All_in_all, the evolutionary process took several billion years to evolve the life-forms we see today, including man. This would hold true for alien species as well.

I reject the THEORY of evolution.

Wipe clean the slate of the Earth in which no living organism survives and the entire process will eventually begin again. And after a few billion years, we would see the Earth once again, filled with new life-forms.

I reject that THEORY to. The point is that if evidence exist then it wouldnt be a theory. It would be the truth.

Before you go off half-cocked, please take the time to read up on the latest experiments which attempt to detect quark-gluon plasma. You'll be quite surprised from the results.

Im not leaving "half-cocked." That statement actually upsets me. Am I coming off like a mean little Jesus freak already? Im trying to explain why I have decided to believe, not to disprove you or anyone else here.

Yes, a very huge difference. I'm sure by now you've been reading numerous threads outlining these differences. But as I've stated before, there is only one faith in science, and that is the faith a scientist must acknowledge that no measurement taken is ever influenced by the "supernatural." In other words, the natural cause of events have no underlying Gods manipulating the effects or the results.

Yeah I have been reading up on the other threads. I don't see a difference between believing in God and believing a theory. Especially if its a theory that your believing in. Because it is just a THEORY. I think Im going to say this again. I can't prove God exist. And you can't prove that he doesn't. What you have shown me is theory. What I have shown you is theory. You have your faith, and I have mine.

(Q)

11-22-02, 02:54 PM

If there is tons of evidence to prove the theories right then they wouldnt be theories

Perhaps we need to step back a moment in order to get some clarification. A theory is an organized system of accepted knowledge explaining a specific set of phenomena. As more observations and experiments bring forth more data, those theories get tweaked. In most cases, support for the theory becomes strengthened.

Its about faith.

That is true. Unfortunately, faith cannot explain anything. Faith is simply a belief in the supernatural.

I reject the THEORY of evolution.

Then you reject the overwhelming evidence which supports evolution. Is that rational ?

Im not leaving "half-cocked." That statement actually upsets me. Am I coming off like a mean little Jesus freak already?

Sorry to upset you, that was not the intention. My remark was centered on your statement that gluons have not been observed.

What you have shown me is theory. What I have shown you is theory.

Perhaps, but there is a clear distinction between a theory with overwhelming supportive evidence and a theory based solely on faith. If you wish to pursue a "Theory of God," please do so and provide whatever reasoning and evidence which might support your theory. As well, try to figure out a way in which to test your theory. This may not only add to the discussion, but may as well help to enlighten you in your quest. It's a win-win situation.

(Q)

11-22-02, 03:30 PM

CC

I'm curious, were there any discussions or members on this message board which influenced your decision ? If so, please let me know.

inspector

11-22-02, 03:48 PM

Coffee, congratulations! Your rewards will far outweigh the torment delivered by those who oppose you for your decision. I cannot speak for religions other than Christianity, however, if I can help in any way with your daily walk, please contact me.

'Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.'

~ Soren Kierkegaard ~

><>

(Q)

11-22-02, 04:09 PM

"For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing."

Henry Louis Mencken

"Pray, n:. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy."

Ambrose Bierce

whatsupyall

11-22-02, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by (Q)
[Perhaps, but there is a clear distinction between a theory with overwhelming supportive evidence and a theory based solely on faith. If you wish to pursue a "Theory of God," please do so and provide whatever reasoning and evidence which might support your theory. As well, try to figure out a way in which to test your theory. This may not only add to the discussion, but may as well help to enlighten you in your quest. It's a win-win situation.

Yes thats why NATURE AS "RANDOM CHANCE" IS ILLOGIC, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGNER HAS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AND IS PROVEN..IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED, OBSERVED AND STUDIED TO BE RESPONSIBLE OF COMPLEX AND ORDERED EXISTENCE, A FACT....

Originally posted by (Q)
[
That is true. Unfortunately, faith cannot explain anything. Faith is simply a belief in the supernatural.

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a
person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
4. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's
supporters.
5. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure
belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
6. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
7. A set of principles or beliefs.

What is faith? For the learning children (atheist)

Another misconception atheist use as an attack against Christianity is the word “Faith”. Faith= Trust; loyalty; belief on something without a need of proof; reliance; pledged word. For example, a close family friend approached you and asked if she can borrow your car for 2 days and promised to return it back, however, she gave you her credit card incase if the car gets totally wrecked you can take all the money out of her bank and keep it to replace your car. But because you have “faith” in her, you just told her “its ok, you don’t need to give me a blank check, you’re my best friend and a good driver for many years now and I know you’ll return the car on time safely, I trust you”. That’s faith. People use faith in many aspects in life. People put faith in family and friends, neighbors, experts, etc. We even put faith in science, otherwise if no one does, then people will not listen to it, will give no support and donation to it, therefore science wouldn’t exist today. Here’s another example of faith; when you buy a Toyota Truck, since your not a mechanic, you have no idea how the engine works, but you have faith in the car that it will take you places, it has a good reputation, many people testified that Toyota trucks have engine that last forever, even most mechanics recommend Toyota, because of their testimony, you put faith in Toyota trucks and rely on it, even if you have no clue how the engine works. And when your car breaks down, you take the car to them and get it fixed, and because that’s their profession, you have faith that they will get the job done. I can probably set over 100 more examples of faith. (By the way, you don’t call mechanics, brain surgeons, God, biochemist, and computer engineers “the magicians”, just because of the knowledge you don’t have.)

Atheist meanwhile got the word “faith” mixed up with “myth’. They think that to have faith on something is to believe on myths. How stupid. So if I have faith in family and friends, it means that they are myths? Their own definition of faith is “belief on something that cannot be proven; in other words, “Faith=belief on myths and non-existence”. Atheists are stupid like that; most of them are so ignorant. Hey cone heads! Yeah I’m talking to you atheist people, to have faith is to believe on something without a need of proof because of loyalty and reliance. Some may even put faith in mythical U.F.O’s, they may want or may not want proof, this may not even be proven at all! Or put faith in mythical Zeus the Greek god, you may want or may not want proof, but you can have faith in that as well, even if it’s existence have no proof thus making it a ‘myth’, your still entitled to that mythical belief, you can be that extremely loyal (to believe on something that have no proof, such as toothfairy and atheism). But once again, faith is NOT to believe on something that cannot be proven, but belief on something that you need no proof of because of loyalty and reliance. Stupid atheist kids… Whether God’s love is proven or not, you believe in Him because you trust Him, that’s what faith is. Confused or not, in good times and in bad, you remain loyal and faithful. Christianity requires faith because of its deep mystery each individual cannot comprehend, from the sacraments, Holy Trinity, laws and tradition, to the commandments and canonized books, faith doesn’t mean that God and religion cannot be proven.

notme2000

11-22-02, 05:38 PM

CC, Whatsupyall is listing nothing but the rewards of religion, Christianity in general. It's true, they have plenty of rewards, and overall make life easier to live. But if you are in search for truth, he can offer nothing but claims... As can athiests... This is why agnosticism seems like the most logical stance. I'm sure you knew all of this already, but claiming to know anything is just arrogant, and ignorant... As whatsupyall so blatently displays... As do many athiests as well... You seem to still be agnostic but leaning towards the existance of a God. This is still agnostic. I am agnostic but lean towards there being no God. But I still don't know, as you don't either... All we have is claims, opinions, beliefs, dogmas, rituals, etc... On both sides...

Markx

11-22-02, 06:20 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CounslerCoffee

Part of article I have saved.

With ample evidence discovered by science, the thesis of an "infinite universe" was tossed onto the scrap-heap of the history of scientific ideas. Yet, more important questions were forthcoming: what existed before the Big Bang? What force could have caused the great explosion that resulted in a universe that did not exist before?

There is a single answer to be given to the question of what existed before the Big Bang: God, the All-powerful and the Almighty, Who created the earth and the heavens in great order. Many scientists, be they believers or not, are obliged to admit this truth. Although they may decline to admit this fact on scientific platforms, their confessions in between the lines give them away. Renowned atheist philosopher Anthony Flew says:

Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. (Henry Margenau, Roy Abraham Vargesse, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, La Salla IL: Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 241).

Some scientists like the British materialist physicist H. P. Lipson confess that they have to accept the Big Bang theory whether they want it or not:

If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?… I think, however, that we must…admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it. (H. P. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol. 138, 1980, p. 138).

In conclusion, science points to a single reality whether materialist scientists like it or not. Matter and time have been created by a Creator, Who is All-Powerful and Who created the heavens, the earth and all that is in between: Almighty God.

It is God who created the seven heavens and of the earth the same number, the Command descending down through all of them, so that you might know that God has power over all things and that God encompasses all things in His knowledge. (Surat at-Talaq: 12)

More soon.

(Q)

11-22-02, 06:34 PM

whatsup

Another misconception atheist use as an attack against Christianity is the word “Faith”. Faith= Trust; loyalty; belief on something without a need of proof; reliance; pledged word.

The concept of faith when used in discussing religion is faith in the supernatural. Most likely numbers 5 and 6 of your definition.

I can probably set over 100 more examples of faith.

First, you must provide at least one example of faith which describes your relationship with God. None of your examples is relevant. In fact, they are not based on faith at all but are instead based on observational evidence. Try again.

They think that to have faith on something is to believe on myths

Not really, a myth is a traditional story used to explain the world view of a people. IMO, I don't think you can consider God a myth. God is considered a supernatural being.

Christianity requires faith because of its deep mystery each individual cannot comprehend, from the sacraments, Holy Trinity, laws and tradition, to the commandments and canonized books

Of course, anything that makes no sense would require faith in its belief. On this we agree.

joegurl13

11-22-02, 07:54 PM

personally, i prefer to be agnostic, if i say i am thiest i feel i am cheating my brain,and when i say i am athiest i feel i am cheating my heart, and yet i dont even give it a thought when i say i am agnostic.

CounslerCoffee

11-22-02, 09:12 PM

I'm curious, were there any discussions or members on this message board which influenced your decision ? If so, please let me know.

Yes, Many of the people who influenced me were actually atheist, to list them would embarrass them and me. But one post out of all of them caught my attention.

"If they are beliefs, they cannot be proved to exist. If they cannnot be proved, then they cannnot be dissproved either." -YoungWriter

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=12942]Click here to view original post.

CounslerCoffee

11-22-02, 11:33 PM

Sorry (Q) I skipped over your last post by accident.

Perhaps we need to step back a moment in order to get some clarification. A theory is an organized system of accepted knowledge explaining a specific set of phenomena. As more observations and experiments bring forth more data, those theories get tweaked. In most cases, support for the theory becomes strengthened.

Yes, but its still just a theory. Its not accepted until you have evidence. So up until that point your believing something that's necessarily not true.

That is true. Unfortunately, faith cannot explain anything. Faith is simply a belief in the supernatural.

Im not so sure about that. Im sure that plenty of scientists have faith in science. Faith to me is believing in something that cant be proven, sorta like that theory of evolution thing.

Then you reject the overwhelming evidence which supports evolution. Is that rational ?

To me it is very rational. The theory of evolution is stupid. Why do they call it the theory of evolution anyways if its the truth? Probably because its a theory.

Perhaps, but there is a clear distinction between a theory with overwhelming supportive evidence and a theory based solely on faith. If you wish to pursue a "Theory of God," please do so and provide whatever reasoning and evidence which might support your theory. As well, try to figure out a way in which to test your theory. This may not only add to the discussion, but may as well help to enlighten you in your quest. It's a win-win situation.

I would pursue a Theory of God. But my only evidence to prove that he existed would be to come back from the dead. Which, no one would believe me anyway. Science would explain that away, along with why cigarettes are healthy. But i think that I will pursue that... its a interesting idea.

Cris

11-23-02, 01:46 AM

Counsler,

Yes, but its still just a theory. Its not accepted until you have evidence. What do you mean by JUST a theory? A scientific theory is a theory because there is evidence to support it. A theory is not some form of inferior fact. You are confusing ‘theory’ with “speculation”.

So up until that point your believing something that's necessarily not true. No it isn’t a matter of unfounded belief but a strong indication that the process (theory) proposed might well be true BECAUSE of the evidence.

Im sure that plenty of scientists have faith in science. That is a misuse of the word “faith”. You are confusing the usage that really means proven trust, with the form that means belief without evidence (i.e. religious faith). Please be aware of the distinction.

Faith to me is believing in something that cant be proven, sorta like that theory of evolution thing.That is an invalid analogy. Evolution is fact, however, the processes that describe how evolution has occurred are still being developed and some are incomplete. Religious faith doesn’t enter into considerations of science.

To me it is very rational. The theory of evolution is stupid. Why do they call it the theory of evolution anyways if its the truth? Probably because its a theory. I think this is because you do not know what is meant by the term 'theory'. Try this link that explains the scientific method that includes a definition of ‘ theory’.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html

I would pursue a Theory of God. But my only evidence to prove that he existed would be to come back from the dead. Which, no one would believe me anyway. In which case you have no way to KNOW that a god exists, so why believe something like that?

~The_Chosen~

11-23-02, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by (Q)
Then you reject the overwhelming evidence which supports evolution. Is that rational ?

A little note on this statement. A rational person can reject the Theory of Evolution.

But just as long as he does not deny the facts, this "evidence" could be for it or for another theory.

Rejecting the Theory of Evolution does not make anyone "irrational."

But rejecting the facts that the theory tries to explain is indeed irrational.

(Q)

11-23-02, 11:29 AM

Chosen

But rejecting the facts that the theory tries to explain is indeed irrational

Thanks, that was exactly my point.

CC

Cris responded with most of what I would have stated. He even provided a link which should help you better to understand the scientific method.

In addition, I would ask you to peruse the following website which should help to clarify any misnomer you may have about evolution. Please feel free to bring up any issues or concerns you might have and we'll discuss them. As well, if you wish to provide a link to a website which you feel might strengthen your resolve, I'd be happy to look it over.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

CounslerCoffee

11-23-02, 11:48 AM

The theory word makes more sense now, thanks Cris.

Im not rejecting the facts, if I did that then I would be a complete moron, like muscleman. I reject the theory of evolution, not the facts that support it.

Cris

11-23-02, 11:51 AM

Sorry Q, I hope you didn't mind me jumping in like that.

(Q)

11-23-02, 11:59 AM

Cris

No problem. Hopefully, by working together, we can pull CC back to the "dark side." hehe

CounslerCoffee

11-23-02, 12:06 PM

You cant pull me back to the dark side (atheism)! Not when I have my trusty light saber(faith)! Im going to go kill Jar Jar now...

Zero

11-25-02, 02:13 PM

*readies the black light saber of doom*
Come hither, thou feeble mortal. Face the dark side of the force!

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos

hockeywings

11-25-02, 02:56 PM

I see you used my post in your main idea lol, i like it. Congradulations on your revelation. I would be interested in talking to you since I may be able to get answers on your beliefs that noone here that responded to me could give me. If you are looking for a respectable person to teach you about islam I do recommend Markx, I am most appreciative of him in that part. My aim sn is stefan719 if you have the time.

ThatJerk

11-27-02, 12:21 AM

Sorry to lose you, Coffee. I hope your decision makes you happy, but I can't support you in it.

Im going to "borrow" something from a atheist and slightly change it. I believe God excists, but if you prove me wrong, I will become a atheist. I wish I could expect the same in return although I doubt it.

If you can't prove yourself to me, I do not understand how you could hold these beliefs.

*cracks knuckles*

I'm sure you're familiar with the name William of Occam, the man who codified the logical (READ: common sense) principal of Occam's Razor. This sadly misunderstood piece of reasoning is quite simple and goes a little something like this:

Keep it simple, stupid!

To elaborate, it's an arguement against redundancy. When confronted with two (or more) competing ideas, the idea that involves the least amount of redundancy is superior.

To illustrate:
I have a theory that explains the nature of my shoe-laces. It's 20 pages of equations that eventually tell me just how long my laces are. It's a bit tedious, but it works and is quite accurate.
But wait! My best friend suddenly appears with another theory about my shoe-laces, which explains their length in a single line. We furiously compare results and we find that they are identical.

Which theory is superior? Mine, with 20 pages of redundant crap, or my friend's, which pares it down to a single line?

If you have any common sense you'd choose the theory that explains my laces in a single line. If you're musclewhatsupyall, you probably are drooling out the side of your mouth while being fed pablum with a spork.

Now let's take this common sense, eminantly logical principal to the question of Life, the Universe, and EVERYTHING. We have two competing theories, and I'll lay them out for all to see.

1. Life, the Universe and Everything. It's here, it functions, it came about in the Big Bang, and 15 000 000 000 years later a small planet in the western spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy orbiting an insignificant yellow star spawns a quasi-intelligent race of apes who suffer from delusions of grandeur and (in all respect to Douglas Adams) think digital watches are a nifty idea. All its mechanisms are observable, and we're starting to understand just how the very fabric of it all functions (quantum physics). There are still many unanswered questions, like just why DID the Big Bang happen, but in the words of Yoda "Patience!".

2. All of the above, only with the ADDITIONAL stipulation that God was responsible.

Which theory has the redundant component?

As an interesting aside, it's worth noting that William of Occam followed this exact same reasoning and came to this same conclusion; namely, that the existence of God cannot be logically reasoned and if one is to believe in him it must be by faith alone. Was he an atheist? No. Was he an agnostic? No. He was a theologian (ie a religious philosopher) by trade, and educated by the Franciscans.

There's your life-raft, Coffee ;). You seem like someone who can appreciate reasoning, rather than someone who simply invents explanations for preconceived notions and passes it off as logic.

solarwnz

11-27-02, 12:48 AM

Hi everyone. I'm new here. I was browsing the internet and stumbled across this forum site. Pretty nifty. I am enjoying this thread and thought I would just say hello. Maybe I'll add my own two cents at some point. Until then, keep up the great dialogue!

whatsupyall

11-27-02, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by ThatJerk
Sorry to lose you, Coffee. I hope your decision makes you happy, but I can't support you in it.

*cracks knuckles*

I'm sure you're familiar with the name William of Occam, the man who codified the logical (READ: common sense) principal of Occam's Razor. This sadly misunderstood piece of reasoning is quite simple and goes a little something like this:

Keep it simple, stupid!

To elaborate, it's an arguement against redundancy. When confronted with two (or more) competing ideas, the idea that involves the least amount of redundancy is superior.

To illustrate:
I have a theory that explains the nature of my shoe-laces. It's 20 pages of equations that eventually tell me just how long my laces are. It's a bit tedious, but it works and is quite accurate.
But wait! My best friend suddenly appears with another theory about my shoe-laces, which explains their length in a single line. We furiously compare results and we find that they are identical.

Which theory is superior? Mine, with 20 pages of redundant crap, or my friend's, which pares it down to a single line?

If you have any common sense you'd choose the theory that explains my laces in a single line. If you're musclewhatsupyall, you probably are drooling out the side of your mouth while being fed pablum with a spork.

YOUR RIGHT! Thats why Im a christian, and not an atheist, because the fact remains, God is evident, and "SUPER DUPER LUCK". Isnt. Is there a "chance" that earthquake, lightning, and wind can create a FUNCTIONING JET POWERED AIRPLANE in 2 seconds? No, there isnt to me...If you claim there is a possiblity, THEN YOU NEED TO PRESENT PROOF OF ITS POSSIBILITY. But because this has not been demonstrated, therefore IT IS ILLOGIC TO BELIEVE THIS. Then others stressed that there is a chance such thing can happen, the atheist...THATS WHY IM A CHRISTIAN...........

Originally posted by ThatJerk

Now let's take this common sense, eminantly logical principal to the question of Life, the Universe, and EVERYTHING. We have two competing theories, and I'll lay them out for all to see.

1. Life, the Universe and Everything. It's here, it functions, it came about in the Big Bang, and 15 000 000 000 years later a small planet in the western spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy orbiting an insignificant yellow star spawns a quasi-intelligent race of apes who suffer from delusions of grandeur and (in all respect to Douglas Adams) think digital watches are a nifty idea. All its mechanisms are observable, and we're starting to understand just how the very fabric of it all functions (quantum physics). There are still many unanswered questions, like just why DID the Big Bang happen, but in the words of Yoda "Patience!".

2. All of the above, only with the ADDITIONAL stipulation that God was responsible.

Which theory has the redundant component?

As an interesting aside, it's worth noting that William of Occam followed this exact same reasoning and came to this same conclusion; namely, that the existence of God cannot be logically reasoned and if one is to believe in him it must be by faith alone. Was he an atheist? No. Was he an agnostic? No. He was a theologian (ie a religious philosopher) by trade, and educated by the Franciscans.

There's your life-raft, Coffee ;). You seem like someone who can appreciate reasoning, rather than someone who simply invents explanations for preconceived notions and passes it off as logic.

FACT...1.) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG THEORY, BUT IS JUST ANOTHER SPECULATION, A GOOD ONE IF U MAY SAY IT...THEREFORE THIS REQUIRES FAITH...

FACT....2.) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF QUANTUM PHYSICS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIFE FORMS, BUT IS JUST A SPECULATI0N, A GOOD DECEPTION IF U MAY SAY IT...THEREFORE THIS REQUIRES FAITH...

FACT....3.) NOT ONE SCIENTIST CAN CREATE ANY LIFE FORMS, THE MOST THEY CAN DO IS GATHER AMONIA, METHANE, AND HYDROGEN THEN USE LIGHTNING TO FORM AMINO ACIDS, THOUGH LIFE FORMS MY CONTAIN AMINO ACIDS, IT DOESNT MEAN AMINO ACIDS IS GOING TO MAGICLY BECOME HEART, LIVER, BRAIN, ETC. AND "ACCIDENTALLY" BECOME A FULL LIVING CREATURE...THE ODD OF THIS HAPPENING IS VERY UNLIKELY....IT IS MORE POSSIBLE FOR A FUNCTIONING JET POWERED AIRPLANE TO FORM BY EARTHQUAKE LIGHTNING, AND WIND IN 2 SECONDS, THAN FOR A LIVING CREATURE BY AMINO ACIDS...THATS A FACT...THE HUMAN BODY AND EVEN A SINGLE CELL IS FAR FAR MORE COMNPLEX THAN A JET POWERED AIRPLANE....

FACT...4.) ATHEISM IS PURE DELUSION....THE END....

Thor

11-27-02, 04:02 AM

Revised facts...

Fact 5) Whatsupyall is delusional. The most delusional person on this forum. He is so blinded with his "faith" that he is living a lie.

whatsupyall

11-27-02, 04:38 AM

Fact...Thor and atheists falsely accuse me of being wrong, YET CANNOT SHOW ME ONE THING THAT I SAID WHICH IS WRONG...a fact...So whos delusional? They are, and thats a FACT...

Nebula

11-27-02, 10:43 AM

whatsupyall

For example, a close family friend approached you and asked if she can borrow your car for 2 days and promised to return it back, however, she gave you her credit card incase if the car gets totally wrecked you can take all the money out of her bank and keep it to replace your car. But because you have “faith” in her, you just told her “its ok, you don’t need to give me a blank check, you’re my best friend and a good driver for many years now and I know you’ll return the car on time safely, I trust you”. That’s faith

You're right, that's faith.

However, the faith you desribe religion as having is not the same type of faith. In your example, you have faith on the friend because she is your best friend, she has proven herself to be a good driver and you know [think] she'll return your car safely. That is, you have valid reasons to believe what you believe, based on past experience and observation.

Religious faith is nothing like that; there is nothing to base religious faith on but pure speculation.

BTW, I'm not bashing/supporting religion, I'm just saying that your analogy is way off. :)

Jan Ardena

11-27-02, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Thor
Revised facts...

Fact 5) Whatsupyall is delusional. The most delusional person on this forum. He is so blinded with his "faith" that he is living a lie.

Why do say he is delusional, and living a lie?
What has he said, that makes you so sure?

Just curious!!!!!;)

Love

Jan Ardena.

ThatJerk

11-27-02, 09:47 PM

whatsupyall:

I don't know why I even bother, but I suppose it's my duty to point out your folly for those who may otherwise be sucked in. Here goes...

YOUR RIGHT! Thats why Im a christian, and not an atheist, because the fact remains, God is evident, and "SUPER DUPER LUCK". Isnt.

How is God evident? So far the only 'evidence' I see is unfounded claims and lots of hot air. Also, I'd appreciate an explanation as to the nature of this "SUPER DUPER LUCK" that you seem so fond of attributing to myself and other atheists. None of us speak of any such thing, and any attempt to attribute such a statement to any of us is, at best, a strawman attack born out of astounding ignorance.

Is there a "chance" that earthquake, lightning, and wind can create a FUNCTIONING JET POWERED AIRPLANE in 2 seconds? No, there isnt to me...If you claim there is a possiblity, THEN YOU NEED TO PRESENT PROOF OF ITS POSSIBILITY.

No, there isn't a chance in hell that that could happen, and Hoyle was an idiot for suggesting that as an analogy for abiogenesis. It's provided fodder for countless numbers of creationist probability arguements, and a never-ending headache for intelligent people everywhere who are forced to discredit it again and again and again. I'm not in the mood to lecture you on the difference between combined probability and deterministic probability, so go here (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Probability/index.shtml) for some education in high-school math.

But because this has not been demonstrated, therefore IT IS ILLOGIC TO BELIEVE THIS. Then others stressed that there is a chance such thing can happen, the atheist...THATS WHY IM A CHRISTIAN...........

You're right, it WOULD be illogical to believe something as retarded as the jet airplane analogy. Which is why I nor any other educated atheist use it as an example.

FACT...1.) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG THEORY, BUT IS JUST ANOTHER SPECULATION, A GOOD ONE IF U MAY SAY IT...THEREFORE THIS REQUIRES FAITH...

The Big Bang theory is based on observation of stellar movement on a galactic scale. Essentially, astronomers observe everything in the universe hurtling away from a central point, like fragments from a big fucking cosmic hand grenade. Using the Hubble Telescope, we can observe events that occured very shortly after the universe was created.
It's as solid as any other established theory; it's prediction of the presence of universal background radiation was confirmed long after the fact.
Granted, it probably never can be confirmed the way gravity or evolution can, but it fits the observable facts so perfectly that it's very unlikely to be disproven any time soon.
Only faith involved here is the faith I place in the observational powers and unbiased reasoning of history's greatest minds.

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

Go here for further education, if you're interested.

FACT....2.) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF QUANTUM PHYSICS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIFE FORMS, BUT IS JUST A SPECULATI0N, A GOOD DECEPTION IF U MAY SAY IT...THEREFORE THIS REQUIRES FAITH...

Did I say quantum physics is responsible for life forms? Would you be so kind as to point out where I said such a thing?
In case you're doubting the reality of quantum physics in and of itself, go here (http://xxx.lanl.gov/archive/quant-ph). It's been observed for quite some time, and we're beginning to make significant discoveries about it's nature that seem to only create more questions than are answered. Which isn't to say that we don't understand a fair chunk of it already; rather, doors that we never imagined existed are being discovered and opened by answering a few of the simpler questions that have been around since the 40s.

FACT....3.) NOT ONE SCIENTIST CAN CREATE ANY LIFE FORMS, THE MOST THEY CAN DO IS GATHER AMONIA, METHANE, AND HYDROGEN THEN USE LIGHTNING TO FORM AMINO ACIDS, THOUGH LIFE FORMS MY CONTAIN AMINO ACIDS, IT DOESNT MEAN AMINO ACIDS IS GOING TO MAGICLY BECOME HEART, LIVER, BRAIN, ETC. AND "ACCIDENTALLY" BECOME A FULL LIVING CREATURE...THE ODD OF THIS HAPPENING IS VERY UNLIKELY....IT IS MORE POSSIBLE FOR A FUNCTIONING JET POWERED AIRPLANE TO FORM BY EARTHQUAKE LIGHTNING, AND WIND IN 2 SECONDS, THAN FOR A LIVING CREATURE BY AMINO ACIDS...THATS A FACT...THE HUMAN BODY AND EVEN A SINGLE CELL IS FAR FAR MORE COMNPLEX THAN A JET POWERED AIRPLANE....

I'm not going to bother with this one. Go here (http://www.talkorigins.org), though I'm starting to get the sneaking suspicion that little things like mere evidence and trifling confirmed observations are of little concern to you.

FACT...4.) ATHEISM IS PURE DELUSION....THE END....

Spoken like a true Christian. I salute your abilities to maintain such selective ignorance in this day and age.