Bill O'Reilly gives his "premium" members an insightful treat!

[DMX7]

LOLZ, what a Bozo!

UyHzhtARf8M

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lmao


Science? How did it get here?

:lmao

[greyforest]

Biology is pretty fascinating and genetic sequencing all but confirms evolution. Its a shame that hardly anyone understands it or cares to even try.

We do all this work and how do the idiots use it? IS HE THE FATHER on Maury.

[DarrinS]

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

[Cry Havoc]

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."

[RandomGuy]

[quote from Einstein]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

It seems ol' Albert held a rather dim view of organized religion in general.

I liked this bit at the end:



His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy stereotyping on the subject.

"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him," said Brooke. "It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion."

Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."

[Oh, Gee!!]

"how come we have a moon and mars doesn't?"

mars has two moons, bill.

[greyforest]

fucking moons, how do they work?

[RandomGuy]

:lmao


Science? How did it get here?

:lmao

Fucking magnets, how do they work?

_P40uaZhIjk

(Water, fire, air and dirt
Fucking magnets, how do they work?
And I don’t wanna talk to a scientist
Y’all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed.

- Insane Clown Posse, Miracles (2009)


Heh. Know your meme.

[RandomGuy]

fucking moons, how do they work?

You beat me to it, 'cuz I was watching the youtube video.

Dammit. :depressed

[RandomGuy]

"how come we have a moon and mars doesn't?"

mars has two moons, bill.

Bill isn't one to let facts get in the way of diatribes.

http://cdn3.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/046/401/original/mag271129017390.jpg?1271129149

[DarrinS]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

It seems ol' Albert held a rather dim view of organized religion in general.

I liked this bit at the end:



I don't like organized religion either.

[DarrinS]

LOL @ all of you missing his point entirely.

[RandomGuy]

LOL @ all of you missing his point entirely.

What exactly was his point then? Do enlighten us.

Be specific, so we can bask in the brilliance too.

[DarrinS]

What exactly was his point then? Do enlighten us.

Be specific, so we can bask in the brilliance too.


You either think our universe is completely random or there is some order, some design to it.

[TeyshaBlue]

If that's the false dichotomy O'R is gonna posit, then yeah, it's pretty laughable.

[RandomGuy]

You either think our universe is completely random or there is some order, some design to it.

My opinion should be pretty clear on that particular point. -RG








HA!

[Cane]

Both Einstein and O'Reilly are just pulling your chain:

PvISV0wGusU

RIP Martians and thank you all :cry:cry:cry

[DarrinS]

If that's the false dichotomy O'R is gonna posit, then yeah, it's pretty laughable.


Einstein didn't think it was laughable.

[TeyshaBlue]

Einstein didn't think it was laughable.

I think you misunderstood Einstein.

"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."

I think he believes there is underlying structure but we are unable to comprehend it....yet....ergo it either appears totally designed or totally random.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You either think our universe is completely random or there is some order, some design to it.

It's obvious which side O'Reilly falls under. What perplexes me is his condemnation of the question... Of course the righties are all about facts and stuff ..I guess Bill didn't get the memo..

[cornbread]

He gave them a YouTube video? That's weak. He should handout some of those totally badass "No Spin Zone" bomber jackets. You wear one of those and people know you mean business.

[Mr. Peabody]

He raises an interesting issue, why do we have a Sun when Mars and Venus don't?

[jack sommerset]

And how did that moon get there?

[clambake]

He raises an interesting issue, why do we have a Sun when Mars and Venus don't?

:lol

[Oh, Gee!!]

if mars is so great, why don't it have no 'mericans living on it? huh? answer me that, pinhead.

[DMX7]

And how did that moon get there?

:lmao

At this point, it's just a fact that Tea Baggers are idiots.

Lean basic science.

[Oh, Gee!!]

He raises an interesting issue, why do we have a Sun when Mars and Venus don't?

they need to get their own suns and stop stealing our precious sunlight.

[baseline bum]

Einstein didn't think it was laughable.

Einstein was also dead wrong and wasted the rest of his career after the early 20s because he couldn't accept the uncertainty principle or much else of quantum mechanics. The fact that Aristotle was a genius of enormous proportion doesn't make his views of mechanics correct either.

[baseline bum]

And Einstein's faith wasn't in any kind of creator or design: it was in the simplicity of the laws of physics. For example, Galileo's theory of relativity showed that mechanical phenomena was invariant under unaccelerated motion. Einstein believed that simple law should cover electromagnetic phenomena also; e.g., you shouldn't be able to know if the train you're riding on is moving at constant speed or stopped by being able to find two different relative speeds of light in it.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

:lol @ blocking comments on the youtube video

[baseline bum]

:lol @ blocking comments on the youtube video

Youtube comments are the worst-reading on the internet, so no big deal there.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

It seems ol' Albert held a rather dim view of organized religion in general.

I liked this bit at the end:
His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy stereotyping on the subject.

"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him," said Brooke. "It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion."

Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
You have to remember, Einstein was Jewish. Perhaps he read the original language and could understand the Torah as it was meant to be, rather than man's interpretation to suit King James. What I have studied of the Torah, and later works would have me pegged as an atheist as well.

The English version of the Bible is for false prophets to control the masses.

[Wild Cobra]

You either think our universe is completely random or there is some order, some design to it.
They'd rather pick apart the messenger than understand his intent.

[DMX7]

You either think our universe is completely random or there is some order, some design to it.

There is a degree of order to the known universe.

That doesn't mean there is a "design" to it, at least not in the context you're implying.

[Yonivore]

There is a degree of order to the known universe.
From where does the order come?


That doesn't mean there is a "design" to it, at least not in the context you're implying.
What does it mean?

[Mr. Peabody]

From where does the order come?


What does it mean?

Why does the "order" you refer to (whatever it is we are saying it is) have to come from anything?

And as far as "What does it mean?", it is not necessary that it means anything. It seems to me that if you are presuming that your perception of "order" necessarily has some external or objective meaning, you are also presuming a creator who intended it to have a meaning.

[Yonivore]

Why does the "order" you refer to (whatever it is we are saying it is) have to come from anything?
Everything has a genesis.


And as far as "What does it mean?", it is not necessary that it means anything. It seems to me that if you are presuming that your perception of "order" necessarily has some external or objective meaning, you are also presuming a creator who intended it to have a meaning.
Why don't you just it doesn't mean anything then? You don't know what I presume.

[Mr. Peabody]

they need to get their own suns and stop stealing our precious sunlight.

I'd suggest that we all share the sunlight, but that would inevitably lead to socialism.

[Mr. Peabody]

Everything has a genesis.

Really? I'm not sure that's necessarily true and regardless, it misses the point of my question.


Why don't you just it doesn't mean anything then? You don't know what I presume.

I don't know what you presume. However, if you are asking what the meaning of the universe is, you are presuming something exists that intended it to have a meaning. I don't know. I could be wrong. That's just the way I see it.

[Yonivore]

Really? I'm not sure that's necessarily true...
I think it is necessarily true.


...and regardless, it misses the point of my question.
Then, your question misses the point of my post.


I don't know what you presume. However, if you are asking what the meaning of the universe is, you are presuming something exists that intended it to have a meaning. I don't know. I could be wrong. That's just the way I see it.
I'm saying, if the laws of physics are accurate and the state of matter is inextricably headed in one direction, it must have began at some point; even if that point was at the end of another such progression.

I'm not saying anything about what it means. I'm saying it is illogical, given what we understand about physics, to hold the view there is no beginning to existence.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Everything has a genesis.


Why don't you just it doesn't mean anything then? You don't know what I presume.

The biggest fucking Irony alert ever on Spurstalk.. Yoni you are the king of assigning motives and assuming what people's intent is 24/7..but you have the balls to make this comment?

you might be the biggest hypocrite I have EVER come across

[Yonivore]

The biggest fucking Irony alert ever on Spurstalk.. Yoni you are the king of assigning motives and assuming what people's intent is 24/7..but you have the balls to make this comment?

you might be the biggest hypocrite I have EVER come across
You don't know many people.

[jack sommerset]

The biggest fucking Irony alert ever on Spurstalk.. Yoni you are the king of assigning motives and assuming what people's intent is 24/7..but you have the balls to make this comment?

you might be the biggest hypocrite I have EVER come across

Noway, Cry Havoc holds that honor and noone will take it from him. NOONE

[George Gervin's Afro]

You don't know many people.

:lmao


I'll wait for one those stories where you apply " well obama has seen the polls so this is why he is doing ..."

those are my favorite..then I'll remind you that you are doing th same thing you don't like being done to you..

[Yonivore]

:lmao


I'll wait for one those stories where you apply " well obama has seen the polls so this is why he is doing ..."

those are my favorite..then I'll remind you that you are doing th same thing you don't like being done to you..
So, back to the topic... genesis.

[baseline bum]

So, back to the topic... genesis.

Shitty 80s band... next.

[Cry Havoc]

Noway, Cry Havoc holds that honor and noone will take it from him. NOONE

:lmao Dude, your obsession of me is just unhealthy at this point. Could you be any more butthurt?

Btw, probably around 99.9999% of people are hypocrites. So calling me that when I already know the fact isn't exactly piercing me through the heart. But do carry on like the badass you perceive yourself to be. :lol

[jack sommerset]

:lmao Dude, your obsession of me is just unhealthy at this point. Could you be any more butthurt?

Btw, probably around 99.9999% of people are hypocrites. So calling me that when I already know the fact isn't exactly piercing me through the heart. But do carry on like the badass you perceive yourself to be. :lol

LOL@obsessed with you, I'm butthurt and I think I am a badass. I have like 2 conversations with you a year, if that. Idiot.

It's a fact, you are a huge hypocrite. Own it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

LOL@obsessed with you, I'm butthurt and I think I am a badass. I have like 2 conversations with you a year, if that. Idiot.

It's a fact, you are a huge hypocrite. Own it.

funny that you are calling someone a hypocrite

[jack sommerset]

funny that you are calling someone a hypocrite

Tell us why the little guy is your head is making you giggle so much this time.

[George Gervin's Afro]

funny that you are calling someone a hypocrite

[jack sommerset]

I don't know, I'm retarded

[jack sommerset]

I don't see the point of this thread. O'Reilly is just saying there is something out there bigger than all of us, that there must be a God.

[Yonivore]

I don't see the point of this thread. O'Reilly is just saying there is something out there bigger than all of us, that there must be a God.
And, that must be mocked.

[MiamiHeat]

All honest wise, intellectuals reject religion. This is because religion is a falsehood and controls man's mind. We should all hold Truth as an irrefutable ideal, and therefore, to control fellow man with childish lies is reprehensible.

However. Myself, on the one hand, I wish to see all religion eradicated from earth. It is a mental disease and inhibits edification.

On the other hand, we cannot have a world WITHOUT something to replace religion. You can't depend on parents to educate their children correctly. Some will do a good job, others won't. This is where religion helps humanity. It teaches people to be compassionate towards each other, even though people do it out of fear of going to hell, or fear of getting a lump of coal for christmas. They don't really understand the logic and principles of higher ideals and philosophy, for that only comes with years of education, personal growth, understanding, and wisdom.

So as long as you get the people to treat each other well, then I guess religion serves it's purpose. It's a lot easier than waiting on people to become wise and educated, and it's a lot easier than gambling that millions of parents will teach and raise their children correctly.

[clambake]

bush talks to god. ask him.

[BlairForceDejuan]

lmao

"How'd it get there? HuuuuuuuuuuH? Can you explain THAT??? No?"

"I can. The Bible states..."

:rollin

[MiamiHeat]

also, nobody here has posted Einstein's personal letters about religion. This is what he REALLY thinks, as these letters were never meant to be public. Einstein would not want to offend people, so he kept it rather private.

--------------------

Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.

In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

[DarrinS]

also, nobody here has posted Einstein's personal letters about religion. This is what he REALLY thinks, as these letters were never meant to be public. Einstein would not want to offend people, so he kept it rather private.

--------------------

Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.

In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion



from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html





"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

[Yonivore]

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
So, Einstein agrees with me. Nice.

[DarrinS]

"There are people who say there is no God," he told a friend. "But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

[clambake]

So, Einstein agrees with me. Nice.

yep, thats what he said to the masses. he knew how fragile you are.

[Yonivore]

MiamiHeat was just pwnd by a dead person. Awesome.

[MiamiHeat]

What? Yornivore you're a fool.

I posted 2 things

- a post about religion

- a post about Einstein's views on God and religion

Neither was making a case for atheism. Just made it clear that I don't believe in religion and neither did Einstein.

[MiamiHeat]

.


"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses,

[MiamiHeat]

and by the way, Einstein is overrated.

He did not discover E=mc2, other scientists did before him. It was even in a scientific paper. The only thing Einstein did was grab pieces from different places and put it together to explain how some things worked. Not very genius like, imo. He didn't create the work, and he never did anything else ever again after because he was incapable of it.

So quoting this old dude in an effort to legitimize your own point of view is a logical fallacy and a waste of time.

[Yonivore]

and by the way, Einstein is overrated.

He did not discover E=mc2, other scientists did before him. It was even in a scientific paper. The only thing Einstein did was grab pieces from different places and put it together to explain how some things worked. Not very genius like, imo. He didn't create the work, and he never did anything else ever again after because he was incapable of it.

So quoting this old dude in an effort to legitimize your own point of view is a logical fallacy and a waste of time.
And, yet, that's precisely what you did. It's not enough you were pwnd by a dead genius, you've graduated to pwning yourself.

Not bad.

[MiamiHeat]

And, yet, that's precisely what you did. It's not enough you were pwnd by a dead genius, you've graduated to pwning yourself.

Not bad.

Only to add more facts to the discussion. I didn't bring it up.

You're a fool or a lowly troll. Give it up or you won't be taken seriously.

[DarrinS]

and by the way, Einstein is overrated.

He did not discover E=mc2, other scientists did before him. It was even in a scientific paper. The only thing Einstein did was grab pieces from different places and put it together to explain how some things worked. Not very genius like, imo. He didn't create the work, and he never did anything else ever again after because he was incapable of it.

So quoting this old dude in an effort to legitimize your own point of view is a logical fallacy and a waste of time.


You mad?

[MiamiHeat]

mad about what?

You love to use Einstein, but it is already documented that he did not believe in a personal God or in a religion. He thought religion was childish.

Shouldn't that make you mad? You guys are too childish for my taste..... DarrinS and Yonivore don't have enough self-respect or intellectual honesty to participate in a civil discussion like this.

Waste of time

[Yonivore]

Only to add more facts to the discussion. I didn't bring it up.
So, the "facts" you posted don't represent your view of Einstein's position?


You're a fool or a lowly troll. Give it up or you won't be taken seriously.
Your advice will be given the consideration it deserves.

[DarrinS]

mad about what?

You love to use Einstein, but it is already documented that he did not believe in a personal God or in a religion. He thought religion was childish.

Shouldn't that make you mad? You guys are too childish for my taste..... DarrinS and Yonivore don't have enough self-respect or intellectual honesty to participate in a civil discussion like this.

Waste of time



I don't believe in a personal God or organized religion either. That doesn't mean I don't believe in God.

Seems to me that Einstein believed in intelligent design.

[MiamiHeat]

So, the "facts" you posted don't represent your view of Einstein's position?


I'm an atheist. Einstein was not.

You guys are using Einstein quotes and didn't post a very relevant one.

and now, after trolling me very hard, and making me defend myself, you continue to insult me. You're a spineless poster. You should be ashamed of yourself, really.

be gone, pest.

[MiamiHeat]

I don't believe in a personal God or organized religion either. That doesn't mean I don't believe in God.

Seems to me that Einstein believed in intelligent design.

Sounds like he believes that a creator was out there somewhere, but had no association with human religions.

Still doesn't legitimize ID, since it has no basis in fact or evidence. It's just a belief. That doesn't classify.... or else anyone, from mental patients to PhDs could throw their 2 cents. The mental patients belief would be just as valid as the PhD's.

So using quotes as a way to validate your belief in ID, is merely a logical fallacy.... trying to gather "popular opinion".... be honest with yourself on that. You are wasting everyone's time by doing that.

Until anyone can submit ID to a legitimate scientific review of evidence and facts, it's just a personal faith so just keep it to yourself.

[DarrinS]

Damn, sounds like Isaac Newton (THE most influential scientist in history) was on the same page as Bill O'Reilly





Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.

[MiamiHeat]

Still doesn't legitimize ID, since it has no basis in fact or evidence. It's just a belief. That doesn't classify.... or else anyone, from mental patients to PhDs could throw their 2 cents. The mental patients belief would be just as valid as the PhD's.

So using quotes as a way to validate your belief in ID, is merely a logical fallacy.... trying to gather "popular opinion".... be honest with yourself on that. You are wasting everyone's time by doing that.

Until anyone can submit ID to a legitimate scientific review of evidence and facts, it's just a personal faith so just keep it to yourself.

[Yonivore]

I'm an atheist. Einstein was not.

You guys are using Einstein quotes and didn't post a very relevant one.

and now, after trolling me very hard, and making me defend myself, you continue to insult me. You're a spineless poster. You should be ashamed of yourself, really.

be gone, pest.
:lmao Fuck you.

So, back to the original question. What created?

[MiamiHeat]

I have no idea why the universe exists. Human science hasn't reached that far yet.

The fact that we do not know will just have to remain as any other annoying circumstance that we have to deal with in our lives.

Trying to profess Intelligent Design when you have absolutely no evidence or fact, is illogical. You don't know. I don't know. That will have to be good enough until we find out.

[DarrinS]

Trying to profess Intelligent Design when you have absolutely no evidence or fact, is illogical. You don't know. I don't know. That will have to be good enough until we find out.


Evidence is all around you, if you're looking for it.

[Yonivore]

I have no idea why the universe exists. Human science hasn't reached that far yet.
I never asked the question why but, how.


The fact that we do not know will just have to remain as any other annoying circumstance that we have to deal with in our lives.
Or, we can seek to discover...


Trying to profess Intelligent Design when you have absolutely no evidence or fact, is illogical. You don't know. I don't know. That will have to be good enough until we find out.
Yeah, let's just quit wondering and seeking an answer. That's what we should do. Let fate have her way because, there's no way we'll ever answer the unanswerable.

[SnakeBoy]

it's just a personal faith so just keep it to yourself.

Odd statement from someone who keeps proclaiming their faith.

[MiamiHeat]

Evidence is all around you, if you're looking for it.

Are you talking about the workings of evolution, ex. human body?

Quantum mechanics and how all things work?

Because if you are, they have other explanations.

This is cause ----> effect.

NOT effect -----> cause.

You were vague, but I will assume you will repeat what I have heard before. "Look at the earth, it's a perfect distance from the sun, not too far, not too close. Abundant water that we need, great atmosphere to protect us! It's so perfectly suited for us, that is must have been made for us to live in"

This is an easily spotted flaw in thinking...

We need certain temperature range on Earth to survive BECAUSE evolution adapted to this climate. We need water because water on earth is abundant when life was evolving. etc....

If life evolved on Mars, or Pluto, or somewhere else, those people would be saying "Oh man, this Pluto is perfect for us! It's so cold, with barely any sunlight reaching us! It's great!"


Cause comes first, then effect.

[MiamiHeat]

Odd statement from someone who keeps proclaiming their faith.

what faith?

I don't believe in anything that can't be proven. Seems like the most logical stance, imo.

[MiamiHeat]

Or, we can seek to discover...

We can do both. Accepting the fact that we don't know and still trying to advance human science is the most logical thing to do.

but proclaiming ID as the answer is not "seeking to discover" because it has no basis in fact. You haven't sought anything. You just couldn't explain why everything is, so you plastered religion's "God" on it and claim that you don't know what "God" is but he's out there. It might as well be a religion. That's not seeking to discover anything because there is no evidence to discover.

[Yonivore]

We can do both. Accepting the fact that we don't know and still trying to advance human science is the most logical thing to do.
That's an agnostic view, not an athiest view.


but proclaiming ID as the answer is not "seeking to discover" because it has no basis in fact. You haven't sought anything. You just couldn't explain why everything is, so you plastered religion's "God" on it and claim that you don't know what "God" is but he's out there. It might as well be a religion. That's not seeking to discover anything because there is no evidence to discover.
But, recognizing there is an order that speaks to the possibility of intelligent design is seeking to discover.

From where did the laws of physics originate? I think that's a legitimate question.

[SnakeBoy]

what faith?


The one you keep proclaiming.


I don't believe in anything that can't be proven.

You don't believe in dark matter or dark energy?

[Yonivore]

what faith?
Atheism is a faith; it's the belief there is no God -- something you can't prove.

[MiamiHeat]

That's an agnostic view, not an athiest view.

No, because I said we don't know why the universe exists as we see it. That is to say, we don't know what the scientific explanation is yet.

I didn't say we don't know if a "designer" made it or not, because we know that there is no evidence of God's, or designers, or whatever you want to call it. Might as well be religion.

If you can prove that we DO have scientific evidence of a God, let the human population know, because we don't have any.






From where did the laws of physics originate? I think that's a legitimate question.

Human science does not know yet. I will just have to be content with not knowing until we know. To profess anything else is illogical because they don't know either. Faith does not count as "know".

[DarrinS]

Are you talking about the workings of evolution, ex. human body?

Quantum mechanics and how all things work?

Because if you are, they have other explanations.

This is cause ----> effect.

NOT effect -----> cause.

You were vague, but I will assume you will repeat what I have heard before. "Look at the earth, it's a perfect distance from the sun, not too far, not too close. Abundant water that we need, great atmosphere to protect us! It's so perfectly suited for us, that is must have been made for us to live in"

This is an easily spotted flaw in thinking...

We need certain temperature range on Earth to survive BECAUSE evolution adapted to this climate. We need water because water on earth is abundant when life was evolving. etc....

If life evolved on Mars, or Pluto, or somewhere else, those people would be saying "Oh man, this Pluto is perfect for us! It's so cold, with barely any sunlight reaching us! It's great!"


Cause comes first, then effect.



What is the "natural" in "natural selection"?

From your last sentense: What "causes" the cause?

[Proxy]

For posterity:
1) Our current understanding is the moon was created when a large object collided with the earth a long time ago. The sun was created from a swirling mass of matter that came from another star that exploded. The first amoeba came from an organism that was very similar to an amoeba. We're not sure how life first started on this planet, and we're not sure why matter simply exists in the first place.
But more importantly:
2) It seems like Bill O'Reilly is making use of the "God of the Gaps" argument for God. With this strategy you assume scientific understanding is static, and any unexplained phenomenon can only be explained by a higher being. But scientific understanding is constantly changing and improving. So far (since the beginning of the scientific method) we've been able to explain many events that were previously attributed to a higher being, and we will get better at explaining things as time goes on (and our understanding increases). Even when science has trouble explaining something, there's no reason to attribute that something to a higher power. It's perfectly ok to just say "we don't know what causes that phenomenon". That is the most accurate representation of our knowledge... we simply don't know.
I couldn't post this to his you-tube comments because commenting is disabled. =(

-quoted from chipbuddy

[Proxy]

Atheism is a faith; it's the belief there is no God -- something you can't prove.

You're just trolling now.

[Yonivore]

You're just trolling now.
No. Proclaiming yourself an atheist is an act of faith.

[MiamiHeat]

For posterity:
1) Our current understanding is the moon was created when a large object collided with the earth a long time ago. The sun was created from a swirling mass of matter that came from another star that exploded. The first amoeba came from an organism that was very similar to an amoeba. We're not sure how life first started on this planet, and we're not sure why matter simply exists in the first place.
But more importantly:
2) It seems like Bill O'Reilly is making use of the "God of the Gaps" argument for God. With this strategy you assume scientific understanding is static, and any unexplained phenomenon can only be explained by a higher being. But scientific understanding is constantly changing and improving. So far (since the beginning of the scientific method) we've been able to explain many events that were previously attributed to a higher being, and we will get better at explaining things as time goes on (and our understanding increases). Even when science has trouble explaining something, there's no reason to attribute that something to a higher power. It's perfectly ok to just say "we don't know what causes that phenomenon". That is the most accurate representation of our knowledge... we simply don't know.
I couldn't post this to his you-tube comments because commenting is disabled. =(

-quoted from chipbuddy

Good post, similar to the comments I have made in this thread.

[Proxy]

No. Proclaiming yourself an atheist is an act of faith.

No it isn't.

[Proxy]

http://yfrog.com/5lsy8z

this is a link... the Colbert Report on the issue.

[Yonivore]

No it isn't.
It's a belief there is no God. Frankly, I think it takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe there is a God.

[Proxy]

It's a belief there is no God.

It is rejection.... it is the opposite of belief.

[Yonivore]

It is rejection.... it is the opposite of belief.
Suit yourself.

[DarrinS]

For posterity:
1) Our current understanding is the moon was created when a large object collided with the earth a long time ago. The sun was created from a swirling mass of matter that came from another star that exploded. The first amoeba came from an organism that was very similar to an amoeba. We're not sure how life first started on this planet, and we're not sure why matter simply exists in the first place.
But more importantly:
2) It seems like Bill O'Reilly is making use of the "God of the Gaps" argument for God. With this strategy you assume scientific understanding is static, and any unexplained phenomenon can only be explained by a higher being. But scientific understanding is constantly changing and improving. So far (since the beginning of the scientific method) we've been able to explain many events that were previously attributed to a higher being, and we will get better at explaining things as time goes on (and our understanding increases). Even when science has trouble explaining something, there's no reason to attribute that something to a higher power. It's perfectly ok to just say "we don't know what causes that phenomenon". That is the most accurate representation of our knowledge... we simply don't know.
I couldn't post this to his you-tube comments because commenting is disabled. =(

-quoted from chipbuddy




You've can't see the forest for the trees.


If you and I stumbled upon an unihabited Earth and walked upon the pyramids at Giza. You could explain to me, using physics and engineering principles, why the structure is sound, stable, etc. I would completely agree with you, but I would also add that it appears that something intelligent designed it -- that it wasn't just a collection of stones that came together randomly in that form.

[DarrinS]

It is rejection.... it is the opposite of belief.


Of course it is belief. Isn't belief in God a rejection of atheism?

[ChumpDumper]

Everything has a genesis.What was the genesis of God, then?

[Proxy]

Of course it is belief. Isn't belief in God a rejection of atheism?

If someone plays baseball, and I don't..... then not playing baseball is a sport?

[Proxy]

You've can't see the forest for the trees.


If you and I stumbled upon an unihabited Earth and walked upon the pyramids at Giza. You could explain to me, using physics and engineering principles, why the structure is sound, stable, etc. I would completely agree with you, but I would also add that it appears that something intelligent designed it -- that it wasn't just a collection of stones that came together randomly in that form.

Watch this one minute video of Carl Sagan.... because this is what I would say in response to your 'statement.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeVhkXW6BKY

[DarrinS]

If someone plays baseball, and I don't..... then not playing baseball is a sport?


Is atheism a belief system?

[Proxy]

Is atheism a belief system?

Can you not answer my question? Am I playing a sport when I decide to not play baseball?

[Yonivore]

Can you not answer my question? Am I playing a sport when I decide to not play baseball?
No but you are participating in a sport when you stand outside the stadium screaming, "There is no umpire, He doesn't exist."

If as an atheist, you stayed out of the religious conversation, you'd have a point.

[DarrinS]

Can you not answer my question? Am I playing a sport when I decide to not play baseball?

If you chose not to play, did you make a choice?

[DarrinS]

Believing that something doesn't exist is a belief.

[Spurminator]

Atheism is a belief, but it's not really a belief SYSTEM... Beyond not believing in a deity, there aren't really any guidelines on being an athiest. It's not the same as religion at all.

It's like saying not exercising IS a workout routine.

[Proxy]

No but you are participating in a sport when you stand outside the stadium screaming, "There is no umpire, He doesn't exist."

If as an atheist, you stayed out of the religious conversation, you'd have a point.

Don't put the religion on me, in politics, on my money, in my pledge, or in my science.... don't push me into the stadium.

And your Umpire analogy is stupid. I can see an umpire. He shows himself in front of everyone. I would never say he didn't exist. Last I heard, God hasn't shown his face in quite a while.

[Proxy]

If you chose not to play, did you make a choice?

So a choice makes a belief system

[baseline bum]

and by the way, Einstein is overrated.

He did not discover E=mc2, other scientists did before him. It was even in a scientific paper. The only thing Einstein did was grab pieces from different places and put it together to explain how some things worked. Not very genius like, imo. He didn't create the work, and he never did anything else ever again after because he was incapable of it.

So quoting this old dude in an effort to legitimize your own point of view is a logical fallacy and a waste of time.

Einstein is in no way overrated. He gave birth to quantum mechanics with his Nobel-winning paper on the photoelectric effect. He definitely put the final touches on the proof of the existence of the atom with his paper on Brownian motion. His theory of special relativity gave physical significance to what was then just a mathematical hack (the Lorentz transformation). His theory of gravitation is still the best explanation we have for the motion of large bodies. He predicted a new and incredible state of matter at near absolute zero that would behave like one giant particle and thus show quantum effects at the macroscopic scale, and was vindicated in the prediction 70 years later when it was accomplished in the lab. To call Einstein overrated is tantamount to disregarding Newton because Leibniz knew of derivatives and limits, because Galileo put forth the first ideas on motion, because Archimedes was doing integration, etc. The list of people who have transformed human knowledge to the level Einstein has is pretty short: probably Euclid, Al-Khwarizmi, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Faraday, Feynman, Chomsky, and Watson & Crick.

[Yonivore]

Don't put the religion on me, in politics, on my money, in my pledge, or in my science.... don't push me into the stadium.
I'm not pushing you anywhere and, so far as I know, you can ignore references to God if you're so offended; your money will spend the same.


And your Umpire analogy is stupid. I can see an umpire. He shows himself in front of everyone. I would never say he didn't exist. Last I heard, God hasn't shown his face in quite a while.
You can't see him from outside the stadium (religion); the analogy works.

[baseline bum]

Atheism is a belief, but it's not really a belief SYSTEM... Beyond not believing in a deity, there aren't really any guidelines on being an athiest. It's not the same as religion at all.

It's like saying not exercising IS a workout routine.

Awesome analogy :tu :lol

[Yonivore]

It's like saying not exercising IS a workout routine.
It is. Your routine is not to work out. Either working out or not working out will lead to a fitness level commensurate with the effort.

[Proxy]

I'm not pushing you anywhere and, so far as I know, you can ignore references to God if you're so offended; your money will spend the same.


You can't see him from outside the stadium (religion); the analogy works.

You're really stretching for this analogy.... it doesn't matter though. Whether you want to call Atheism a religion, a belief system, or a definition... it doesn't change the outcome of anything.

In the end, there is no evidence of god's existence. We can continue this conversation, but in the end, you will point to faith as a scapegoat against my proof.

I'm not offended.... if anything I feel pity. It's sad that people can't accept that when they die, there's no afterlife. It's sad that people can't accept their insignificance in relation to the size of the universe. It's sad that people need a selfish ambition in getting to heaven to motivate them to do the right thing.

[Yonivore]

You're really stretching for this analogy.... it doesn't matter though. Whether you want to call Atheism a religion, a belief system, or a definition... it doesn't change the outcome of anything.

In the end, there is no evidence of god's existence. We can continue this conversation, but in the end, you will point to faith as a scapegoat against my proof.

I'm not offended.... if anything I feel pity. It's sad that people can't accept that when they die, there's no afterlife.
All the atheist lawsuits just reek of pity. Save your pity, you're ruining the world. Just don't believe and sit back and be satisfied with yourself. What's wrong with that? Of what has others' belief in God deprived you?


It's sad that people can't accept their insignificance in relation to the size of the universe.
I'm not disillusioned about my insignificance; I'm in awe.


It's sad that people need a selfish ambition in getting to heaven to motivate them to do the right thing.
You obviously don't understand Christianity if you believe they believe in salvation through good works.

[DarrinS]

I'm not offended.... if anything I feel pity. It's sad that people can't accept that when they die, there's no afterlife. It's sad that people can't accept their insignificance in relation to the size of the universe. It's sad that people need a selfish ambition in getting to heaven to motivate them to do the right thing.


Why feel pity? You're the one who thinks (believes) that your life is meaningless.

[jack sommerset]

I'm not offended.... if anything I feel pity. It's sad that people can't accept that when they die, there's no afterlife. It's sad that people can't accept their insignificance in relation to the size of the universe. It's sad that people need a selfish ambition in getting to heaven to motivate them to do the right thing.

You have no clue what happens to someone when they die.

[RandomGuy]

So, back to the topic... genesis.

mz7bqxeVgNw

[Proxy]

All the atheist lawsuits just reek of pity. Save your pity, you're ruining the world. Just don't believe and sit back and be satisfied with yourself. What's wrong with that? Of what has others' belief in God deprived you?


I'm not disillusioned about my insignificance; I'm in awe.


You obviously don't understand Christianity if you believe they believe in salvation through good works.

hahahaha..... Atheist ruin the world?! That's the biggest load of bs I've ever heard. How much blood is on the hands of western based religions? How much blood has been spilt in the name of atheism?

[Proxy]

Why feel pity? You're the one who thinks (believes) that your life is meaningless.

No. I'm the one that's grateful for this life I've been given. To be a healthy advanced breed of monkey that can think beyond instinct on a tiny habitable planet, orbiting a minor star on the edge of the milky way.... that is bliss, knowing the odds, and coming out that lucky... and being happy with my life.

Far from meaningless. Far from thinking that there's an all knowing wizard that created this everything, and does terrible things to test our faith.

[Proxy]

You have no clue what happens to someone when they die.

Remember the time before you were born?

[Yonivore]

hahahaha..... Atheist ruin the world?! That's the biggest load of bs I've ever heard. How much blood is on the hands of western based religions? How much blood has been spilt in the name of atheism?
It's because there are so few of you. You couldn't muster a gang, much less an army. That's why atheists rub two lawyers together to be noticed.

[jack sommerset]

Remember the time before you were born?

Dude, you don't know what happens when you die. It's okay to say that. Say it with me. "I don't know what happens when someone dies, I never died before so I don't know"

Now with that admission I think when you die you just die but Im have no clue.

[DMX7]

Carl Sagan just took Darrin to the wood shed. Enjoy your ass whooping. You may need a transplant by now.

[RandomGuy]

All the atheist lawsuits just reek of pity. Save your pity, you're ruining the world. Just don't believe and sit back and be satisfied with yourself. What's wrong with that? Of what has others' belief in God deprived you?


I'm not disillusioned about my insignificance; I'm in awe.


You obviously don't understand Christianity if you believe they believe in salvation through good works.

You say "Christianity" as if that denotes a single set of beliefs among sects, as to the requirements for entrance into heaven. Do they?

[DMX7]

If you do good work for the sake of personal salvation, then you're really just helping yourself. And other peoples' god delusions have hurt countless people. Bush went to war in Iraq, in part, because God told him in a dream.

[Yonivore]

You say "Christianity" as if that denotes a single set of beliefs among sects, as to the requirements for entrance into heaven. Do they?
I don't know. I only know what I believe; can't help you figure out everyone else's but, have fun with that.

[RandomGuy]

I don't know. I only know what I believe; can't help you figure out everyone else's but, have fun with that.

So when you say "Christianity" you really mean the version of Christianity that you ascribe to, not all those other silly branches, right?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/ChristianityBranches.svg/659px-ChristianityBranches.svg.png

Just for fun, search google under "what is christianity" and look at the first URL. :lol

(edit to add a list)

1 Catholicism

1.1 Catholic Church
1.1.1 The Latin Rite
1.1.2 Eastern Catholic Churches 1.2 Eastern Orthodox Church
1.3 Oriental Orthodox Church
1.4 Assyrian Church of the East
1.5 Other churches self-identified as Catholic
1.5.1 Independent
1.5.2 Orthodox
1.5.2.1 Byzantine
1.5.2.2 Oriental
1.5.2.3 Western-Rite
1.5.3 Assyrian
2 Protestantism

2.1 Pre-Lutheran Protestants
2.2 Lutheranism
2.3 Anglican Churches
2.3.1 Anglican Communion
2.3.2 Other Anglican groups
2.4 Reformed Churches
2.5 Presbyterianism
2.6 Congregationalist Churches
2.7 Anabaptists
2.8 Brethren
2.9 Methodists
2.10 Pietists and Holiness Churches
2.11 Baptists
2.11.1 Spiritual Baptists
2.12 Apostolic Churches – Irvingites
2.13 Pentecostalism
2.14 Charismatics
2.14.1 Neo-Charismatic Churches
2.15 African Initiated Churches
2.16 United and uniting churches
2.17 Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
2.18 Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement
2.19 Southcottites
2.20 Millerites and comparable groups
2.20.1 Sabbath-Keeping Churches, Adventist
2.20.2 Sabbath-Keeping Churches, Non-Adventist
2.20.3 Sunday Adventists
2.20.4 Sacred Name Groups
2.21 British-Israelism
2.22 Miscellaneous/Other
3 Latter Day Saints

3.1 "Prairie Saint" denominations
3.2 Rocky Mountains denominations
3.3 Other denominations
4 Nontrinitarian groups

4.1 Oneness Pentecostalism
4.2 Unitarianism and Universalism
4.3 Bible Student groups
4.4 Swedenborgianism
4.5 Other non-Trinitarians
5 Messianic Judaism
6 Jewish Christians
7 Esoteric Christianity
8 New Thought
9 Syncretistic religions incorporating elements of Christianity

---------------------------------------

So which group of Christianity has it right?

[jack sommerset]

If you do good work for the sake of personal salvation, then you're really just helping yourself. And other peoples' god delusions have hurt countless people. Bush went to war in Iraq, in part, because God told him in a dream.

"One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Any other source besides this one or you going to take Nabils word for it. Don't forget congress wanted this war too. Dems and Repugs. Don't forget Obama loves this war. Lets not forget the press doesn't cover the war nearly as much, not even a slimmer as much as it did when barry took over. The dems and media are showing just how much they could careless about war. It was a political maneuver that got a dem in office. We are not even close to pulling out of the wars. In fact we sent more troops to Afgan. Pretty fucking pathetic.

[Yonivore]

So which group of Christianity has it right?
Most probably, none of them.

[Proxy]

It's because there are so few of you. You couldn't muster a gang, much less an army. That's why atheists rub two lawyers together to be noticed.

You're losing your composure.

[Proxy]

"One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Any other source besides this one or you going to take Nabils word for it. Don't forget congress wanted this war too. Dems and Repugs. Don't forget Obama loves this war. Lets not forget the press doesn't cover the war nearly as much, not even a slimmer as much as it did when barry took over. The dems and media are showing just how much they could careless about war. It was a political maneuver that got a dem in office. We are not even close to pulling out of the wars. In fact we sent more troops to Afgan. Pretty fucking pathetic.

But it keeps this country on top of the world... the way God wanted it.

[DMX7]

"One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Any other source besides this one or you going to take Nabils word for it. Don't forget congress wanted this war too. Dems and Repugs. Don't forget Obama loves this war. Lets not forget the press doesn't cover the war nearly as much, not even a slimmer as much as it did when barry took over. The dems and media are showing just how much they could careless about war. It was a political maneuver that got a dem in office. We are not even close to pulling out of the wars. In fact we sent more troops to Afgan. Pretty fucking pathetic.

I will take their foreign ministers word for it because it is exactly consistent with what I'd expect Bush to say.

And congress wanted this war? The push for the Iraq war was ALL from the Bush administration. Congress approved it when dems were told we'd be nuked into the ground if they didn't.

[Yonivore]

You're losing your composure.
How so? I truly believe if there were enough atheists, they'd rank up there on the violence scale. You're in a minority whose only recourse is the courts...and blogs or forums.

[jack sommerset]

But it keeps this country on top of the world... the way God wanted it.

What is this suppose to mean?

Side note, I don't understand how the dems,media, code pink types can simply just ignore the war since the dems took office. I honestly get sick to my stomach to think they really didnt give two shits about the men and woman dying on both sides they cried and protested for. For the life of me I wish just one far left poster fuck on this site would throw up their hands and say "Goddamnit Jack Sommerset, I fucking agree with you about the war, I voted for Barry because I wanted out of the war and look we are still killing people, I am a demcorat and when 2012 rolls around I will do my best to find a replacement for Obongo"

[Proxy]

How so? I truly believe if there were enough atheists, they'd rank up there on the violence scale. You're in a minority whose only recourse is the courts...and blogs or forums.

Atheism coincides in a positive correlation with education.

.... you seem like a smart guy, or at least you sound like you know what you're talking about.... you never say more than you need to unless someone asks it.

So please humor me... convince me to turn a new leaf. I've sat here and made my points for atheism, but you haven't kept up your side of the debate for God.

[DMX7]

What is this suppose to mean?

Side note, I don't understand how the dems,media, code pink types can simply just ignore the war since the dems took office. I honestly get sick to my stomach to think they really didnt give two shits about the men and woman dying on both sides they cried and protested for. For the life of me I wish just one far left poster fuck on this site would throw up their hands and say "Goddamnit Jack Sommerset, I fucking agree with you about the war, I voted for Barry because I wanted out of the war and look we are still killing people, I am a demcorat and when 2012 rolls around I will do my best to find a replacement for Obongo"

I'm sure you vote for McCain's 1,000 year war because you hate war so much! :lol

[Yonivore]

Atheism coincides in a positive correlation with elitism.
There, fixed that.


.... you seem like a smart guy, or at least you sound like you know what you're talking about.... you never say more than you need to unless someone asks it.

So please humor me... convince me to turn a new leaf. I've sat here and made my points for atheism, but you haven't kept up your side of the debate for God.
I'm not here to convince you of anything except that atheism isn't interested in simply being an ideology that doesn't believe in God, atheists are more about convincing everyone, not an atheist, that there is no God.

If there is no God, why the necessity to convince everyone?

[Proxy]

What is this suppose to mean?

Side note, I don't understand how the dems,media, code pink types can simply just ignore the war since the dems took office. I honestly get sick to my stomach to think they really didnt give two shits about the men and woman dying on both sides they cried and protested for. For the life of me I wish just one far left poster fuck on this site would throw up their hands and say "Goddamnit Jack Sommerset, I fucking agree with you about the war, I voted for Barry because I wanted out of the war and look we are still killing people, I am a demcorat and when 2012 rolls around I will do my best to find a replacement for Obongo"

I wouldn't say that making me atheist makes me left wing. It does however put me on the left side of most stances.

You know, I'll admit that I bought into Obama's charisma. So far he has been a disappointment... though, the more I look into this american political system, the more I realize that it will never change. Right.... left.... both parties are far to the right of nearly every other country's rightest.

This is the way the usa will be until we are overthrown/collapse/<insert inevitable history reoccurrence >.

[Proxy]

There, fixed that.


I'm not here to convince you of anything except that atheism isn't interested in simply being an ideology that doesn't believe in God, atheists are more about convincing everyone, not an atheist, that there is no God.

If there is no God, why the necessity to convince everyone?

Because it holds the world back.

[Yonivore]

Because it holds the world back.
Where would we be if God hadn't "held us back?"

[jack sommerset]

People can say religion caused most of the planets wars which is true but if most people didn't believe in god, heaven and hell in one form or another there would be alot more violence in the world. Keeps most people honest, imo.

[DarrinS]

Carl Sagan just took Darrin to the wood shed. Enjoy your ass whooping. You may need a transplant by now.

Carl Sagan -- the same guy who said the Kuwaiti oil fires would cause a nuclear winter? Yeah, he really took me to the wood shed.

:lmao

[Proxy]

Carl Sagan -- the same guy who said the Kuwaiti oil fires would cause a nuclear winter? Yeah, he really took me to the wood shed.

:lmao

You are very pompous and have a low IQ. Why don't you address the matter at hand instead of trying to distract. Very Repub of you to do this.

[Proxy]

Where would we be if God hadn't "held us back?"

We would be a much more advanced race if science was fully accepted.

Aside from the wars, racism, and sexism.... corrupted churches and murders... discrimination against homosexuals.... we wouldn't have to deal with uneducated creationist bullshit.

Our space exploration would be further along... our stem cell research would be further along... sexual education for teens would actually be efficient....

hey, you know what. I named all of the consequences of religion.... and you could use the same paragraph to describe a conservative. Go figure!

[Proxy]

People can say religion caused most of the planets wars which is true but if most people didn't believe in god, heaven and hell in one form or another there would be alot more violence in the world. Keeps most people honest, imo.

I dunno about that.... I don't think you realize how many corrupted religious fanatics there are and have been in the past.

[jack sommerset]

I dunno about that.... I don't think you realize how many corrupted religious fanatics there are and have been in the past.

I don't know about that either. Religious folks are pretty fucked up with their wars and all. I changed my mind.

[MiamiHeat]

discrimination against homosexuals....

That's not a problem exclusive to religion. I am atheist and I don't accept homosexuality. I just don't believe that we should blur the gender roles. It is not beneficial, or you could even go deeper and say it's harmful to our culture, our physical health (proven fact), and our species. I could accept people who were bi-sexual, because they should have the right to do perverse things I guess, but creating family units should only be between man and woman.

I'm not the only atheist who believes that so it's not just a religious issue.

[jack sommerset]

That's not a problem exclusive to religion. I am atheist and I don't accept homosexuality. I just don't believe that we should blur the gender roles. It is not beneficial, or you could even go as far as and it's harmful to our culture and our species. I could accept people who were bi-sexual, because they should have the right to do perverse things I guess, but creating family units should only be between man and woman.

I'm not the only atheist who believes that so it's not just a religious issue.

Amen.

[Proxy]

Marriage is a christian definition. In this aspect, it is connected....

but truth be told, the education of homosexuality has been dumbed down by dogma.

Do you realize that homosexuality is entirely genetics? Someone born with the makeup of their opposite gender telling them that the same gender is attractive.... is not a choice... you are born with that. There's a reason animals behave in similar patterns.

and harmful to our species? Don't give me that weak shit. Homosexuals are such a tiny minority in this world, and reproduction has never been an issue.

and to tell you guys the truth, it really is none of your business.

[jack sommerset]

Marriage is a christian definition. In this aspect, it is connected....

but truth be told, the education of homosexuality has been dumbed down by dogma.

Do you realize that homosexuality is entirely genetics? Someone born with the makeup of their opposite gender telling them that the same gender is attractive.... is not a choice... you are born with that. There's a reason animals behave in similar patterns.

and harmful to our species? Don't give me that weak shit. Homosexuals are such a tiny minority in this world, and reproduction has never been an issue.

and to tell you guys the truth, it really is none of your business.

That explains why George fucks animals. He is born with it.

[Proxy]

That explains why George fucks animals. He is born with it.

This is also an explanation why your homophobia is just as misguided as racism.

[jack sommerset]

This is also an explanation why your homophobia is just as misguided as racism.

I think it's bigotry not racism. So I can't help myself because I was born this way.

[MiamiHeat]

Marriage is a christian definition. In this aspect, it is connected....

Marriage pre-dates recorded history. You actually believed marriage is defined by Christianity? Are you serious?




Do you realize that homosexuality is entirely genetics? Someone born with the makeup of their opposite gender telling them that the same gender is attractive.... is not a choice... you are born with that. There's a reason animals behave in similar patterns.

There is no scientific evidence or proof of genetic homosexuality. None.

Secondly, even if I humored you, then we could call it a disease, a malfunction, the same as many other genetic defects. For it is plainly obvious to our reproductive organs that man and woman should be in union, and not man-man, or woman-woman.

Still, I'd like to see any proof you have, because I have studied it and there isn't any.




and harmful to our species? Don't give me that weak shit. Homosexuals are such a tiny minority in this world, and reproduction has never been an issue.

Homosexuality is harmful to your health. It is discouraged by modern medicine. There is a long list of health problems associated with homosexuality, mainly in men.

Yes it is harmful to the species, because it blurs gender roles, culture, etc... I am not talking about population replacement.



and to tell you guys the truth, it really is none of your business.

I am not advocating a homosexual witch hunt. What people do in closed doors, we have nothing to do with. I merely don't support the notion of a government legitimizing such a perverse practice, or a culture accepting it.

[MiamiHeat]

This is also an explanation why your homophobia is just as misguided as racism.

As I see it, you are misguided.

You believe, as some others do, that the world should be a place of complete freedom to do whatever you like, and to hell with the consequences. These are childish ideas that lack foresight. As an example, it is very similar to the people who support WikiLeaks.

"All classified info should be open to the public in a democratic society!!" they say. This is flawed thinking, and imo, childish, as I said before. Some things must be kept secret, such as things that can hurt us. You know this, and I know this. It is the same with all things.

I believe freedom of thought and action are sacred, but not EVERYTHING is acceptable.

[Proxy]

Marriage pre-dates recorded history. You actually believed marriage is defined by Christianity? Are you serious?




There is no scientific evidence or proof of genetic homosexuality. None.

Secondly, even if I humored you, then we could call it a disease, a malfunction, the same as many other genetic defects. For it is plainly obvious to our reproductive organs that man and woman should be in union, and not man-man, or woman-woman.

Still, I'd like to see any proof you have, because I have studied it and there isn't any.





Homosexuality is harmful to your health. It is discouraged by modern medicine. There is a long list of health problems associated with homosexuality, mainly in men.

Yes it is harmful to the species, because it blurs gender roles, culture, etc... I am not talking about population replacement.




I am not advocating a homosexual witch hunt. What people do in closed doors, we have nothing to do with. I merely don't support the notion of a government legitimizing such a perverse practice, or a culture accepting it.

No, it is genetics. The size of your hypothalamus... among other things. I studied it too, in my college level, Human Sexuality class.

...and discouraged by modern medicine? Harmful to the species? Wherever you got this information from is misguided and fabricating lies. It is naturally occurring in nearly all aspects of life.

[Proxy]

As I see it, you are misguided.

You believe, as some others do, that the world should be a place of complete freedom to do whatever you like, and to hell with the consequences. These are childish ideas that lack foresight. As an example, it is very similar to the people who support WikiLeaks.

"All classified info should be open to the public in a democratic society!!" they say. This is flawed thinking, and imo, childish, as I said before. Some things must be kept secret, such as things that can hurt us. You know this, and I know this. It is the same with all things.

I believe freedom of thought and action are sacred, but not EVERYTHING is acceptable.

I agree with some of your points. For this country to stay on top, it has to play dirty.... and leaking information that could endanger US moles isn't beneficial.

...but keeping politicians honest? transparency to money sources? coverups to murder? ..... I had no problem with Assange leaking the video of the soldiers gunning down reporters.

[MiamiHeat]

No, it is genetics. The size of your hypothalamus... among other things. I studied it too, in my college level, Human Sexuality class.

No, it's not. I have read all about it. If I am wrong, I'd like to see it.

I specifically asked you to provide evidence of this groundbreaking genetic proof you have, because I haven't seen it.

Let's see it. It should be quite easy for you to find this "proof" that it's genetic. Show me articles, etc. I'll wait.




...and discouraged by modern medicine? Harmful to the species? Wherever you got this information from is misguided and fabricating lies. It is naturally occurring in nearly all aspects of life.

Educate yourself on the subject. I clearly stated the reasons and you just repeated yourself and ignored my points.

[Proxy]

And homosexuality is acceptable. It does not infringe on anyone's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The reasoning for not accepting gays is because they're different... well, you're no different than a racist if that's what you believe.

'that's how I was born...'

what a pathetic excuse. You're weak minded if that's what you honestly hide behind.

[MiamiHeat]

I agree with some of your points. For this country to stay on top, it has to play dirty.... and leaking information that could endanger US moles isn't beneficial.

...but keeping politicians honest? transparency to money sources? coverups to murder? ..... I had no problem with Assange leaking the video of the soldiers gunning down reporters.

Absolutely. Some things SHOULD be public domain, and this includes documents that could embarrass and expose an administration. This is good for our country.

Other things should NOT be public domain.

So you see, all things must be kept in moderation. You cannot accept complete freedom of information because some of it can hurt us.

It is the same, in my opinion, with other aspects. Sure, we COULD just say, "the hell with it! homosexuals should be accepted cause they can do whatever they want!"..... but really, there are serious implications with it.

I would never want to blur the gender roles. Man and woman are a perfect union, equal to each other, and of which the ultimate family unit can be created.

Also, about the behavior of men and women. I do not believe men and women should change their roles. For instance, men, are infused with testosterone and have, evolutionarily speaking, given the task of protecting the woman and the family. Of being the strong, head of the household, even though still equals with their wife.

Homosexuals do not want to accept who they are. I do not approve of men who behave like women, or women who behave like men. It's part of us to be who we are, the way evolution, has successfully, brought us here.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would homosexuality blur your gender role?

Are you that insecure in your manhood?

[Proxy]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/253/5023/1034.abstract

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html

http://www.socialvibes.net/HTMLarticles/ENVIRONMENTALCAUSESOFHOMOSEXUALITY_000.html

there you go. I'm out. Have a good night, and don't let the gays bite.

[MiamiHeat]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/253/5023/1034.abstract

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html

http://www.socialvibes.net/HTMLarticles/ENVIRONMENTALCAUSESOFHOMOSEXUALITY_000.html

there you go. I'm out. Have a good night, and don't let the gays bite.

I've seen this before. That is not definitive proof. It is merely preliminary research that has not settled the debate.

As I said before, I am completely open to the evidence. If one day, science finally solves this and finds that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition from birth, then I refer you to the following :


Secondly, even if I humored you, then we could call it a disease, a malfunction, the same as many other genetic defects. For it is plainly obvious to our reproductive organs that man and woman should be in union, and not man-man, or woman-woman.


A man's hypothalamus that developed incorrectly is a genetic defect. When speaking in terms of genetic malfunctions, imperfections in development, do we not find cures and correct the problem?

Would this be acceptable to you, to fix this genetic defect? or would you incorporate political correctness into this scientific issue? We already do it with hermaphrodite's, why not this as well?

[DMX7]

God wouldn't allow a genetic defect. He's God.

[Proxy]

I've seen this before. That is not definitive proof. It is merely preliminary research that has not settled the debate.

As I said before, I am completely open to the evidence. If one day, science finally solves this and finds that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition from birth, then I refer you to the following :



A man's hypothalamus that developed incorrectly is a genetic defect. When speaking in terms of genetic malfunctions, imperfections in development, do we not find cures and correct the problem?

Would this be acceptable to you, to fix this genetic defect? or would you incorporate political correctness into this scientific issue? We already do it with hermaphrodite's, why not this as well?

As far as I know, parents can decide the fate of a hermaphrodite at birth, or leave it to the child. Deciding it at birth is wrong in my opinion. In the situation, you play a 50/50 chance in matching the sex and gender. Sadly, in the situation of parents choosing at birth, men will grow up in a woman's body and vice versa.... I would think that this further supports that homosexuality is a genetic difference.

It is up to the person. People can get sex changes if they want. People can get abortions if they want. People can get horns implanted in their head if they want. If someone wants to have surgery on their hypothalamus, then it is their choice entirely.

Still, my opinion is that it isn't anyone's business. It isn't harmful to the human race, as it occurs on every level of animal intelligence.

It is wrong for someone genetically wired, or even if they, for whatever reason decide to be gay, to be ridiculed and treated unequally. When it comes down to it, I shouldn't even have to prove that homosexuality can be scientifically explained, because, like I said before, it is hated in the same manner as racism.

[DarrinS]

We would be a much more advanced race if science was fully accepted.

Aside from the wars, racism, and sexism.... corrupted churches and murders... discrimination against homosexuals.... we wouldn't have to deal with uneducated creationist bullshit.

Our space exploration would be further along... our stem cell research would be further along... sexual education for teens would actually be efficient....

hey, you know what. I named all of the consequences of religion.... and you could use the same paragraph to describe a conservative. Go figure!



You know, there was a country that wanted to replace religion with atheism.

The Soviet Union

Sure worked out great, didn't it?

[Proxy]

You know, there was a country that wanted to replace religion with atheism.

The Soviet Union

Sure worked out great, didn't it?

why don't you address my points instead of reciting bill o'reilly.

[RandomGuy]

Do you realize that homosexuality is entirely genetics?

There is actually little consensus on this subject.

Evolutionary pressures would suggest that such genes would breed themselves out eventually.

The closest thing that there is as to a consensus is that there is some biological basis, despite the beliefs of many religious conservatives that it is a "choice".

Studies done on fetal development do show that some evironmental things can actually become hereditary, and that stress in some phases of pregnancy can cause some specific traits in both morphology and psychology.
(this is my memory of somethign I read, but would be hard pressed to find again)

Given that sexual selection and drives are strongly biological functions, this by itself would tend to suggest that "it's a choice" is a rather unlikely explanation.

[DarrinS]

why don't you address my points instead of reciting bill o'reilly.


I took your point to be that the world would be much more advanced if only everyone were athiests. I thought I addressed that point rather well by pointing out the failed Soviet Union.

There is a smugness about you and the OP, who think you are so much more rational than someone who believes in a supreme being. It's ironic that someone can dig up an artifact and declare it a tool, designed by an intelligent being, but cannot apply the same logic something much more complex.

[RandomGuy]

You know, there was a country that wanted to replace religion with atheism.

The Soviet Union

Sure worked out great, didn't it?

As you are so fond of pointing out in debates in global warming correlation is not causation.

Unless, of course, it suits your argument, right?

:rolleyes

[DarrinS]

As you are so fond of pointing out in debates in global warming correlation is not causation.

Unless, of course, it suits your argument, right?

:rolleyes



I don't think lack of religion caused the Soviet Union to crumble, I just don't think a truly Godless society would be the utopia that Proxy suggests it would be.


I hope Proxy never wants to be a Free Mason. They don't accept atheists.

[RandomGuy]

Evidence is all around you, if you're looking for it.

It is indeed. None of that evidence we have thus far found requires an omniscient ominipotent God for our existance.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think lack of religion caused the Soviet Union to crumble, I just don't think a truly Godless society would be the utopia that Proxy suggests it would be.


I hope Proxy never wants to be a Free Mason. They don't accept atheists.

Fair enough, I would tend to agree.

A society with a lack of religion would not be sufficient by itself to really create an ideal society. Humans are way more complex than that.

[DarrinS]

It is indeed. None of that evidence we have thus far found requires an omniscient ominipotent God for our existance.


As I stated in an earlier post, if you and I walked upon the pyramids at Giza, we could both agree on the physics and engineering principles of the structure, but disagree on how it came to be. I might think it was purposely build by an intelligent being, while you might think it came to be by some random process.

[DarrinS]

To be fair, I think there are some very irrational beliefs in organized religions. I don't go to church and I think the Bible is just an anthology of legends and morality.

[Proxy]

I took your point to be that the world would be much more advanced if only everyone were athiests. I thought I addressed that point rather well by pointing out the failed Soviet Union.

There is a smugness about you and the OP, who think you are so much more rational than someone who believes in a supreme being. It's ironic that someone can dig up an artifact and declare it a tool, designed by an intelligent being, but cannot apply the same logic something much more complex.

give the reasons of the soviet union's downfall.

and I am more rational than someone who worships some supreme being that has never shown itself. I can admit that we as a race will never know the true genesis of everything. It is irrational to think that our insignificant speck of a planet in this vast universe is the center of everything.

[MiamiHeat]

You know, there was a country that wanted to replace religion with atheism.

The Soviet Union

Sure worked out great, didn't it?

Is this trolling?

You attribute the fall of the Soviet Union to atheism?

and you try to discredit atheism by using that example?

[DarrinS]

Is this trolling?

You attribute the fall of the Soviet Union to atheism?

and you try to discredit atheism by using that example?


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4953681&postcount=178

[DarrinS]

and I am more rational than someone who worships some supreme being that has never shown itself.


I don't worship it, merely acknowledge its presence.

[Proxy]

I don't worship it, merely acknowledge its presence.

acknowledge what? why?

[RandomGuy]

A man's hypothalamus that developed incorrectly is a genetic defect.

Not necessarily. There are lots of environmental factors that affect fetal development.

Some of those affects are very obvious, such as fetal alcohol syndrome, and some not so obvious.

A surprising amount of things have to happen in a very precise order.

[RandomGuy]

As I stated in an earlier post, if you and I walked upon the pyramids at Giza, we could both agree on the physics and engineering principles of the structure, but disagree on how it came to be. I might think it was purposely build by an intelligent being, while you might think it came to be by some random process.

I would not think something like the pyramids would be built by a random process. There is simply no evidence for such a thing, that I am aware of.

That is not a very good analogy.

[Spurminator]

A lot of issues could be avoided if the religious and non-religious would stop treating science and religion as mutually exclusive concepts.

[RandomGuy]

A lot of issues could be avoided if the religious and non-religious would stop treating science and religion as mutually exclusive concepts.

A lot of issues can't be avoided, because there are places where some religious concepts and understanding of science are mutually exclusive, i.e. the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or really the bones of a long dead giant, or the back of a giant turtle.

[baseline bum]

A lot of issues could be avoided if the religious and non-religious would stop treating science and religion as mutually exclusive concepts.

Treating them as non mutually-exclusive is essentially just putting kiddie gloves on. Faith vs. observation/experiment are about as diametrically opposite as ideas can get. Faith in an idea can point one in the right direction;e.g., Einstein had faith that the laws of physics were simple, so Galileo's principle of relativity for mechanical phenomena should also hold for electromagnetic phenomena such as light, which of course led to his monumental theory of special relativity. However, it can never be used as any reasonable standard to establish scientific truth. For example, Einstein's faith in his view of the simplicity of physics led him astray as people like Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, de Broglie, etc. left him in the dust with their study of the atom.

[LnGrrrR]

Everything has a genesis.

Including God?

[LnGrrrR]

and by the way, Einstein is overrated.

He did not discover E=mc2, other scientists did before him. It was even in a scientific paper. The only thing Einstein did was grab pieces from different places and put it together to explain how some things worked. Not very genius like, imo. He didn't create the work, and he never did anything else ever again after because he was incapable of it.

So quoting this old dude in an effort to legitimize your own point of view is a logical fallacy and a waste of time.

His discovery/testing of light being a wave and particle was pretty important, IIRC.

[LnGrrrR]

Evidence is all around you, if you're looking for it.

:rolleyes

I thought about Hootie and the Blowfish, and their song just came on the radio!

[LnGrrrR]

Atheism is a faith; it's the belief there is no God -- something you can't prove.

A = without

Theism = belief

Atheists don't have belief. They can be agnostic as well.

A = without

Gnostic = knowledge

I'm an agnostic atheist.

[LnGrrrR]

It's a belief there is no IPU. Frankly, I think it takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe there is a IPU.

fify

[baseline bum]

A = without

Theism = belief

Atheists don't have belief. They can be agnostic as well.

A = without

Gnostic = knowledge

I'm an agnostic atheist.

Technically, you'd think atheist might mean one that doesn't believe in a theist god who listens to one's nightly whinings and interferes in the world. It's never used in that way though.

[LnGrrrR]

Technically, you'd think atheist might mean one that doesn't believe in a theist god who listens to one's nightly whinings and interferes in the world. It's never used in that way though.

I know it's not, but only because people are ignorant of what the words actually mean. I feel it is a small duty to educate.

[baseline bum]

I know it's not, but only because people are ignorant of what the words actually mean. I feel it is a small duty to educate.

What I meant was it's possible to not believe in a theistic interpretation of a god. e.g., believing in a god that isn't jealous, genocidal, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, eavesdropping, and prone to fits of anger. Perhaps gods not created in man's image, such as a deist interpretation of the idea. A deist should technically be an atheist.

[redzero]

Bill O'Reilly has taken the position of Thomas Aquinas with the first cause argument. Aquinas' position was logically fallacious.

[Vici]

Everything has a genesis.

Where did god come from?

[Mr. Peabody]

Where did god come from?

God has always existed . . . Doh!

[DarrinS]

I would not think something like the pyramids would be built by a random process. There is simply no evidence for such a thing, that I am aware of.

That is not a very good analogy.



But you can look at a DNA sequence and think it's random?

[RandomGuy]

But you can look at a DNA sequence and think it's random?

DNA sequences are definitly NOT random.

Evolution is not entirely a random process. Mutation is random, natural selection is not.

[baseline bum]

DNA sequences are definitly NOT random.

Evolution is not entirely a random process. Mutation is random, natural selection is not.

By DarrinS's nihilist argument, everything is a random process since the behavior of matter at the atomic level is random and not deterministic.

[DarrinS]

DNA sequences are definitly NOT random.

Evolution is not entirely a random process. Mutation is random, natural selection is not.



I'm not trying to deny evolution. Why do people think evolution and a supreme being are mutually exclusive concepts?

[Spurminator]

A lot of issues can't be avoided, because there are places where some religious concepts and understanding of science are mutually exclusive, i.e. the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or really the bones of a long dead giant, or the back of a giant turtle.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. The young earth theory is an interpretation of scripture. Being a Christian does not require believing in a 6,000-year-old earth, and even if you do believe in a young earth (from a Creation standpoint) you can still believe in evolution and in million-years-old relics.

[Spurminator]

Treating them as non mutually-exclusive is essentially just putting kiddie gloves on. Faith vs. observation/experiment are about as diametrically opposite as ideas can get. Faith in an idea can point one in the right direction;e.g., Einstein had faith that the laws of physics were simple, so Galileo's principle of relativity for mechanical phenomena should also hold for electromagnetic phenomena such as light, which of course led to his monumental theory of special relativity. However, it can never be used as any reasonable standard to establish scientific truth. For example, Einstein's faith in his view of the simplicity of physics led him astray as people like Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, de Broglie, etc. left him in the dust with their study of the atom.

No reasonable Christian scientist should have any problem separating his personal faith from his need for tangible evidence/experimentation in the scientific process. All I'm saying athiest/religious coexistence would be a whole lot easier if people on both sides weren't so hell-bent on manufacturing conflict where none should exist.

[MiamiHeat]

Christian scientist

hilarious.

[DarrinS]

All this, by chance


quOoax5RASk

1fiJupfbSpg

[DarrinS]

DNA is like computer code, with different parts having different functionality. As far as I know, computer codes don't spontaneously generate themselves from characters.

[MiamiHeat]

DarrinS,

your lack of an education in biology and evolution is apparent. We are aware of what you are TRYING to convey. You are simply wrong.

[MiamiHeat]

No reasonable Christian scientist should have any problem separating his personal faith from his need for tangible evidence/experimentation in the scientific process. All I'm saying athiest/religious coexistence would be a whole lot easier if people on both sides weren't so hell-bent on manufacturing conflict where none should exist.

It is not possible for religion and science to mix.

It just cannot. Any attempt to rationalize it is misguided. You either believe in religion or adhere to scientific principles. One or the other, not both.

A christian can say, "Yeah, I believe in science when it says gravity affects planetary motion" or... "Yeah, I believe in science when it says genetic makeup of a species is a culmination of millions of years of evolution through natural selection/mutations" ....

but then, as a Christian, you have to follow it up with "but god made gravity and evolution in the first place"


so Christian scientist is a fucking oxymoron. And it is completely natural and inevitable for Religion and Science to war with each other simply because science is based on observable, actual facts and evidence and subject to change based on TRUTH, whereas religion is not subject to change at all and is based on a rigid dogma.


Sperminator, didn't I have a run in with you in the homosexuality thread? Your ignorance knows no bounds.

[DarrinS]

DarrinS,

your lack of an education in biology and evolution is apparent. We are aware of what you are TRYING to convey. You are simply wrong.


When YOU'VE taken both organic and inorganic chemistry, come back and talk to me. You shouldn't presume to know another person's level of education. I may disagree with RandomGuy and Manny on many issues, but I don't presume that they are uneducated -- quite the contrary.

[DarrinS]

It is not possible for religion and science to mix.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Einstein

[greyforest]

All this, by chance


quOoax5RASk

1fiJupfbSpg

You're right. Science has no answer for the origin of life or the universe.

Evolution never tries to explain the genesis of the first bacterium. Science depends on credible evidence, and the evidence of evolution is very much in favor of every species originating from a common ancestor.

I'm not going to be able to instill the years of studying biology that's necessary to understand all this shit, but I'll try.

We can see all the changes in different forks of evolution. We understand exactly how much genetic programming every species has in common with each other. It's really ridiculous how similar humans are to every mammal.

Here's a cute test: try and distinguish the mouse embryo from the human embryo.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSzHNPzLQtMIsH0wS7mhAte9b_vXTbIF yFCi-wg22xQsGCjRsgd&t=1

http://www.dreamstime.com/mouse-embryo-day-11-of-development-thumb744143.jpg

Having trouble? That's because roughly 90% of our genes do exactly the same thing as theirs. I'm gonna repeat that, because it bears repeating: 90% of our genes do exactly the same thing as theirs. Both of these mammals are so young, and the code used to start building a mammal is so unbelievably similar that it's laughably ridiculous how similar the embryos look.

Mammals, and more specifically, chimpanzees are the most similar organisms to humans on earth. There are infinity examples, but I'll just name a few specific to the brain. The mammalian brain shares many qualities of ours. Love, joy, anger, sadness. Mammals form cliques with social structure and hierarchy. Mammals even have dreams. The further away we move from our origin, the less animals have in common with us, because their brain genetics are that much different. Reptiles share only a few of our emotions; pain and fear come to mind. Fish don't even sense pain, they only sense pressure.

Evolution picks winning designs and keeps them. Lots of evolution skeptics note that crocodile skeletons have been around since dinosaurs, yet their current-day skeletons are very similar to these ancient fossils. More rudimentarily, they'd point out that monkeys are still around. Why don't all the monkeys evolve in to humans?

Evolving is not instantaneous; rather, it is a fork from a currently existing species that takes thousands of generations to become altered. An evolutionary fork is NOTHING in the beginning; the descendants must spread apart with genetic drift, as far as a human and a chimp, for it to be noticed as a fork in the lineage of ancestry. Both of your children could be the start of an evolutionary fork for all you know.

As for the other question, why are crocodiles around, nearly unchanged? Once a species has a purebred strain with great capability of survival, it can last for centuries with very little change. Evolution doesn't HAVE to happen, and when it does, only the opportunistic changes live to breed on.

[DarrinS]

grayforest,

I'm not trying to deny evolution, so no need to argue with me on that point. Science tells us a lot of the "how's", but not many of the "why's".

[redzero]

grayforest,

I'm not trying to deny evolution, so no need to argue with me on that point. Science tells us a lot of the "how's", but not many of the "why's".

Christianity doesn't tell many why's at all.

[DarrinS]

Christianity doesn't tell many why's at all.



Didn't say it did.


I find both extremes of this debate (non-theistic evotionists and young Earth creationists) intellectually lazy.

[jack sommerset]

It's a dream. Nothing excist.

[redzero]

Didn't say it did.


I find both extremes of this debate (non-theistic evotionists and young Earth creationists) intellectually lazy.

[DarrinS]

.

.

[redzero]

Don't know why my response didn't show up.


Didn't say it did.


I find both extremes of this debate (non-theistic evotionists and young Earth creationists) intellectually lazy.

Why is the former intellectually lazy?

[jack sommerset]

Bill is talking it up with Barry now.

[greyforest]

I find both extremes of this debate (non-theistic evotionists and young Earth creationists) intellectually lazy.

well what do you want me to say? it's absurd to try and conceptualize what's beyond our capability. it's absurd to think of the origin of the universe, or life, or our consciousness. there's only so much we can sense and know with our limited ability to perceive, and even still, with science we manage to create instruments to sense things that we cannot and render them in a way which we can.

i will say that science always points towards determinalism; the physics of everything, including organisms and their brains is reduced to a giant reaction of particles governed under mathematical laws. this is where things break down for me, because if this is the true, there's no need for consciousness; if everything in the universe is just a chemical reaction with no outside influence, why am i conscious? why am i only conscious of my own body? what was "i" before i was born, or after i die?

everything's on the table.

[Spurminator]

A christian can say, "Yeah, I believe in science when it says gravity affects planetary motion" or... "Yeah, I believe in science when it says genetic makeup of a species is a culmination of millions of years of evolution through natural selection/mutations" ....

but then, as a Christian, you have to follow it up with "but god made gravity and evolution in the first place"


Sure. As a Christian scientist you would believe God created all of the scientific laws that govern the universe. Your purpose as a scientist is to study/learn/discover all you can about those laws, regardless of whether the source of the universe was random or divine.

That's not a contradictory worldview.


science is based on observable, actual facts and evidence and subject to change based on TRUTH

Observable, actual facts don't change...


Sperminator, didn't I have a run in with you in the homosexuality thread? Your ignorance knows no bounds.

I honestly don't remember ever having a conversation with you. Must not have been that memorable. Sorry! Maybe you could link it or something, it clearly made some kind of impression on you.

[LnGrrrR]

What I meant was it's possible to not believe in a theistic interpretation of a god. e.g., believing in a god that isn't jealous, genocidal, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, eavesdropping, and prone to fits of anger. Perhaps gods not created in man's image, such as a deist interpretation of the idea. A deist should technically be an atheist.

Theism defined is a belief in god/s. Perhaps you meant religious? You could be theistic but not religious.

[LnGrrrR]

DNA is like computer code, with different parts having different functionality. As far as I know, computer codes don't spontaneously generate themselves from characters.

So you're telling me that we went from nothing to Windows 7? That software programmer must've been pretty smart to not reference any previous forms of OS.

[baseline bum]

So you're telling me that we went from nothing to Windows 7? That software programmer must've been pretty smart to not reference any previous forms of OS.

God's work shouldn't be considered as anything more than Windows 95A tbh.

[Wild Cobra]

So you're telling me that we went from nothing to Windows 7? That software programmer must've been pretty smart to not reference any previous forms of OS.
LOL...

Wouldn't that be called "Intelligent design?"

Though...

I seldom refer to engineers as intelligent. They fuck up so many things, unless they were first a technician.

[LnGrrrR]

LOL...

Wouldn't that be called "Intelligent design?"

Though...

I seldom refer to engineers as intelligent. They fuck up so many things, unless they were first a technician.

I was just making a joke on DarrinS analogy.

It's possible to have "order" without it being designed by someone. Look at the way molecules form. They all have specific structures, by all means looking very "ordered". But that's due to the way the atoms interlock. There are other exampes of order, like crystal lattices. But that doesn't mean that someone "designs" those things by hand.

[RandomGuy]

I was just making a joke on DarrinS analogy.

It's possible to have "order" without it being designed by someone. Look at the way molecules form. They all have specific structures, by all means looking very "ordered". But that's due to the way the atoms interlock. There are other exampes of order, like crystal lattices. But that doesn't mean that someone "designs" those things by hand.

I could go so far as to think that the "rules of the game" are determined by some design. If one structures a deck of cards the way they are now, a royal flush, although highly improbable for any ONE given hand, is a certainty given enough time.

I suppose it is possible some creator structured the rules of the physical universe such that life, although highly improbable for any given star/planet, is a certainty given enough time. I can't discount that.

In that, I would almost agree with Mr. O'Reilly. Where did those rules come from?

If they had not come out that way, we would not be here to discuss it.

Even then it appears as if those rules were themselves randomly determined, and that there might exist other universes with different rules, and consequently, no life as we know it.

[MiamiHeat]

In that, I would almost agree with Mr. O'Reilly. Where did those rules come from?

If they had not come out that way, we would not be here to discuss it.

Even then it appears as if those rules were themselves randomly determined, and that there might exist other universes with different rules, and consequently, no life as we know it.

Why must the rules be structured and planned out?

What if the universe just ended up this way, "that's just how the marbles fell"....?

you said it yourself. if there is another universe, the rules could all be different and it's just a matter of elements positioning themselves and things happening in a certain way through chance...

it's really fucking lazy to start crediting shit to some fairy tale.

Science does NOT acknowledge ANYTHING that cannot be proven or observed and tested/confirmed. In this way, Science and religion can NEVER co-exist and the very idea of a "Christian Scientist" reminds me of someone who wears a helmet on the bus to school.

[DMX7]

Didn't say it did.


I find both extremes of this debate (non-theistic evotionists and young Earth creationists) intellectually lazy.

Are you joking?

[RandomGuy]

Why must the rules be structured and planned out?

What if the universe just ended up this way, "that's just how the marbles fell"....?

you said it yourself. if there is another universe, the rules could all be different and it's just a matter of elements positioning themselves and things happening in a certain way through chance...

it's really fucking lazy to start crediting shit to some fairy tale.

Science does NOT acknowledge ANYTHING that cannot be proven or observed and tested/confirmed. In this way, Science and religion can NEVER co-exist and the very idea of a "Christian Scientist" reminds me of someone who wears a helmet on the bus to school.

As I said, I don't know, nor would I bother speculating how the laws of physics for our universe determined.

Random (HA!) determination is as supported by the evidence available as anything else, to my understanding.

[johnsmith]

Ah Atheism.....being pissed for some reason I'll never understand for years and years to come.

[LnGrrrR]

Ah Atheism.....being pissed for some reason I'll never understand for years and years to come.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say. Do you think all atheists are pissed?

[RandomGuy]

Not quite sure what you're trying to say. Do you think all atheists are pissed?

DSzttF8EXrE