View Full Version : Where are you pro lifers on this one
Blake
05-28-2021, 10:44 AM
13-year-old who was raped by her grandfather traveled hours across Texas to get an abortion. She wouldn't have been able to under the state's new 6-week ban.
https://www.insider.com/texas-abortion-ban-would-block-teen-raped-by-grandfather-2021-5
Ef-man
05-28-2021, 12:17 PM
Not even a :cry sanctity of life :cry or :cry protect the children :cry
Must be too early to talk about it.
Leetonidas
05-28-2021, 12:20 PM
"It was God's will"
boutons_deux
05-28-2021, 12:40 PM
"It was God's will"
Her incestuous rape baby is a gift from God, she should give prayerful thanks.
I believe abortion should be legal up to the age of 5.
But I can tell you how they feel about it. If the pregnancy was carried to term and the baby born, would you volunteer to kill it?
Millennial_Messiah
05-28-2021, 01:08 PM
I believe abortion should be legal up to the age of 5.
But I can tell you how they feel about it. If the pregnancy was carried to term and the baby born, would you volunteer to kill it?
5 months pregnant or 5 years old? :lol
As for the OP, yes, incest rape babies, and underage rape babies in general, should be aborted. I'm not pro-life, btw.
5 months pregnant or 5 years old? :lol
As for the OP, yes, incest rape babies, and underage rape babies in general, should be aborted. I'm not pro-life, btw.
years
5 months pregnant or 5 years old? :lol
As for the OP, yes, incest rape babies, and underage rape babies in general, should be aborted. I'm not pro-life, btw.
There's no such as "should be aborted". The mother decides.
Millennial_Messiah
05-28-2021, 01:56 PM
years
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
side note, not all 3, 4, 5 year olds are created equal. Some are completely infantile and slow to develop, but, a "me" that age would have definitely known what was going on. I would have gone west.
There's no such as "should be aborted". The mother decides.
Then again, a 13 year old little girl should never be allowed to be a "mother". Should be illegal to be a parent before age 18.
Enforce age of consent. It's the law, so why not enforce it? Mandatory abortion ordinance, if this is defied then they must serve hard time in prison until they turn 18.
Bogie
05-28-2021, 02:34 PM
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
side note, not all 3, 4, 5 year olds are created equal. Some are completely infantile and slow to develop, but, a "me" that age would have definitely known what was going on. I would have gone west.
Then again, a 13 year old little girl should never be allowed to be a "mother". Should be illegal to be a parent before age 18.
Enforce age of consent. It's the law, so why not enforce it? Mandatory abortion ordinance, if this is defied then they must serve hard time in prison until they turn 18.
don’t you self identify as a libertarian?
Blake
05-28-2021, 02:37 PM
I believe abortion should be legal up to the age of 5.
But I can tell you how they feel about it. If the pregnancy was carried to term and the baby born, would you volunteer to kill it?
Five is just as arbitrary as any other number you're thinking of
Millennial_Messiah
05-28-2021, 07:55 PM
don’t you self identify as a libertarian?
I'm pro government force if it's the right kind of government in power. I strongly believe in eugenics/natural selection/disposing of substandard gene pools, for instance achrondoplastic dwarfism or huntingtons disease.
SnakeBoy
05-28-2021, 09:57 PM
Fake story
pgardn
05-28-2021, 10:07 PM
I believe abortion should be legal up to the age of 5.
But I can tell you how they feel about it. If the pregnancy was carried to term and the baby born, would you volunteer to kill it?
abortion in the termination of a pregnancy fck wit...
DMCrutchfield knows all...
abortion in the termination of a pregnancy fck wit...
DMCrutchfield knows all...
Once again you're blabbering and not making any sense. Stick to trying to impress neophytes with your physics prowess.
Frenchfred
05-29-2021, 03:34 AM
I'm pro government force if it's the right kind of government in power. I strongly believe in eugenics/natural selection/disposing of substandard gene pools, for instance achrondoplastic dwarfism or huntingtons disease.
then we should get rid of all maga supporters as their superior stupidity is a danger to the human race.
tbqhfwiwimhoiirc i personally don't see the logic of killing a human because another person is a sick freak, or simply because the mother is too young
Spurtacular
05-29-2021, 09:03 AM
Do you blame your mom for not having an abortion, Blake?
pgardn
05-29-2021, 09:32 PM
Once again you're blabbering and not making any sense. Stick to trying to impress neophytes with your physics prowess.
So you wont admit you dont know what abortion means.
Good deal. Mrs. Crutchfield cant handle her tactics of misspelling error ass smelling. But she can completely not understand a commonly used word. Abortion dumb fck, you dont abort a 5 yo kid, you know, already born? You want to argue what born and pregnant mean?
Neophytes? wtf are you, just dumb?
Physics prowess... I dont know physics that well.
I am a molecular biology guy, remember... the Nobel Prize you gave me...
Keep going.
pgardn
05-29-2021, 09:34 PM
I believe abortion should be legal up to the age of 5.
But I can tell you how they feel about it. If the pregnancy was carried to term and the baby born, would you volunteer to kill it?
5 what, months?
years
dumbass...
Millennial_Messiah
05-29-2021, 09:34 PM
tbqhfwiwimhoiirc i personally don't see the logic of killing a human because another person is a sick freak, or simply because the mother is too young
they're not a human until they are viable outside the womb without artificial incubation. Simple science.
pgardn
05-29-2021, 09:36 PM
they're not a human until they are viable outside the womb without artificial incubation. Simple science.
Science says no such thing.
Thats YOUR definition.
Millennial_Messiah
05-29-2021, 09:45 PM
Science says no such thing.
Thats YOUR definition.
Pro-lifers are dumb as rocks
they're not a human until they are viable outside the womb without artificial incubation. Simple science.
what science defines it as that? I'd love to see because I've not heard that explanation
pgardn
05-29-2021, 10:12 PM
Pro-lifers are dumb as rocks
I am not a pro lifer.
Science says no such thing.
Give me the definition of when a human life begins.
And when you do, REALIZE, science does NOT define a human life.
While you are at it, Mr. Science, science even has trouble defining what alive means. Look up viruses and you might get it, but probably not.
pgardn
05-29-2021, 10:14 PM
what science defines it as that? I'd love to see because I've not heard that explanation
That is what some groups are using as a definition and he happens to like it, which is fine, but science says nothing of the sort.
That is what some groups are using as a definition and he happens to like it, which is fine, but science says nothing of the sort.
yeah I know, I just want to hear more of his ridiculous explanation lol
ducks
05-29-2021, 10:39 PM
Where are the pro open boarders with all the crime illegals commit
Oh wait last one cnn called the illegal a farm worker that got covicted killing people
pgardn
05-29-2021, 10:49 PM
yeah I know, I just want to hear more of his ridiculous explanation lol
sorry.
I do the same with derp.
Mostly he does it to himself; let the rambling continue and wait for the few people to come try to dig him out of a hole.
So you wont admit you dont know what abortion means.
Good deal. Mrs. Crutchfield cant handle her tactics of misspelling error ass smelling. But she can completely not understand a commonly used word. Abortion dumb fck, you dont abort a 5 yo kid, you know, already born? You want to argue what born and pregnant mean?
Neophytes? wtf are you, just dumb?
Physics prowess... I dont know physics that well.
I am a molecular biology guy, remember... the Nobel Prize you gave me...
Keep going.
Well that’s wonderful because you feel wrong.
And the feeling is more than mutual because you have lied your ass off.
If you were really interested in stuff I would love to show you around, but I can see a chump picture situation occurring because you are paranoid. And I bet you would love to show me around as well.
you seem to forget you asked me what I did and I summarized it. The other stuff I know about gas under pressure freezing is not my area of expertise. But I do understand the basics and you were just dead wrong. I am not an expert because I understand -295 under STP. The P is the important part which you just totally didn’t get. I have a pretty good grasp on biology chemistry and physics. But I am very narrow in the specifics of what I do, you should understand this if you really do what you say you do. You just get bent out of shape because I have trashed your science before. And you have the gall to use me as the expert in an argument with RG... did you even check my response to see if it was correct based on what you can read?
You're a compulsive liar. This is certain.
pgardn
05-30-2021, 08:41 AM
You're a compulsive liar. This is certain.
Grasp the 3 major areas of science versus what I actually do? And you failed to bold, I DO KNOW THE BASICS. Good omission, you should have just deleted as disingenuous as you are.
Do you understand the expertise involved in actually doing a job? I can tell you about voltage from a theoretical point of view, but this does not mean I can go in a wire a building like a master electrician. I can tell you that freezing point of substances depends on the pressure you hold it at, along with temperature, something that completely escaped you, but Im not going to a well head and tell operators how to insulate their machinery properly. Trumpsters like you dont get the difference. Just throw a guy into a job who knows nothing about it. This is how I know you are a fake. You cant grasp very straightforward ideas and you write for Popular Science? Bull shit... Popular Bullshit.
You are grasping at the lack of air.
Mrs. Crutchfield cant take it when she cant use her words.
Thanks for going back for me.
Do some more.
Spurtacular
05-30-2021, 09:02 AM
I am not a pro lifer.
Science says no such thing.
Give me the definition of when a human life begins.
And when you do, REALIZE, science does NOT define a human life.
While you are at it, Mr. Science, science even has trouble defining what alive means. Look up viruses and you might get it, but probably not.
You're a shitty scientist. I can see why people are losing faith in science.
pgardn
05-30-2021, 09:29 AM
You're a shitty scientist. I can see why people are losing faith in science.
Im a shitty scientist because I have told you science does not make calls that involve morals and undefined terms.
Tell me what science has to say about God?
No, I will answer it for you, absolutely nothing.
Science has absolutely no say on whether a God or God's exist.
Does this upset you?
Tell me what science has to say about abortion right or wrong, absolutely nothing.
If you want to know about the biological facts about abortions at different points in a pregnancy, science can give you some information, but there is no moral judgement call.
Why cant you get this? And please stay on the board as I need to figure out people as dense as you are. What is actually blocking you from reasoning and your false sense of superiority.
Grasp the 3 major areas of science versus what I actually do? And you failed to bold, I DO KNOW THE BASICS. Good omission, you should have just deleted as disingenuous as you are.
Do you understand the expertise involved in actually doing a job? I can tell you about voltage from a theoretical point of view, but this does not mean I can go in a wire a building like a master electrician. I can tell you that freezing point of substances depends on the pressure you hold it at, along with temperature, something that completely escaped you, but Im not going to a well head and tell operators how to insulate their machinery properly. Trumpsters like you dont get the difference. Just throw a guy into a job who knows nothing about it. This is how I know you are a fake. You cant grasp very straightforward ideas and you write for Popular Science? Bull shit... Popular Bullshit.
You are grasping at the lack of air.
Mrs. Crutchfield cant take it when she cant use her words.
Thanks for going back for me.
Do some more.
I didn't omit anything. These are your words, not paraphrased. You said "I don't know physics that well" after saying "I have a pretty good grasp of biology, chemistry and physics".
These two statements are in direct contrast especially since the claim to lack physics knowledge comes after the claim to know it pretty well. Did you suddenly forget?
Your recourse? Blah blah Trumpster, blah blah Popular Science, blah blah Time Magazine, blah blah nature vs nurture.
Get your lie straight.
Im a shitty scientist because I have told you science does not make calls that involve morals and undefined terms.
Tell me what science has to say about God?
No, I will answer it for you, absolutely nothing.
Science has absolutely no say on whether a God or God's exist.
Does this upset you?
Tell me what science has to say about abortion right or wrong, absolutely nothing.
If you want to know about the biological facts about abortions at different points in a pregnancy, science can give you some information, but there is no moral judgement call.
Why cant you get this? And please stay on the board as I need to figure out people as dense as you are. What is actually blocking you from reasoning and your false sense of superiority.
"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"
In life, Hawking was a vocal champion of the Big Bang theory — the idea that the universe began by exploding suddenly out of an ultradense singularity smaller than an atom. From this speck emerged all the matter, energy and empty space that the universe would ever contain, and all that raw material evolved into the cosmos we perceive today by following a strict set of scientific laws. To Hawking and many like-minded scientists, the combined laws of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a few other rules could explain everything that ever happened or ever will happen in our known universe.
"If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence," Hawking wrote.
With the universe running on a scientifically guided autopilot, the only role for an all-powerful deity might be setting the initial conditions of the universe so that those laws could take shape — a divine creator who caused the Big Bang to bang, then stepped back to behold His work.
"Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?" Hawking wrote. "I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator."
"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"
In life, Hawking was a vocal champion of the Big Bang theory — the idea that the universe began by exploding suddenly out of an ultradense singularity smaller than an atom. From this speck emerged all the matter, energy and empty space that the universe would ever contain, and all that raw material evolved into the cosmos we perceive today by following a strict set of scientific laws. To Hawking and many like-minded scientists, the combined laws of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a few other rules could explain everything that ever happened or ever will happen in our known universe.
"If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence," Hawking wrote.
With the universe running on a scientifically guided autopilot, the only role for an all-powerful deity might be setting the initial conditions of the universe so that those laws could take shape — a divine creator who caused the Big Bang to bang, then stepped back to behold His work.
"Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?" Hawking wrote. "I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator."
that completely out of the blue and randomly with absolutely no explanation for it at all, the entire universe morphed out of a speck smaller than an atom
very compelling explanation :lmao
pgardn
05-31-2021, 07:04 PM
"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"
In life, Hawking was a vocal champion of the Big Bang theory — the idea that the universe began by exploding suddenly out of an ultradense singularity smaller than an atom. From this speck emerged all the matter, energy and empty space that the universe would ever contain, and all that raw material evolved into the cosmos we perceive today by following a strict set of scientific laws. To Hawking and many like-minded scientists, the combined laws of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a few other rules could explain everything that ever happened or ever will happen in our known universe.
"If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence," Hawking wrote.
With the universe running on a scientifically guided autopilot, the only role for an all-powerful deity might be setting the initial conditions of the universe so that those laws could take shape — a divine creator who caused the Big Bang to bang, then stepped back to behold His work.
"Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?" Hawking wrote. "I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator."
You see this is BS.
Follow one part of this, just one.
But two years ago, a paper by Turok, Job Feldbrugge (https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/people/job-feldbrugge) of the Perimeter Institute, and Jean-Luc Lehners (https://www.aei.mpg.de/38252/Homepage_of_Jean-Luc_Lehners) of the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Germany called the Hartle-Hawking proposal into question. The proposal is, of course, only viable if a universe that curves out of a dimensionless point in the way Hartle and Hawking imagined naturally grows into a universe like ours. Hawking and Hartle argued that indeed it would — that universes with no boundaries will tend to be huge, breathtakingly smooth, impressively flat, and expanding, just like the actual cosmos. “The trouble with Stephen and Jim’s approach is it was ambiguous,” Turok said — “deeply ambiguous.”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
And this is exactly happens over and over with science. And this is only one small problem, it seems big now but in the future it will be considered small and like now, will start MORPHING into philosopy.
Just like Goedel has shown provocatively that our math is not based on sound logic. This is debated now and has been debated before by all the great scientists. From Aristotle (made some rules) to Newton, to Einstein. And now Hawking and others. Not only do we make shit up in science (modeling and math) both are highly doubtful in leading us TO KNOW everything. What they do is let us predict phenomena which is very powerful.
But you are full of it if you think this has some great ending that will come to your fruition during YOUR lifetime because... Stephen Hawking has solved it!
Why do people assume their time and the people of THEIR time have got it. We NOW understand!
The hubris is unbelievable.
And I doubt DMC will understand a word of this, but there it is.
pgardn
05-31-2021, 07:53 PM
If any posters are interested in this kind of stuff the story of Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, and Bishop Wilberforce you will see parallels. Darwin was not a man to argue his own theories, especially since his idea that variation should exist in populations was totally unexplained. And variation is what HIS natural selection was supposed to work on. Thomas Henry Huxley was more than willing to argue for natural selection against ANYONE even without any idea as to the source of variation (it could be God!). Huxley was a great orator and took on all comers even though the theory of evolution through natural selection was incomplete. He debated Wilberforce and other notable critics and ran over them while Darwin sat silent because he knew he did not have it all.
Well we now have the source of variation. And it helps explain so much. But more noticeably it also opens up a can of worms in many other areas of evolution. There are still tons of stuff to be learned. Evolution and its explanations do not end with Darwin. It continues on. More questions, more knowledge, even more difficult questions arise. With so many variables involved. So physics with all its attempting to explain very fundamental phenomena, the stuff with the fewest variables using math, modeling, observation (because it the only way we have) is gonna figure out everything...?
I find it unbelievable that we think there is some theory of everything, when all everything does is lead to more questions about everything. We are animals! Crafted by evolution thru natural selection. And so this means we will figure out everything... I just dont get it. People just dont read history, especially the history of science.
done
that completely out of the blue and randomly with absolutely no explanation for it at all, the entire universe morphed out of a speck smaller than an atom
very compelling explanation :lmao
A god who morphed out of nothing did it is more compelling?
Pretty sure Hawking explained a lot. You'd have to read it. But Hawking doesn't need to explain how everything works in order to dismiss a claim that was made without evidence.
You see this is BS.
Follow one part of this, just one.
But two years ago, a paper by Turok, Job Feldbrugge (https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/people/job-feldbrugge) of the Perimeter Institute, and Jean-Luc Lehners (https://www.aei.mpg.de/38252/Homepage_of_Jean-Luc_Lehners) of the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Germany called the Hartle-Hawking proposal into question. The proposal is, of course, only viable if a universe that curves out of a dimensionless point in the way Hartle and Hawking imagined naturally grows into a universe like ours. Hawking and Hartle argued that indeed it would — that universes with no boundaries will tend to be huge, breathtakingly smooth, impressively flat, and expanding, just like the actual cosmos. “The trouble with Stephen and Jim’s approach is it was ambiguous,” Turok said — “deeply ambiguous.”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
And this is exactly happens over and over with science. And this is only one small problem, it seems big now but in the future it will be considered small and like now, will start MORPHING into philosopy.
Just like Goedel has shown provocatively that our math is not based on sound logic. This is debated now and has been debated before by all the great scientists. From Aristotle (made some rules) to Newton, to Einstein. And now Hawking and others. Not only do we make shit up in science (modeling and math) both are highly doubtful in leading us TO KNOW everything. What they do is let us predict phenomena which is very powerful.
But you are full of it if you think this has some great ending that will come to your fruition during YOUR lifetime because... Stephen Hawking has solved it!
Why do people assume their time and the people of THEIR time have got it. We NOW understand!
The hubris is unbelievable.
And I doubt DMC will understand a word of this, but there it is.
So adding god explains away the ambiguousness of it? Stephen could have then just said "god did it" and poof, no more ambiguity.
pgardn
05-31-2021, 09:25 PM
So adding god explains away the ambiguousness of it? Stephen could have then just said "god did it" and poof, no more ambiguity.
Thats not how science works fkn idiot.
Just because we keep striving, YOU THINK there should be some payoff?
The payoff is that some of the findings lead to the ability to predict, NOT we will know everything.
Where the hell did you learn about Science, you just dont get it.
You seriously believe because you work hard, good things will certainly come your way?
Of course Hawking, nor puny me nor anyone else who understands the role of science is gonna give up and say "super Natural causes" problem solved! Science DOES NOT use the super natural to explain things because it explains nothing. But your problem is you think our mechanistic method which relies so heavily on math at the fundamental level will figure out everything. And that, is fkn silly. Like we are owed the knowledge of everything because of this method we have made up that seems perfectly reasonable to us? (Goedel and others have showed this fallacy)
You need to completely rethink how you approach science when you write your next Popular Science article ya damn liar.
You have made up your own religion without even realizing it.
So adding God...
You are such a disingenuous fck. How you have a job is beyond me. I hope you work alone, for your sake.
Thats not how science works fkn idiot.
Just because we keep striving, YOU THINK there should be some payoff?
The payoff is that some of the findings lead to the ability to predict, NOT we will know everything.
Where the hell did you learn about Science, you just dont get it.
You seriously believe because you work hard, good things will certainly come your way?
Of course Hawking, nor puny me nor anyone else who understands the role of science is gonna give up and say "super Natural causes" problem solved! Science DOES NOT use the super natural to explain things because it explains nothing. But your problem is you think our mechanistic method which relies so heavily on math at the fundamental level will figure out everything. And that, is fkn silly. Like we are owed the knowledge of everything because of this method we have made up that seems perfectly reasonable to us? (Goedel and others have showed this fallacy)
You need to completely rethink how you approach science when you write your next Popular Science article ya damn liar.
You have made up your own religion without even realizing it.
So adding God...
You are such a disingenuous fck. How you have a job is beyond me. I hope you work alone, for your sake.
Yeah you added God. Otherwise it would be "we don't know everything but science is our conduit to learning more about the universe around us" instead of saying something like "ethics and morals cannot be explained by science!" when they most certainly can, and your summary funnels down to "so god did it". You don't have to agree, and all the name calling and hissy fit throwing in the world won't change it.
If any posters are interested in this kind of stuff the story of Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, and Bishop Wilberforce you will see parallels. Darwin was not a man to argue his own theories, especially since his idea that variation should exist in populations was totally unexplained. And variation is what HIS natural selection was supposed to work on. Thomas Henry Huxley was more than willing to argue for natural selection against ANYONE even without any idea as to the source of variation (it could be God!). Huxley was a great orator and took on all comers even though the theory of evolution through natural selection was incomplete. He debated Wilberforce and other notable critics and ran over them while Darwin sat silent because he knew he did not have it all.
Well we now have the source of variation. And it helps explain so much. But more noticeably it also opens up a can of worms in many other areas of evolution. There are still tons of stuff to be learned. Evolution and its explanations do not end with Darwin. It continues on. More questions, more knowledge, even more difficult questions arise. With so many variables involved. So physics with all its attempting to explain very fundamental phenomena, the stuff with the fewest variables using math, modeling, observation (because it the only way we have) is gonna figure out everything...?
I find it unbelievable that we think there is some theory of everything, when all everything does is lead to more questions about everything. We are animals! Crafted by evolution thru natural selection. And so this means we will figure out everything... I just dont get it. People just dont read history, especially the history of science.
done
Origin of Species. God created species. Stop with the science mumbo jumbo.
Leading to more questions is ok. Needing to know everything so accepting nonsensical suggestions like a supernatural being did it, that's just lazy.
pgardn
05-31-2021, 09:41 PM
Yeah you added God. Otherwise it would be "we don't know everything but science is our conduit to learning more about the universe around us" instead of saying something like "ethics and morals cannot be explained by science!" when they most certainly can, and your summary funnels down to "so god did it". You don't have to agree, and all the name calling and hissy fit throwing in the world won't change it.
No it does not.
It funnels down to man, your God.
We are an strange afterthought of Evolution.
And I never said anything like God is the conduit to learning about the universe. Learning about the universe is a manmade method that is highly fallible and will never be complete.
Yeah I have a tendency to type more when a liar like yourself is so blatantly disingenuous.
pgardn
05-31-2021, 09:47 PM
Origin of Species. God created species. Stop with the science mumbo jumbo.
Leading to more questions is ok. Needing to know everything so accepting nonsensical suggestions like a supernatural being did it, that's just lazy.
You have no fkn idea what you are even saying.
You dont even know these people I am referring to as I thought.
Accepting is far different than understanding why you disingenuous fool. Religion and philosophy have been with us a lot longer. Thats about it. Science does not get rid of them. Its a totally different way of thinking because it is so pleasantly logical to us, the ape. Except that its not necessarily logical. But its still the coolest tool we have imo when used properly.
You of all people should hate science with your prolific use of sophistry, you would make a philosopher, a very bad one, but thats where you need direct your lack of resources.
pgardn
05-31-2021, 09:59 PM
Origin of Species. God created species. Stop with the science mumbo jumbo.
Leading to more questions is ok. Needing to know everything so accepting nonsensical suggestions like a supernatural being did it, that's just lazy.
Where did I ever say this.
You are an absolute liar.
Its like you have taken a basic book on science that says science is used to answer VERY SPECIFIC questions, deleted the very specific, and then skipped to why religion that tries to explain physical events using a super natural power is not a preferable method (and it is indeed not)
A god who morphed out of nothing did it is more compelling?
imho yes, it makes more sense that a universe that works harmoniously and a planet with perfect balance and physics to allow trillions of life forms to all coexist, was intelligently created than happened by a googolplex's chance to come together harmoniously from a random nonsensical chaotic explosion
but to each their own
Pretty sure Hawking explained a lot. You'd have to read it. But Hawking doesn't need to explain how everything works in order to dismiss a claim that was made without evidence.
any scientist that wants to knock religion for basis if their beliefs on "faith" and the bible, yet believes in non-factual non-proven theories like the big bang (and then wants to teach them as if they are absolute proven fact) has no room to talk because they are literally doing the exact same thing as people who put belief in God.
RandomGuy
06-03-2021, 05:00 PM
Grasp the 3 major areas of science versus what I actually do? And you failed to bold, I DO KNOW THE BASICS. Good omission, you should have just deleted as disingenuous as you are.
Do you understand the expertise involved in actually doing a job? I can tell you about voltage from a theoretical point of view, but this does not mean I can go in a wire a building like a master electrician. I can tell you that freezing point of substances depends on the pressure you hold it at, along with temperature, something that completely escaped you, but Im not going to a well head and tell operators how to insulate their machinery properly. Trumpsters like you dont get the difference. Just throw a guy into a job who knows nothing about it. This is how I know you are a fake. You cant grasp very straightforward ideas and you write for Popular Science? Bull shit... Popular Bullshit.
You are grasping at the lack of air.
Mrs. Crutchfield cant take it when she cant use her words.
Thanks for going back for me.
Do some more.
DMC does not care about what is true. Just what "gotcha" shit he can get away with.
A genyoowine sociopath.
RandomGuy
06-03-2021, 05:08 PM
imho yes, it makes more sense that a universe that works harmoniously and a planet with perfect balance and physics to allow trillions of life forms to all coexist, was intelligently created than happened by a googolplex's chance to come together harmoniously from a random nonsensical chaotic explosion.
Argument from incredulity, also known as personal incredulity fallacy, is a logical fallacy in which someone concludes that something must not be true (or false) since they cannot believe or imagine it being true (or false).
This type of fallacious move is frequently used in debates over science and religion when certain theories and claims differ from our own deeply held beliefs.
It belongs into the category of informal fallacies, and is a form of appeal to ignorance.
https://fallacyinlogic.com/argument-from-incredulity-definition-and-examples/
1: if the way the universe and our local presentation/circumstances fell out didn't allow for the possibility of life, you wouldn't be around to think about it. it isn't that surprising
2: you do not have any way of assessing the probability of the universe ending up the way it did, because you do not have any other universes to actually compare it to.
I could just as easily say: the odds of the universe ending up the way it did is 1.0, with just as much justification.
As far as reasons go, this is an especially shitty/flawed one that is easily picked apart.
imho yes, it makes more sense that a universe that works harmoniously and a planet with perfect balance and physics to allow trillions of life forms to all coexist, was intelligently created than happened by a googolplex's chance to come together harmoniously from a random nonsensical chaotic explosion
but to each their own
Adding the god makes it more complicated, not less. You cannot explain the origins of the god, so likely you just accept this god always existed. But then there becomes a paradox. If you try to explain the origins of the god, then you have to explain the origins of the origins. Infinite regress begins. God of the gaps (I don't know so I will say god did it to feel better about not knowing) is a fleeting god, getting smaller the more we learn.
any scientist that wants to knock religion for basis if their beliefs on "faith" and the bible, yet believes in non-factual non-proven theories like the big bang (and then wants to teach them as if they are absolute proven fact) has no room to talk because they are literally doing the exact same thing as people who put belief in God.
Except scientists don't live to believe in a theory. They live to disprove it. What religion espouses doubt as a core tenet? What religion has falsifiable god claims?
https://fallacyinlogic.com/argument-from-incredulity-definition-and-examples/
1: if the way the universe and our local presentation/circumstances fell out didn't allow for the possibility of life, you wouldn't be around to think about it. it isn't that surprising
2: you do not have any way of assessing the probability of the universe ending up the way it did, because you do not have any other universes to actually compare it to.
I could just as easily say: the odds of the universe ending up the way it did is 1.0, with just as much justification.
As far as reasons go, this is an especially shitty/flawed one that is easily picked apart.
Exactly. Like the observation "it would be like throwing a scrabble game into the air and it coming down forming the dictionary"
Anything it forms has the same odds as anything else it forms. We only say "dictionary" because it's a known sequence of letters but any sequence has the same odds. What those who argue for god do is commit post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, because we are here therefore we were put here.
RandomGuy
06-03-2021, 05:13 PM
i
any scientist that wants to knock religion for basis if their beliefs on "faith" and the bible, yet believes in non-factual non-proven theories like the big bang (and then wants to teach them as if they are absolute proven fact) has no room to talk because they are literally doing the exact same thing as people who put belief in God.
"theories" do not mean the same thing in science as you are using here. theories in science ONLY get to be theories IF there is evidence to support them.
faith is the belief in something without evidence.
We have no evidence that some sort of god exists or is even possible.
We have evidence supporting the scientific theory of the big bang through observation of the physical universe.
Equating something that actually has evidence for it to something that does not doesn't really make sense to me.
Why are you trying to do that here?
"theories" do not mean the same thing in science as you are using here. theories in science ONLY get to be theories IF there is evidence to support them.
faith is the belief in something without evidence.
We have no evidence that some sort of god exists or is even possible.
We have evidence supporting the scientific theory of the big bang through observation of the physical universe.
Equating something that actually has evidence for it to something that does not doesn't really make sense to me.
Why are you trying to do that here?
Because he's the one.
RandomGuy
06-03-2021, 05:16 PM
Exactly. Like the observation "it would be like throwing a scrabble game into the air and it coming down forming the dictionary"
Anything it forms has the same odds as anything else it forms. We only say "dictionary" because it's a known sequence of letters but any sequence has the same odds. What those who argue for god do is commit post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, because we are here therefore we were put here.
“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, 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. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
RandomGuy
06-03-2021, 05:18 PM
Im a shitty scientist because I have told you science does not make calls that involve morals and undefined terms.
Tell me what science has to say about God?
No, I will answer it for you, absolutely nothing.
Science has absolutely no say on whether a God or God's exist.
Does this upset you?
Tell me what science has to say about abortion right or wrong, absolutely nothing.
If you want to know about the biological facts about abortions at different points in a pregnancy, science can give you some information, but there is no moral judgement call.
Why cant you get this? And please stay on the board as I need to figure out people as dense as you are. What is actually blocking you from reasoning and your false sense of superiority.
Read up on sociopathy. One aspect is a fragile ego.
https://fallacyinlogic.com/argument-from-incredulity-definition-and-examples/
1: if the way the universe and our local presentation/circumstances fell out didn't allow for the possibility of life, you wouldn't be around to think about it. it isn't that surprising
2: you do not have any way of assessing the probability of the universe ending up the way it did, because you do not have any other universes to actually compare it to.
and you do?
I could just as easily say: the odds of the universe ending up the way it did is 1.0, with just as much justification.
prove it
As far as reasons go, this is an especially shitty/flawed one that is easily picked apart.
literally the same can be said for your argument for the exact same reasons. funny how that works.
Adding the god makes it more complicated, not less. You cannot explain the origins of the god, so likely you just accept this god always existed. But then there becomes a paradox. If you try to explain the origins of the god, then you have to explain the origins of the origins. Infinite regress begins. God of the gaps (I don't know so I will say god did it to feel better about not knowing) is a fleeting god, getting smaller the more we learn.
you're welcome to give an actual factual explanation of how the big bang started. id love to see the proof.
Except scientists don't live to believe in a theory. They live to disprove it. What religion espouses doubt as a core tenet? What religion has falsifiable god claims?
if the goal is to disprove a theory, then why raise one to begin with (much less present it as a fact without any basis to claim it as a fact)?
"theories" do not mean the same thing in science as you are using here. theories in science ONLY get to be theories IF there is evidence to support them.
faith is the belief in something without evidence.
We have no evidence that some sort of god exists or is even possible.
We have evidence supporting the scientific theory of the big bang through observation of the physical universe.
so show me the factual absolute evidence that the universe was started through an element smaller than an atom exploding into the entire universe, and that it happened entirely on its own, that there was absolutely no other force, being or reasoning behind it.
Equating something that actually has evidence for it to something that does not doesn't really make sense to me.
Why are you trying to do that here?
then show me the proof. not theories, not guesses, not circumstantial evidence, not reasoning that supports a theory. i want absolute undeniable facts that your "theory" was how the universe came about, since that's apparently what you want to see in order to believe in a higher being.
spurraider21
06-03-2021, 05:37 PM
if you're going to argue that its unlikely that the universe was perfectly tailored to end up the way it is now, and that therefore it is more likely that there is a god.... then you'd have to grapple with how unlikely it is that whatever version of God came to be was also perfectly tailored to decide to make the universe exactly as it is.
what if god didnt care to make anything and was just lazy. what if god decided not to make humans. you are also presupposing a perfectly tailored god for your worldview, which is as much of a stretch as the perfectly tailored universe argument
ElNono
06-03-2021, 05:42 PM
if the goal is to disprove a theory, then why raise one to begin with (much less present it as a fact without any basis to claim it as a fact)?
1) Because you can infer some things without being able to test them at the moment. Over time, we've been able to improve our tech to actually do test them, and then either confirm or refute the theory.
2) No theory in science is considered or presented as a fact. That's reserved to scientific laws, which are testable. You should really get familiar with the scientific method if you're interested in arguing about this.
spurraider21
06-03-2021, 05:57 PM
scientific law is a statement of what is observable and predictable...often times in physics, this refers to things that can be boiled down into a mathematical expression. ie newton's laws of motion. we know exactly how objects will act when force is applied onto them (when factoring all variables including friction, etc).
a theory is our attempt to explain those phenomena. for a theoretical model to remain a working/viable one, it has to be consistent with all of the available evidence.
basically... a law is a "what" and the theory is the "why" or "how"
i dont know that a theory can necessarily be proven, though with the right technology, you can verify predictions that come from its model... ie how we were able to detect gravitational waves nearly a century after they were predicted as part of einstein's theory of general relativity. very similarly, the detection of the cosmic microwave background ended up verifying some of the claims/predictions of the big bang theory
when testable predictions of a theory (particularly those which appear to be exclusive to that particular explanation) are verified, its usually a good indicator that the theory is robust
if you're going to argue that its unlikely that the universe was perfectly tailored to end up the way it is now, and that therefore it is more likely that there is a god.... then you'd have to grapple with how unlikely it is that whatever version of God came to be was also perfectly tailored to decide to make the universe exactly as it is.
what if god didnt care to make anything and was just lazy. what if god decided not to make humans. you are also presupposing a perfectly tailored god for your worldview, which is as much of a stretch as the perfectly tailored universe argument
im not making an argument for one side or the other at this time
those who believe solely in science in short accuse those who believe in god as having no basis because of no fact and limited knowledge (you can use all the fancy lingo you want, but thats what it boils down to) my point is that the other side is doing the exact same thing, whether they want to admit it or not.
1) Because you can infer some things without being able to test them at the moment. Over time, we've been able to improve our tech to actually do test them, and then either confirm or refute the theory.
2) No theory in science is considered or presented as a fact. That's reserved to scientific laws, which are testable. You should really get familiar with the scientific method if you're interested in arguing about this.
so then how did the universe come about? what do you believe?
spurraider21
06-03-2021, 06:33 PM
im not making an argument for one side or the other at this time
those who believe solely in science in short accuse those who believe in god as having no basis because of no fact and limited knowledge. my point is that the other side is doing the exact same thing, whether they want to admit it or not.
i think the difference is that the "other side" just says "i dont know" instead of inventing an answer... ie what exactly caused the big bang? we dont know. and thats where we are until some guys a lot smarter than us figure it out and are able to verify that answer down the line.
on the other hand, theists just assert a catch-all answer that requires no testability and cant be proven or disproven either way. its an unjustified confidence imo
scientific law is a statement of what is observable and predictable...often times in physics, this refers to things that can be boiled down into a mathematical expression. ie newton's laws of motion. we know exactly how objects will act when force is applied onto them (when factoring all variables including friction, etc).
a theory is our attempt to explain those phenomena. for a theoretical model to remain a working/viable one, it has to be consistent with all of the available evidence.
basically... a law is a "what" and the theory is the "why" or "how"
i dont know that a theory can necessarily be proven, though with the right technology, you can verify predictions that come from its model... ie how we were able to detect gravitational waves nearly a century after they were predicted as part of einstein's theory of general relativity. very similarly, the detection of the cosmic microwave background ended up verifying some of the claims/predictions of the big bang theory
when testable predictions of a theory (particularly those which appear to be exclusive to that particular explanation) are verified, its usually a good indicator that the theory is robust
so basically, theres an equal amount of actual hard factual proof that there isnt a god to the amount of proof that there is a god. got it :tu
ElNono
06-03-2021, 06:35 PM
so then how did the universe come about? what do you believe?
We don't know with certainty just yet.
And this isn't an argument based on faith or "what do you believe", it's based on what we know so far, which is good enough to have competing, sometimes overlapping theories, but not enough to test all their claims.
i think the difference is that the "other side" just says "i dont know" instead of inventing an answer... ie what exactly caused the big bang? we dont know. and thats where we are until some guys a lot smarter than us figure it out and are able to verify that answer down the line.
yeah thats completely untrue, as there are plenty who present theories such as the big bang and evolution as an absolute fact. maybe you personally dont push such an agenda, but plenty do.
on the other hand, theists just assert a catch-all answer that requires no testability and cant be proven or disproven either way.
so basically the difference is one uses science to try to give proof, and the other uses a history book to try to give proof. either way, neither side is able to provide undeniable proof, and are in the same boat.
spurraider21
06-03-2021, 06:37 PM
so basically, theres an equal amount of actual hard factual proof that there isnt a god to the amount of proof that there is a god. got it :tu
well yeah. by definition, god is supernatural... so there would be no hard evidence for a god, just as there would be no hard evidence against a god. its an unprovable, unfalsifiable assertion.
scientists arent out there actively trying to disprove god. that's not their mission. they're out there trying to answer questions about nature/reality.
now you can have evidence against specific god claims... like looking back at some of the claims within the bible re: creation of humans/animals, or noah's ark, etc. but the general concept of A god being the "prime mover" of the universe? yeah, there's no way to prove or disprove that. that's more of a philosophical argument than anything.
We don't know with certainty just yet.
And this isn't an argument based on faith or "what do you believe", it's based on what we know so far, which is good enough to have competing, sometimes overlapping theories, but not enough to test all their claims.
got it :tu
ElNono
06-03-2021, 06:39 PM
i think the difference is that the "other side" just says "i dont know" instead of inventing an answer... ie what exactly caused the big bang? we dont know. and thats where we are until some guys a lot smarter than us figure it out and are able to verify that answer down the line.
on the other hand, theists just assert a catch-all answer that requires no testability and cant be proven or disproven either way. its an unjustified confidence imo
Exactly. That's the god of gaps fallacy. Anything we can't explain, must be god. "don't know" is an unacceptable position, somehow, which is patently false.
Plus, it's not even a theory. A theory must be falsifiable. In other words, you have to present tests to prove it, but logically, that also presents other tests to disprove it.
There's no such thing with deities. It's neither testable nor falsifiable. You either buy into the whole thing on faith, or you don't. As such, it's not science.
well yeah. by definition, god is supernatural... so there would be no hard evidence for a god, just as there would be no hard evidence against a god. its an unprovable, unfalsifiable assertion.
fair enough
scientists arent out there actively trying to disprove god. that's not their mission. they're out there trying to answer questions about nature/reality.
some arent. plenty are.
now you can have evidence against specific god claims... like looking back at some of the claims within the bible re: creation of humans/animals, or noah's ark, etc
what evidence absolutely disproves such things?
but the general concept of A god being the "prime mover" of the universe? yeah, there's no way to prove or disprove that. that's more of a philosophical argument than anything.
again, fair enough. to each their own. i have my personal beliefs, but what doesnt make sense to me is when believers in science want to claim that since theres no factual proof of god, that means he absolutely cannot exist, but then want to tell everyone that its a fact that the universe was not created but came into existence out of thin air. :dizzy
spurraider21
06-03-2021, 06:42 PM
yeah thats completely untrue, as there are plenty who present theories such as the big bang and evolution as an absolute fact. maybe you personally dont push such an agenda, but plenty do.
well the big bang and evolution have mountains of evidence that support those theories, and at this point are not contradicted by any evidence known to us. it would take something quite extraordinary at this point to cast doubt on those theories.
but if you ask somebody "how did the big bang happen" or "how did the conditions giving rise to the big bang come to be" i think any self respecting physicist would say that they dont know, rather than just asserting "a god made it happen"
so basically the difference is one uses science to try to give proof, and the other uses a history book to try to give proof. either way, neither side is able to provide undeniable proof, and are in the same boat.
a) yeah, one side uses science, the other side uses a book
b) i would dispute the description of it being a "history book"
c) i also wouldnt put those two on the same playing field, because the whole purpose of science is to discover or prove truths about reality and nature, whereas the bible (or holy book of choice) just asserts its claims as fact
d) science has proof of all kinds of things. god is by definition something supernatural that cant be proven or disproven, so its not a subject that science would directly grapple with, just like how science would not seek to answer philosophical questions. science answers questions about nature, and is pretty good at doing so, or at least the best tool we have for doing so
spurraider21
06-03-2021, 06:43 PM
fair enough
some arent. plenty are.
what evidence absolutely disproves such things?
again, fair enough. to each their own. i have my personal beliefs, but what doesnt make sense to me is when believers in science want to claim that since theres no factual proof of god, that means he absolutely cannot exist, but then want to tell everyone that its a fact that the universe was not created but came into existence out of thin air. :dizzy
about to head to the dentist. will check back and respond later. been a fun chat so far :tu
Exactly. That's the god of gaps fallacy. Anything we can't explain, must be god. "don't know" is an unacceptable position, somehow, which is patently false.
same things happen the other way. anything we cant explain, must be a science to it, can't be god.
Plus, it's not even a theory. A theory must be falsifiable. In other words, you have to present tests to prove it, but logically, that also presents other tests to disprove it.
There's no such thing with deities. It's neither testable nor falsifiable. You either buy into the whole thing on faith, or you don't. As such, it's not science.
same the other way. either you believe a god did it, or you believe theres a scientific explanation. theres no middle ground with most such people.
well the big bang and evolution have mountains of evidence that support those theories, and at this point are not contradicted by any evidence known to us. it would take something quite extraordinary at this point to cast doubt on those theories.
but still no hard evidence. theists can claim theres plenty of evidence that support their beliefs as well. but since there isn't hard evidence, most people who are focused on science dont care to consider their side either.
but if you ask somebody "how did the big bang happen" or "how did the conditions giving rise to the big bang come to be" i think any self respecting physicist would say that they dont know, rather than just asserting "a god made it happen"
a) yeah, one side uses science, the other side uses a book
b) i would dispute the description of it being a "history book"
c) i also wouldnt put those two on the same playing field, because the whole purpose of science is to discover or prove truths about reality and nature, whereas the bible (or holy book of choice) just asserts its claims as fact
d) science has proof of all kinds of things. god is by definition something supernatural that cant be proven or disproven, so its not a subject that science would directly grapple with, just like how science would not seek to answer philosophical questions. science answers questions about nature, and is pretty good at doing so, or at least the best tool we have for doing so
we can go on and on and its all going to go in circles. either way, im not pushing my personal beliefs at this time. i stated clearly what my point was, that many who believe solely in science do the exact same things theists do (discredit the other side for not having hard evidence) yet dont want to admit it.
regardless in the end, one side is right, and the other is wrong, there is no way around that fact. each person much make their own personal choice on what they choose to believe.
and my very original post in this thread is that i dont personally support killing an unborn human fetus because they were raped or are too young to raise a child. someone replied to me saying that an unborn fetus is not a human according to science, which is bologna.
ElNono
06-03-2021, 06:54 PM
same things happen the other way. anything we cant explain, must be a science to it, can't be god.
No, not really. Science has pretty strict rules on what gets considered to be a theory or a scientific law.
Nothing is taken on faith. You have to show how somebody else can reproduce your claims, or falsify them. Otherwise, it's not science.
And the lack of a theory at all makes it unknown, which is a perfectly logical and a fine position.
same the other way. either you believe a god did it, or you believe theres a scientific explanation. theres no middle ground with most such people.
Again, not how it works at all. Whether I believe there's a scientific explanation or not, is faith, not science.
Science is me coming up with a theory that attempts to explain how whatever it is works, and providing tests to have somebody else either reproduce or falsify the claim.
Then that theory is scrutinized based on a number of factors. ie: does it respects scientific laws, like thermodynamics, or can parts of it be tested, etc.
It's still not a 'fact' or a scientific law until all claims are testable and reproducible. That's why general relativity is still a theory, despite the bulk of it's claim have been tested to be correct. There are some additional claims we can't test yet.
Now, if there's people that don't know or understand how the scientific method works, then that's not the fault of neither science nor faith. It's an education problem.
No, not really. Science has pretty strict rules on what gets considered to be a theory or a scientific law.
Nothing is taken on faith. You have to show how somebody else can reproduce your claims, or falsify them. Otherwise, it's not science.
And the lack of a theory at all makes it unknown, which is a perfectly logical and a fine position.
Again, not how it works at all. Whether I believe there's a scientific explanation or not, is faith, not science.
Science is me coming up with a theory that attempts to explain how whatever it is works, and providing tests to have somebody else either reproduce or falsify the claim.
Then that theory is scrutinized based on a number of factors. ie: does it respects scientific laws, like thermodynamics, or can parts of it be tested, etc.
It's still not a 'fact' or a scientific law until all claims are testable and reproducible. That's why general relativity is still a theory, despite the bulk of it's claim have been tested to be correct. There are some additional claims we can't test yet.
Now, if there's people that don't know or understand how the scientific method works, then that's not the fault of neither science nor faith. It's an education problem.
so you are undecided on the existence of a god or higher being potentially having created and caused all these things to come into existence?
Theory is how something works. Law is that something works. Theories don't graduate to become laws. The theory of gravity is a theory, but an apple didn't suspend in mid air to see if it was accepted as a theory. That's because of the law of gravity. Both theories and laws can be disproven. If you could disprove a law you'd be pretty well known.
Gould said something along those lines.
Blake
06-03-2021, 07:29 PM
so you are undecided on the existence of a god or higher being potentially having created and caused all these things to come into existence?
I'm decided as to who did not create the universe: Bible God.
If you want to say it was the flying spaghetti monster, I've got no problem with it, just keep it out of the science books where evolution belongs.
you're welcome to give an actual factual explanation of how the big bang started. id love to see the proof.
if the goal is to disprove a theory, then why raise one to begin with (much less present it as a fact without any basis to claim it as a fact)?
You'd need to learn a lot of fundamental science and physics to be able to follow the reasoning. Proposing the BB isn't the same as proposing a god. The BB can be disproven by finding contradictory evidence. The god concept or "prime mover" concept fails the falsifiability test because it regresses back to the next unknown. Basically, the BB theory was proposed using evidence and scientific reasoning. The god concept was proposed without any evidence, so there is no framework in which to test the suggestion. No god can be seen "but maybe god doesn't want to be seen". No god responds when summoned "but god doesn't have to". Anything you can say about a god you can say about the flying spaghetti monster. The same is not true for scientific theories. They have a very specific set of rules they must abide by and when they do not, they are disregarded as scientific fact. They are still theories though, they were just disproven.
You don't raise a theory. You raise a hypothesis. You form a theory using a set of criteria and then you try everything to disprove it before anyone else does. A theory isn't a guess.
fair enough
some arent. plenty are.
what evidence absolutely disproves such things?
again, fair enough. to each their own. i have my personal beliefs, but what doesnt make sense to me is when believers in science want to claim that since theres no factual proof of god, that means he absolutely cannot exist, but then want to tell everyone that its a fact that the universe was not created but came into existence out of thin air. :dizzy
It's usually philosophers that would try to disprove a god by showing logical inconsistencies and fallacies in how the god concept came to be, and how the believer has painted themselves into an corner by making their god all things. When you have all things to work with, you can do a lot of disproving.
I'm decided as to who did not create the universe: Bible God.
If you want to say it was the flying spaghetti monster, I've got no problem with it, just keep it out of the science books where evolution belongs.
good for you
You'd need to learn a lot of fundamental science and physics to be able to follow the reasoning. Proposing the BB isn't the same as proposing a god. The BB can be disproven by finding contradictory evidence. The god concept or "prime mover" concept fails the falsifiability test because it regresses back to the next unknown. Basically, the BB theory was proposed using evidence and scientific reasoning. The god concept was proposed without any evidence, so there is no framework in which to test the suggestion. No god can be seen "but maybe god doesn't want to be seen". No god responds when summoned "but god doesn't have to". Anything you can say about a god you can say about the flying spaghetti monster. The same is not true for scientific theories. They have a very specific set of rules they must abide by and when they do not, they are disregarded as scientific fact. They are still theories though, they were just disproven.
You don't raise a theory. You raise a hypothesis. You form a theory using a set of criteria and then you try everything to disprove it before anyone else does. A theory isn't a guess.
It's usually philosophers that would try to disprove a god by showing logical inconsistencies and fallacies in how the god concept came to be, and how the believer has painted themselves into an corner by making their god all things. When you have all things to work with, you can do a lot of disproving.
we can get as technical or philosophical as we want, it doesnt change the fact that there is no more absolute factual evidence that god doesnt exist than there is that god does exist
and you can split hairs all you want on exactly how theories are supposed to work, it doesnt chance the fact that (while maybe not yourself and some others) many people and scientists who don't believe in god present theories such as big bang, evolution, etc as absolute fact
Blake
06-03-2021, 08:16 PM
good for you
Well, yes. Saves me time and money on Sunday mornings for one thing.
Well, yes. Saves me time and money on Sunday mornings for one thing.
neat. whatever makes you happy :tu
Blake
06-03-2021, 08:17 PM
... it doesnt change the fact that there is no more absolute factual evidence that god doesnt exist than there is that god does exist
There's the FSM. Lol.
Blake
06-03-2021, 08:18 PM
neat. whatever makes you happy :tu
Absolutely. Now it would make me even happier if politicians kept Bible junk out of politics.
Absolutely. Now it would make me even happier if politicians kept Bible junk out of politics.
lol politics
Blake
06-03-2021, 08:22 PM
lol politics
Well yeah, that's the forum we're in.
Lol c'mon man lighten up :lol
spurraider21
06-03-2021, 08:45 PM
fair enough
some arent. plenty are.
not exactly sure what this means. there isn't a scientific way to disprove god. now... there are scientific ways to disprove some claims within the bible or religious texts (ie creation of man, great flood). that might be what you are referring to, but i question if these people are out there with a specific motivation to prove the bible wrong vs just wanting to actual answer questions within their fields.
what evidence absolutely disproves such things?
the notion that man was created in his current form independent of other animals is completely inconsistent with the fossil record or the genetic record. the fossil record allowed us to compare anatomies of different animals and even place them in a timeline, which allowed us to start tracking and categorizing the history of different species including our own.
what's crazy is that when this first started, people hadn't the slightest clue about DNA, genetics, or any kind of hereditary science. once we had the capacity to study those, the genetic record matched up with the fossil record pretty cleanly. this is inconsistent with the claim that all land animals came on one day and humans immediately thereafter, etc. nowhere on the planet will you find fossils of bunnies in the same geological stratum as that where we find dinosaurs.
its the same story with the ark... the record we have to actually look at doesnt line up. not to mention the lack of evidence of a concurrent global flood (some religious apologists now claim that it was more of a local/regional flood phenomenon, not a global one)... or how we find certain animals in certain continents, ie i doubt that noah carried all the kangaroos to australia, all the elephants to africa/india, and all the jaguars to central and south america
again, fair enough. to each their own. i have my personal beliefs, but what doesnt make sense to me is when believers in science want to claim that since theres no factual proof of god, that means he absolutely cannot exist, but then want to tell everyone that its a fact that the universe was not created but came into existence out of thin air. :dizzy
i agree, to each their own. i was probably more obnoxious during my early college days, but i dont go around yelling at people for believing things that i dont believe in. i only get flustered when people try to force their religion onto me (or the public) by trying to codify their religious tenets into law.
like... if a christian guy thinks that gay marriage is absolutely wrong, then in my book, he's free to live his way and refuse to marry a man, even if he was attracted to men and tempted to do so (though i'd pity him for opting for a less happy life in that situation)... but where i draw the line is that person trying to force his religious views onto other people that live in the same country. but if people want to have a discussion about it... i do enjoy doing that. argument/debate has always been a hobby of mine. but i dont typically do that unless there appears to be an invitation to. i dont go barging into a church to proselytize atheism
as for the bolded, i think that wouldn't be logically coherent. but at the same time, something i've seen is some people seem to have an inability to distinguish the following statements:
1) i dont believe in god
2) i believe god doesnt exist
i think #1 is a perfectly fine view, and its the one i hold... ie i havent seen satisfactory evidence to cause me to believe that a god exists, so i dont. but thats different from suggesting that i have proof that god doesnt exist.
it would be like asking you if believe that i have an even number of marbles in my pocket. you have no evidence to believe thats the case, so it would be perfectly appropriate to say that you dont believe me. but then if i turn around and say "oh so you're saying you think I have an odd number of marbles???"... then that wouldnt really be a fair assessment of your position either. ie saying that you dont believe there are an odd number of marbles isnt the same as saying that there definitely arent an odd number of marbles. just that you dont have the evidence to believe the former to be true
the notion that man was created in his current form independent of other animals is completely inconsistent with the fossil record or the genetic record. the fossil record allowed us to compare anatomies of different animals and even place them in a timeline, which allowed us to start tracking and categorizing the history of different species including our own.
fossil record absolutely proves that all life evolved from some primordial soup or something? it absolutely proves that humans evolved from apes or whatever they want to claim these days? honest question.
what's crazy is that when this first started, people hadn't the slightest clue about DNA, genetics, or any kind of hereditary science. once we had the capacity to study those, the genetic record matched up with the fossil record pretty cleanly. this is inconsistent with the claim that all land animals came on one day and humans immediately thereafter, etc. nowhere on the planet will you find fossils of bunnies in the same geological stratum as that where we find dinosaurs.
tbqh the bible doesnt give a specific explanation of how long it took for creation to be done, or exactly how god did it. it could have taken thousands of years, as opposed to a literal earth day. so anyone who assumes that it was an instant creation, or happened within any specific amount of time is simply speculating. i personally wouldnt bother to guess, nor even care how long it would have taken, it makes no difference ultimately.
its the same story with the ark... the record we have to actually look at doesnt line up. not to mention the lack of evidence of a concurrent global flood (some religious apologists now claim that it was more of a local/regional flood phenomenon, not a global one)... or how we find certain animals in certain continents, ie i doubt that noah carried all the kangaroos to australia, all the elephants to africa/india, and all the jaguars to central and south america
some good questions certainly. but i dont see how that absolutely disproves that a global flood happened.
i agree, to each their own. i was probably more obnoxious during my early college days, but i dont go around yelling at people for believing things that i dont believe in. i only get flustered when people try to force their religion onto me (or the public) by trying to codify their religious tenets into law.
like... if a christian guy thinks that gay marriage is absolutely wrong, then in my book, he's free to live his way and refuse to marry a man, even if he was attracted to men and tempted to do so (though i'd pity him for opting for a less happy life in that situation)... but where i draw the line is that person trying to force his religious views onto other people that live in the same country. but if people want to have a discussion about it... i do enjoy doing that. argument/debate has always been a hobby of mine. but i dont typically do that unless there appears to be an invitation to. i dont go barging into a church to proselytize atheism
tbh anyone who actually knows the bible knows that forcing beliefs on another is not the way to go about it. i 100% agree that forcing beliefs and treating others disrespectfully is a trash thing to do, and not even something jesus did. he offered people teachings, and left it up to them whether to believe or not.
as for the bolded, i think that wouldn't be logically coherent. but at the same time, something i've seen is some people seem to have an inability to distinguish the following statements:
1) i dont believe in god
2) i believe god doesnt exist
i think #1 is a perfectly fine view, and its the one i hold... ie i havent seen satisfactory evidence to cause me to believe that a god exists, so i dont. but thats different from suggesting that i have proof that god doesnt exist.
it would be like asking you if believe that i have an even number of marbles in my pocket. you have no evidence to believe thats the case, so it would be perfectly appropriate to say that you dont believe me. but then if i turn around and say "oh so you're saying you think I have an odd number of marbles???"... then that wouldnt really be a fair assessment of your position either. ie saying that you dont believe there are an odd number of marbles isnt the same as saying that there definitely arent an odd number of marbles. just that you dont have the evidence to believe the former to be true
i agree there definitely is a difference between the two that id argue the majority of people dont seem to see, whether theists or atheiests, which results in a major breakdown of communication between the two sides. and tbh most of the people that dont see the difference between the two, simply dont want to be cause they simply want others to believe what they believe, as you talked about earlier.
tbh conversations like this often cant be had between people with such opposite beliefs like you and i. its nice to be able to enjoy one in a civil manner. 99/100 i avoid conversations like this because its just not worth it because people act crazy about it, lol.
spurraider21
06-03-2021, 09:55 PM
fossil record absolutely proves that humans evolved from some primordial soup? it absolutely proves that humans evolved from apes or whatever they want to claim these days? honest question.
well to be clear, the theory of evolution by natural selection is our explanation for how life changes over time. so the question of how life originated is not one answered by evolution, per se. so like you said, it would prove that humans evolved from apes (and other creatures before that), but it wouldnt be explanatory as to how the first life came to be.
the working theory there is abiogenesis, but i dont think there is nearly as much evidence on that front as there is for natural selection itself, though its still the most plausible explanation we've got given the evidence that is available (in what we confidently believe the early conditions of the earth were like, we've found that amino acids can develop naturally, which is a big deal)
tbqh the bible doesnt give a specific explanation of how long it took for creation to be done, or exactly how god did it. it could have taken thousands of years, as opposed to a literal earth day. so anyone who assumes that it was an instant creation, or happened within any specific amount of time is simply speculating. i personally wouldnt bother to guess, nor even care how long it would have taken, it makes no difference ultimately.
i mean it pretty clearly says "day" so it would be weird if by day they meant millenia (though i know that was the big argument in Inherit the Wind). and whether it took one day or longer isn't really the point, but more so that animals and humans were separately created in their present form... which necessarily excludes the possibility of humans having been descendants of other animals.
some good questions certainly. but i dont see how that absolutely disproves that a global flood happened.
well its certainly inconsistent with the biblical account of one. but otherwise we'd look to see geological or archeological evidence of a simultaneous global food, which tbh should be pretty apparent given the scale of it... but no convincing evidence on that front either.
i dont think its really the role of science to actively disprove things. rather, the scientific method calls for us to adopt the "null hypothesis"... ie make no assumptions and work from the starting point that a given idea/hypothesis is not the case. the burden then goes on one to make their case in the affirmative. for example, the scientific method for demonstrating the global flood would to start from the assumption that it was not the case, and to only change that position when the evidence for that thing emerges. to reverse that order leads to some absurdities imo, like the flying spaghetti monster stuff (which nobody asserts seriously, but more so to demonstrate how the burden of proof keeps things from falling into absurdity)
tbh anyone who actually knows the bible knows that forcing beliefs on another is not the way to go about it. i 100% agree that forcing beliefs and treating others disrespectfully is a trash thing to do, and not even something jesus did. he offered people teachings, and left it up to them whether to believe or not.
:tu
i agree there definitely is a difference between the two that id argue the majority of people dont seem to see, whether theists or atheiests, which results in a major breakdown of communication between the two sides. and tbh most of the people that dont see the difference between the two, simply dont want to be cause they simply want others to believe what they believe, as you talked about earlier.
yeah i think a lot of people are inarticulate about these things. or they just dont clarify definitions before getting into their argument. like i would characterize myself as an atheist, but somebody might think that atheist means one who affirmatively claims god does not exist... whereas i would describe it as not having a belief in god. so people get off on the wrong foot without realizing it and that stops conversations from going forward smoothly
tbh conversations like this often cant be had between people with such opposite beliefs like you and i. its nice to be able to enjoy one in a civil manner. 99/100 i avoid conversations like this because its just not worth it because people act crazy about it, lol.
yeah, same. i appreciate the convo though. some posters here are better than others with that... being able to have a good faith discussion about points of views they differ on. others (like koriwhat) never really seem interested in doing that.
Blake
06-03-2021, 10:00 PM
.... i agree there definitely is a difference between the two that id argue the majority of people dont seem to see, whether theists or atheiests, which results in a major breakdown of communication between the two sides. and tbh most of the people that dont see the difference between the two, simply dont want to be cause they simply want others to believe what they believe, as you talked about earlier.
It's not that two sides believe opposite things. It's that one side believes something and the other side is saying prove it.
It's how burden of proof works
Blake
06-03-2021, 10:09 PM
anyone who actually knows the bible knows that forcing beliefs on another is not the way to go about it. i 100% agree that forcing beliefs and treating others disrespectfully is a trash thing to do, and not even something jesus did. he offered people teachings, and left it up to them whether to believe or not.
2 Chronicles 15:12-13
English Standard Version
12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, 13 but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.
ElNono
06-03-2021, 11:02 PM
so you are undecided on the existence of a god or higher being potentially having created and caused all these things to come into existence?
I would say I'm not undecided, I reject the notion there's a god, at least as it's presented in theology.
Thankfully, I don't have to prove a negative, thus I don't have the burden to prove that god doesn't exist.
ElNono
06-03-2021, 11:21 PM
Theory is how something works. Law is that something works. Theories don't graduate to become laws. The theory of gravity is a theory, but an apple didn't suspend in mid air to see if it was accepted as a theory. That's because of the law of gravity. Both theories and laws can be disproven. If you could disprove a law you'd be pretty well known.
Gould said something along those lines.
No. A theory is something that attempts to explain how something works. It presents a number of parameters to test it's fallibility. It becomes a scientific law once all claims are tested to be true and correct.
So, once all claims are testable and reproducible, it does graduate to a law. Newton's law of universal gravity was originally a theory. It took until 1798, 70+ years after Newton's death, till it could be tested and ascertained as correct, at which point it became Newton's law of universal gravity.
Scientific laws can't be disproven, as a matter of logic. If the tests have been positive, and are reproducible, then it's simply factual. What can happen to scientific laws is they become superseded by a much larger theory or law. For example, Newton's law is largely superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Now, you could correctly point out that a theory isn't factual (not yet anyways) and a law is, and thus the law carries more weight. That is true to an extent, but depends on the claims. Newton's didn't make a lot of claims, at least not as many as Einstein, so it was easier for him to graduate his theory. Einstein claims don't disprove Newton either, they simply encompass a much wider explanation of gravity, especially beyond earth.
i mean it pretty clearly says "day" so it would be weird if by day they meant millenia (though i know that was the big argument in Inherit the Wind). and whether it took one day or longer isn't really the point, but more so that animals and humans were separately created in their present form... which necessarily excludes the possibility of humans having been descendants of other animals.
a day doesnt always refer to a 24 hour period of time. day often also can refer to a period of time, even by definition. and its often used in such a manner, for example when old school people say "back in my day, when real basketball was played, the only way to get a foul called was to get chokeslammed to the ground and bleed to death" or "in todays day and age..." etc...
there are even times literally where the bible defines a day as a year, or even as a thousand years, depending on context and to illustrate certain points through hyperbole
well to be clear, the theory of evolution by natural selection is our explanation for how life changes over time. so the question of how life originated is not one answered by evolution, per se. so like you said, it would prove that humans evolved from apes (and other creatures before that), but it wouldnt be explanatory as to how the first life came to be.
the working theory there is abiogenesis, but i dont think there is nearly as much evidence on that front as there is for natural selection itself, though its still the most plausible explanation we've got given the evidence that is available (in what we confidently believe the early conditions of the earth were like, we've found that amino acids can develop naturally, which is a big deal)
well its certainly inconsistent with the biblical account of one. but otherwise we'd look to see geological or archeological evidence of a simultaneous global food, which tbh should be pretty apparent given the scale of it... but no convincing evidence on that front either.
i dont think its really the role of science to actively disprove things. rather, the scientific method calls for us to adopt the "null hypothesis"... ie make no assumptions and work from the starting point that a given idea/hypothesis is not the case. the burden then goes on one to make their case in the affirmative. for example, the scientific method for demonstrating the global flood would to start from the assumption that it was not the case, and to only change that position when the evidence for that thing emerges. to reverse that order leads to some absurdities imo, like the flying spaghetti monster stuff (which nobody asserts seriously, but more so to demonstrate how the burden of proof keeps things from falling into absurdity)
the thing is, all of this is based on the assumption that no god exists. if he actually does exist as the bible says, then that opens up the thought that not everything was done according to the current understanding of science; that some things happened supernaturally in ways that we simply do not know or understand (which i personally dont understand why it should be outside the realm of possibility considering science has barely scratched the surface on understanding much of anything about life and the universe, theres just so much that absolutely eludes human knowledge and understanding).
yeah i think a lot of people are inarticulate about these things. or they just dont clarify definitions before getting into their argument. like i would characterize myself as an atheist, but somebody might think that atheist means one who affirmatively claims god does not exist... whereas i would describe it as not having a belief in god. so people get off on the wrong foot without realizing it and that stops conversations from going forward smoothly
yeah, same. i appreciate the convo though. some posters here are better than others with that... being able to have a good faith discussion about points of views they differ on. others (like koriwhat) never really seem interested in doing that.
:tu
It's not that two sides believe opposite things. It's that one side believes something and the other side is saying prove it.
It's how burden of proof works
potato potatoe imho i think we are saying the same thing tbh
2 Chronicles 15:12-13
English Standard Version
12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, 13 but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.
so what does this prove?
I would say I'm not undecided, I reject the notion there's a god, at least as it's presented in theology.
Thankfully, I don't have to prove a negative, thus I don't have the burden to prove that god doesn't exist.
what makes the existence of god a negative?
ElNono
06-03-2021, 11:44 PM
what makes the existence of god a negative?
I don't think you understood my response, since that's not the claim I made.
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative
Blake
06-04-2021, 12:11 AM
so what does this prove?
That the Bible is about forcing beliefs on others.
That the Bible is about forcing beliefs on others.
so in other words you don't know the context of what you quoted.
I don't think you understood my response, since that's not the claim I made.
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative
sorry you're right let me rephrase
if you don't mind sharing, why do you personally reject the notion of a god existing? not trying to combat or debate you at all, I just personally like to hear different takes from different people is all, whether we agree or not. if you don't want to share I understand though
Blake
06-04-2021, 12:31 AM
so in other words you don't know the context of what you quoted.
I think the context speaks for itself but please enlighten me.
I think the context speaks for itself but please enlighten me.
explain the context then if it speaks for itself. you're the one who quoted it.
ElNono
06-04-2021, 01:00 AM
sorry you're right let me rephrase
if you don't mind sharing, why do you personally reject the notion of a god existing? not trying to combat or debate you at all, I just personally like to hear different takes from different people is all, whether we agree or not. if you don't want to share I understand though
Because from a non-fiction standpoint, there's really nothing to discuss when it comes to theism. You either buy it entirely on faith, or you don't. And I'm not a person of faith. I think my time is better spent on empirical analysis, which I find more compelling and practical.
spurraider21
06-04-2021, 01:05 AM
a day doesnt always refer to a 24 hour period of time. day often also can refer to a period of time, even by definition. and its often used in such a manner, for example when old school people say "back in my day, when real basketball was played, the only way to get a foul called was to get chokeslammed to the ground and bleed to death" or "in todays day and age..." etc...
there are even times literally where the bible defines a day as a year, or even as a thousand years, depending on context and to illustrate certain points through hyperbole
sure. like i said, it's not central to my point. but it talks about the first day, second day, etc. resting on the 7th day is why we have the sabbath. either way, its not pivotal
the thing is, all of this is based on the assumption that no god exists. if he actually does exist as the bible says, then that opens up the thought that not everything was done according to the current understanding of science; that some things happened supernaturally in ways that we simply do not know or understand (which i personally dont understand why it should be outside the realm of possibility considering science has barely scratched the surface on understanding much of anything about life and the universe, theres just so much that absolutely eludes human knowledge and understanding).
i disagree here. there could still be a god that started the universe, set space-time into motion... and everything else occurred naturally. it might assume that the literal interpretation of the bible, and by extension, that version of god doesnt exist.
the christian god is not the only possible god... you aren't an atheist just because you dont believe in Zeus or Thor. you're still a theist, but just a very specific kind. there could be theists who dont subscribe to a particular religion, in that they believe there must be some "god" that exists beyond nature/time and set everything into motion
:tu
Blake
06-04-2021, 01:06 AM
explain the context then if it speaks for itself. you're the one who quoted it.
Well apparently there were those that didn't seek the Lord, the God of Israel. The Israelites didn't like it so they made up a law that whoever doesn't seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death.
Is there more to it than that?
spurraider21
06-04-2021, 01:06 AM
sorry you're right let me rephrase
if you don't mind sharing, why do you personally reject the notion of a god existing? not trying to combat or debate you at all, I just personally like to hear different takes from different people is all, whether we agree or not. if you don't want to share I understand though
Because from a non-fiction standpoint, there's really nothing to discuss when it comes to theism. You either buy it entirely on faith, or you don't. And I'm not a person of faith. I think my time is better spent on empirical analysis, which I find more compelling and practical.
missed a golden opportunity to respond with "because i choose to" tbh
ElNono
06-04-2021, 01:29 AM
missed a golden opportunity to respond with "because i choose to" tbh
Sure. I'm also careful when we're talking about 'a higher being'. I feel it's misused when it's used interchangeably with deities. A higher being doesn't have to be supernatural.
If we were able to bring an Aztec to our current time, I'm pretty confident that person would think we're higher beings of some sort. Then again, he'll probably hunt us, cook us and eat us, but you get the idea.
Well apparently there were those that didn't seek the Lord, the God of Israel. The Israelites didn't like it so they made up a law that whoever doesn't seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death.
Is there more to it than that?
there was already an existing covenant between god and the israelites that worshipping other gods would result in death
this covenant was exclusive to the nation of israel, so to be a part of their nation, that was a part of the law by god that the israelites agreed to after being freed from egypt
even in the verses you quoted, literally the next two verses express that the nation agreed to going back to living by that requirement and rejoiced over it. it wasnt forced on them, they willingly agreed to it by oath despite for years having not lived by that law and it not being enforced whatsoever.
additionally, this did not apply to other nations. israelites were not to go slaughter people in egypt or babylon simply because they didnt worship the same god.
humans were never expected to force their relationship with god on others, otherwise jesus would have just walked around using supernatural power to force people to be his disciples, instead of allowing everyone to make their own choices.
many people who claim to be christian do force their beliefs on others unfortunately, which is absolutely wrong and not what a true christian should do. its not what jesus or god taught. everyone was always presented with choice.
Sure. I'm also careful when we're talking about 'a higher being'. I feel it's misused when it's used interchangeably with deities. A higher being doesn't have to be supernatural.
If we were able to bring an Aztec to our current time, I'm pretty confident that person would think we're higher beings of some sort. Then again, he'll probably hunt us, cook us and eat us, but you get the idea.
i could be wrong but i think he was referring to the user title under my avatar pic lol
ElNono
06-04-2021, 01:41 AM
i could be wrong but i think he was referring to the user title under my avatar pic lol
:lol he definitely was. Flew right over my head too. :tu
Frenchfred
06-04-2021, 03:36 AM
so in other words you don't know the context of what you quoted.
context? Pretty easy. A bunch of guys invented a god to control the masses. And it worked, the biggest lie in history.
context? Pretty easy. A bunch of guys invented a god to control the masses. And it worked, the biggest lie in history.
proof?
ElNono
06-04-2021, 05:56 AM
I mean, as far as recently, take a look at the theocracies in the Middle East.
We have over a millennia of recorded history to dissect religion as a social tool. It's less prevalent now in the west due to the growth of secularism via a number of routes (education, separation of church and state, democracy, etc).
This is not to say that religion wasn't a useful social tool back in the days of savagery. Projecting fear of the unknown is very powerful, especially at a time where education and communication was severely limited.
What I don't agree with is the notion that it's the only reason for religion, as I don't think everybody uses it as a tool for social control in every case.
Frenchfred
06-04-2021, 06:06 AM
proof?
I'm not the one inventing the existence of a god. The burden of proof is on your side. So, in 4000 years not ONE of the 107 billions people who have walked the face of the earth has been capable of proving the existence of one god. Pretty funny that you believe in that crap.
I'm not the one inventing the existence of a god. The burden of proof is on your side. So, in 4000 years not ONE of the 107 billions people who have walked the face of the earth has been capable of proving the existence of one god. Pretty funny that you believe in that crap.
lol back to the "burden of proof"
in other words, a cop out for those who want to dismiss something they can't factually dismiss
and if you are going to say that human history is 4000 years, that's based on bible claims. so just going with the first writer of the Bible, Moses, he personally claimed to have witnessed divine intervention time and time again. so what makes his claims a fallacy? or the many other writers of books of the bible and eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ? sounds to me like there have been plenty of people who got proof and wrote about it.
what proves that all of these writers accounts were simply made up out of thin air as you seem to suggest?
then again you probably believe that the whole universe came into existence out of nothing at all. lots of great proof we have there :lol
I mean, as far as recently, take a look at the theocracies in the Middle East.
We have over a millennia of recorded history to dissect religion as a social tool. It's less prevalent now in the west due to the growth of secularism via a number of routes (education, separation of church and state, democracy, etc).
This is not to say that religion wasn't a useful social tool back in the days of savagery. Projecting fear of the unknown is very powerful, especially at a time where education and communication was severely limited.
What I don't agree with is the notion that it's the only reason for religion, as I don't think everybody uses it as a tool for social control in every case.
I agree completely that religion has most definitely been used as a tool for control, and it's pretty sad. but as you said, it's not the only reason.
I personally feel that a proper understanding and application of the bible isnt a matter of control at all, as opposed to a way to know our creator and advice on how to live life decently and have unity with one another. when people use it to try to control others or take away choice, it's a very sad thing and horrible misuse of the scriptures imo
Frenchfred
06-04-2021, 06:52 AM
lol back to the "burden of proof"
in other words, a cop out for those who want to dismiss something they can't factually dismiss
and if you are going to say that human history is 4000 years, that's based on bible claims. so just going with the first writer of the Bible, Moses, he personally claimed to have witnessed divine intervention time and time again. so what makes his claims a fallacy? or the many other writers of books of the bible and eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ? sounds to me like there have been plenty of people who got proof and wrote about it.
what proves that all of these writers accounts were simply made up out of thin air as you seem to suggest?
then again you probably believe that the whole universe came into existence out of nothing at all. lots of great proof we have there :lol
if I say that you are pedophile, it is up to me to prove it, not you to prove that you are innocent.
So you believe one guy who talked to a burning bush? :lol If today one guy said the same, you would say that he is drunk or crazy and you know that this is true. So, today with billion of people and the possibility to record photos and videos, not one was able to prove the existence of god, weird, isn't it?
Yes, your writers made up things out of thin air like other cults who pretend that their guru did amazing things, nothing unusual here. Religions are cults created to control people
You don't understand how the universe was created so it has to be a god and yours, not of the other thousands gods, right?
Blake
06-04-2021, 07:32 AM
lol back to the "burden of proof"
in other words, a cop out for those who want to dismiss something they can't factually dismiss
and if you are going to say that human history is 4000 years, that's based on bible claims. so just going with the first writer of the Bible, Moses, he personally claimed to have witnessed divine intervention time and time again. so what makes his claims a fallacy? or the many other writers of books of the bible and eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ? sounds to me like there have been plenty of people who got proof and wrote about it.
what proves that all of these writers accounts were simply made up out of thin air as you seem to suggest?
then again you probably believe that the whole universe came into existence out of nothing at all. lots of great proof we have there :lol
What proves that Zeus was made up? Or do you believe in him too?
I don't know where religions came from or why. It makes sense to me that many people in those days believed it, just as many uneducated people today believe in some conspiracy shit or something else scientifically impossible. Starting with nothing, you have to fill in the blanks with whatever you think fits. Imagine taking a molecular biology test as an uneducated adult and having to fill in blanks with something, anything. Imagine what the end result would look like. Now imagine those end results get taught to other uneducated people, and when someone with some critical thinking ability comes along, all those taught the bogus story will find ways to protect the story from doubt. This is where faith comes in. For some reason, faith has been elevated to a virtue instead of just calling it comfortable ignorance coupled with self assuredness.
The atheist, imo, just refuses to fill in the blanks but they are searching for the answers just the same. But unlike the agnostic, instead of saying "I don't know if what you wrote is true or false because I don't know the actual answer", the atheist says "I don't know the answer to the question but I'm comfortable saying your answer is bullshit".
Blake
06-04-2021, 10:13 AM
The atheist, imo, just refuses to fill in the blanks but they are searching for the answers just the same. But unlike the agnostic, instead of saying "I don't know if what you wrote is true or false because I don't know the actual answer", the atheist says "I don't know the answer to the question but I'm comfortable saying your answer is bullshit".
The difference between the two is really not that much. It's really possible to be both.
spurraider21
06-04-2021, 11:05 AM
I don't know where religions came from or why. It makes sense to me that many people in those days believed it, just as many uneducated people today believe in some conspiracy shit or something else scientifically impossible. Starting with nothing, you have to fill in the blanks with whatever you think fits. Imagine taking a molecular biology test as an uneducated adult and having to fill in blanks with something, anything. Imagine what the end result would look like. Now imagine those end results get taught to other uneducated people, and when someone with some critical thinking ability comes along, all those taught the bogus story will find ways to protect the story from doubt. This is where faith comes in. For some reason, faith has been elevated to a virtue instead of just calling it comfortable ignorance coupled with self assuredness.
The atheist, imo, just refuses to fill in the blanks but they are searching for the answers just the same. But unlike the agnostic, instead of saying "I don't know if what you wrote is true or false because I don't know the actual answer", the atheist says "I don't know the answer to the question but I'm comfortable saying your answer is bullshit".
Depending on who you ask, atheism and agnosticism aren’t contradictory positions, ie you can be both
- an agnostic thinks that we don’t (or can’t) know if a god exists
- an atheist doesn’t believe that a god exists
- some people use a term like anti-theist re: the affirmative claim that god does not exist
so you can be an agnostic theist (i believe there’s a god, but we can’t really know if there is one or not) or an agnostic atheist (i don’t believe in a god, but we can’t really know). Those “new atheist” debate lords like hitchens/Dawkins/harris would typically describe themselves with those definitions. That atheism was not making an affirmative claim that god doesn’t exist
but these are just setting definitions up.
spurraider21
06-04-2021, 11:10 AM
Or more simply atheism is a belief system whereas agnosticism is a question of knowledge or what can/can’t be known
SpursforSix
06-04-2021, 11:19 AM
Or more simply atheism is a belief system whereas agnosticism is a question of knowledge or what can/can’t be known
I'd also add that an agnostic might believe there is a god but also that god is not based on a particular religious definition of god. So that they wouldn't be following the Koran, Bible, etc.
If there is a god, it's not one sitting above and judging people on their actions.
spurraider21
06-04-2021, 11:55 AM
I'd also add that an agnostic might believe there is a god but also that god is not based on a particular religious definition of god. So that they wouldn't be following the Koran, Bible, etc.
If there is a god, it's not one sitting above and judging people on their actions.
i dont know that agnostic would describe that
could still be a theist, but not tied to a specific religion.
or could be a deist, ie some supernatural essence did set the universe/reality into motion but doesnt have any special relationship or interaction with humans.
but a person who says "yeah, i think some supreme being started the universe, but doesnt have a special interaction with humans... though we really cant know for sure since this is an unprovable statement at this time" would be an agnostic deist, for example.
If you believe there is a god, you aren't atheist or agnostic. You are theist.
I also think we're misusing the term "belief" a bit. Belief doesn't mean notion in all uses of the word. In theism, belief means a conviction but with the agnostic theist it could be simply a notion. The same was being done for "theory". The same individual who might lean toward a certain notion might say "that's my theory" and yet still say "that's my belief" but in reality has neither a theory nor a belief, only a notion.
spurraider21
06-04-2021, 12:21 PM
If you believe there is a god, you aren't atheist or agnostic. You are theist.
I also think we're misusing the term "belief" a bit. Belief doesn't mean notion in all uses of the word. In theism, belief means a conviction but with the agnostic theist it could be simply a notion. The same was being done for "theory". The same individual who might lean toward a certain notion might say "that's my theory" and yet still say "that's my belief" but in reality has neither a theory nor a belief, only a notion.
theory in the colloquial sense is very different from theory in the scientific sense. but putting that aside, i think belief is still separate from knowledge. agnosticism is a claim about knowledge, not belief.
ultimately as long as people's positions on the subject are clear, the labeling becomes less relevant. they can be useful short-hands if people use them the same way, though. so i'd call myself an agnostic-atheist... but what i mean by that is that i dont believe that a god exists, but i also think that god is generally an unfalsifiable claim that we dont currently have any way to prove or disprove, so it cant really be "known". if you understand my position but disagree with the definitional label, then thats not too important a conversation imo
theory in the colloquial sense is very different from theory in the scientific sense. but putting that aside, i think belief is still separate from knowledge. agnosticism is a claim about knowledge, not belief.
ultimately as long as people's positions on the subject are clear, the labeling becomes less relevant. they can be useful short-hands if people use them the same way, though. so i'd call myself an agnostic-atheist... but what i mean by that is that i dont believe that a god exists, but i also think that god is generally an unfalsifiable claim that we dont currently have any way to prove or disprove, so it cant really be "known". if you understand my position but disagree with the definitional label, then thats not too important a conversation imo
I don't believe a god exists but I also think it's not a choice to believe or not believe. I think belief is compelled by experience and evidence (interchangeable at the personal level). I cannot compel myself to believe something just because of the cost vs reward approach. If a god made itself apparent to me, I'd have no choice but to believe, and that would be knowledge. I don't separate belief from knowledge since the criteria for each is basically the same - you've seen enough to compel you. In courts, the jury acts on compelling evidence but they do not act on knowledge since they weren't there when it happened. All the atheist needs to become theist is compelling evidence.
spurraider21
06-04-2021, 01:03 PM
I don't believe a god exists but I also think it's not a choice to believe or not believe. I think belief is compelled by experience and evidence (interchangeable at the personal level). I cannot compel myself to believe something just because of the cost vs reward approach. If a god made itself apparent to me, I'd have no choice but to believe, and that would be knowledge. I don't separate belief from knowledge since the criteria for each is basically the same - you've seen enough to compel you. In courts, the jury acts on compelling evidence but they do not act on knowledge since they weren't there when it happened. All the atheist needs to become theist is compelling evidence.
i agree with all of this. i dont think belief is really a choice. now, one might make the choice to expose themselves to more information which challenge their existing worldview, but whether that additional information actually changes their mind is not a simply a matter of choice
i mean personally, whether one is a theist or atheist, i still think agnosticism is the only rational knowledge claim... an acknowledgment that god, or more generally, the supernatural, is not something that we can prove or disprove, or truly know exists or not.
so you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist... either way you are making a belief claim but not a knowledge claim. Plato for instance described knowledge as a "justified true belief." or put another way, i might believe that advanced alien lifeforms exist, that belief might be based on the limited evidence we have, but i cant claim to know they exist.
dictionary definitions may vary... but the way i had usually heard atheism/theism or agnosticism defined, and the way i use them, reflects the above. but if people have different definitions thats fine. like i said, as long as everyone's actual position is clear and known, the label matters less and less
if I say that you are pedophile, it is up to me to prove it, not you to prove that you are innocent.
So you believe one guy who talked to a burning bush? :lol If today one guy said the same, you would say that he is drunk or crazy and you know that this is true. So, today with billion of people and the possibility to record photos and videos, not one was able to prove the existence of god, weird, isn't it?
i would agree that it sounds completely absurd and would be laughed off, except for the fact that an entire race of people eyewitnessed the exact seemingly unexplainable events moses recorded (such as the 10 plagues, parting of red sea, guidance through the wilderness, winning battles they had no business winning, etc...) and passed down the stories from generation to generation
back then they didnt have phones and recorders, so they passed on what they witnessed by telling families and writing about it
Yes, your writers made up things out of thin air like other cults who pretend that their guru did amazing things, nothing unusual here. Religions are cults created to control people
well here is your "pedophile" claim. you claim that the bible was made up out of thin air and simply made as a system of control. prove it.
You don't understand how the universe was created so it has to be a god and yours, not of the other thousands gods, right?
you dont understand how the universe was created so it has to have just appeared out of absolutely nothing with no explanation behind it because of our limited understanding, cant possibly be a god that we also have a limited understanding of, right?
Frenchfred
06-04-2021, 01:16 PM
it is usually a choice for atheists who for the vast majority have been raised in a religious environment. So they choose not to believe that crap anymore.
The vast majority of christians don't follow the bible anyway, I've rarely seen a more hypocritical group. They use it only to judge others and tell them that they are in the wrong but never apply it to themselves. You just have to look at the 7 deadly sins to see that those people don't believe in it otherwise they'd live their lives differently.
What proves that Zeus was made up? Or do you believe in him too?
what proof is there of his existence?
at least for yahweh, elohim, Jehovah or whatever name people prefer to use for him, theres a group of 66 books by around 40 different writers across 1600 years of various testimony to his existence, as well as other writings and archeological findings in existence backing up various events described in the bible
to my knowledge, everything about zeus (and other greek mythological gods, hindu gods, etc...) was simply fables made to explain the unexplainable without any eyewitness accounts or testimony to their actual existence
regardless, i dont doubt that other "gods" exist so to speak, even jesus is referred to as a god (a term that can simply be used to describe a mighty, powerful being). i personally believe in one true god almighty, to which the bible testimony shows that he frequently humiliated the "gods" of other nations, such as through the 10 plagues, or the challenge for baal to start a fire on a stack of firewood
it is usually a choice for atheists who for the vast majority have been raised in a religious environment. So they choose not to believe that crap anymore.
The vast majority of christians don't follow the bible anyway, I've rarely seen a more hypocritical group. They use it only to judge others and tell them that they are in the wrong but never apply it to themselves. You just have to look at the 7 deadly sins to see that those people don't believe in it otherwise they'd live their lives differently.
now i pretty much agree with this post. i fully understand why many people raised in religious environments turn atheist, because of the absolute hypocrisy of most christians. i dont disagree with you that the bible and religion is used to control people, and i think its absolutely wrong to do that. but i dont agree that the bible was made to be used as a system of control. some sick individuals have simply used it for such purposes (or for personal gain and greed, or a way to influence governments/politics), and there are few people in the world i have a greater disdain for than them.
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 01:24 PM
so show me the factual absolute evidence that the universe was started through an element smaller than an atom exploding into the entire universe, and that it happened entirely on its own, that there was absolutely no other force, being or reasoning behind it.
1) Science does not prove anything "absolutely".
2) you cannot "prove a negative".
"Prove it wasn't God" is simply a way of shifting the burden of proof.
If you claim "god did it", that is YOUR burden of proof to meet. You don't get to get out of that burden by asking me to prove it wasn't God.
It just doesn't work that way.
Frenchfred
06-04-2021, 01:26 PM
i would agree that it sounds completely absurd and would be laughed off, except for the fact that an entire race of people eyewitnessed the exact seemingly unexplainable events moses recorded (such as the 10 plagues, parting of red sea, guidance through the wilderness, winning battles they had no business winning, etc...) and passed down the stories from generation to generation
back then they didnt have phones and recorders, so they passed on what they witnessed by telling families and writing about it
well here is your "pedophile" claim. you claim that the bible was made up out of thin air and simply made as a system of control. prove it.
you dont understand how the universe was created so it has to have just appeared out of absolutely nothing with no explanation behind it because of our limited understanding, cant possibly be a god that we also have a limited understanding of, right?
and it is well known that information passed this way cannot be deformed over time or that they are completely true just like bigfoot, the lochness monster, yeti...stories. So, if you believe that these stories are true, why don't you believe in Zeus, Odin, Jupiter...? They are exactly the same with the same "proofs". You don't believe that 5000 gods are true, I'm the same but with an extra god.
I claim that god doesn't exist, that it was an invention. Nobody has proven the existence of god and as I said there is not one person among the billions that we are who has anything on a camera, nothing, not one proof. What we have for sure are the millions of people killed because of religions.
The earth was flat until it wasn't. Our knowledge changes all the time, I believe in science and will never trust people who believe in a guy with a beard living in the sky.
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 01:29 PM
so show me the factual absolute evidence that the universe was started through an element smaller than an atom exploding into the entire universe, and that it happened entirely on its own, that there was absolutely no other force, being or reasoning behind it.
then show me the proof. not theories, not guesses, not circumstantial evidence, not reasoning that supports a theory. i want absolute undeniable facts that your "theory" was how the universe came about, since that's apparently what you want to see in order to believe in a higher being.
I don't really have a "theory" as to how the universe came about. People that study astronomy have presented several working theories that explain the evidence we have, the Big Bang being one of those.
If you want proof for that, study astronomy. I am an accountant.
I don't know, and I am fine with not knowing. I just am not going to make up some story about magic beings creating everything to fill in the blanks.
The way I figure it, if some fantastical being gave a shit what I think they can damn well show up and speak for themselves. Such a being would not need to rely on flawed arguments.
spurraider21
06-04-2021, 01:32 PM
what proof is there of his existence?
at least for yahweh, elohim, Jehovah or whatever name people prefer to use for him, theres a group of 66 books by around 40 different writers across 1600 years of various testimony to his existence, as well as other writings and archeological findings in existence backing up various events described in the bible
to my knowledge, everything about zeus (and other greek mythological gods, hindu gods, etc...) was simply fables made to explain the unexplainable without any eyewitness accounts or testimony to their actual existence
regardless, i dont doubt that other "gods" exist so to speak, even jesus is referred to as a god (a term that can simply be used to describe a mighty, powerful being). i personally believe in one true god almighty, to which the bible testimony shows that he frequently humiliated the "gods" of other nations, such as through the 10 plagues, or the challenge for baal to start a fire on a stack of firewood
would you believe that the the Cyclops and the Sirens were real because the Iliad and Odyssey mentioned some historical truths like the trojan war?
or generally, if a text gets some things right (which are verified through evidence) does that mean everything else in that text should be assumed to be true by default? arguably you could use it as a demonstration of the general reliability of that text, but that doesnt inherently make its other claims true
1) Science does not prove anything "absolutely"
then perhaps people should stop presenting theories such as big bang and evolution as a fact, instead of a theory
2) you cannot "prove a negative".
"Prove it wasn't God" is simply a way of shifting the burden of proof.
If you claim "god did it", that is YOUR burden of proof to meet. You don't get to get out of that burden by asking me to prove it wasn't God.
It just doesn't work that way.
on the flip side, one could say the whole "burden of proof" is an easy way to not address the fact that it cant be proven a god doesnt exist. however as mentioned, there are plenty of historical documents archeological findings that have been preserved for thousands of years that provide the best proof they could possibly provide. if we are just going to dismiss the bible because "oh we dont have any current eyewitness accounts that prove the existence of god", then you could do the exact same for much of human history that has been recorded in books and preserved in various archeological findings but there are no current eyewitness accounts of ever happening
spurraider21
06-04-2021, 01:35 PM
it is usually a choice for atheists who for the vast majority have been raised in a religious environment. So they choose not to believe that crap anymore.
The vast majority of christians don't follow the bible anyway, I've rarely seen a more hypocritical group. They use it only to judge others and tell them that they are in the wrong but never apply it to themselves. You just have to look at the 7 deadly sins to see that those people don't believe in it otherwise they'd live their lives differently.
well, i think they might choose to entertain other ideas, but what you truly believe cant be something that you can change like an on/off switch. belief is the conclusion your mind reaches, at least thats the way i see it.
could you choose to believe in a flat earth tomorrow? like actually believe in it, not just claiming you do?
Frenchfred
06-04-2021, 01:36 PM
what proof is there of his existence?
at least for yahweh, elohim, Jehovah or whatever name people prefer to use for him, theres a group of 66 books by around 40 different writers across 1600 years of various testimony to his existence, as well as other writings and archeological findings in existence backing up various events described in the bible
to my knowledge, everything about zeus (and other greek mythological gods, hindu gods, etc...) was simply fables made to explain the unexplainable without any eyewitness accounts or testimony to their actual existence
regardless, i dont doubt that other "gods" exist so to speak, even jesus is referred to as a god (a term that can simply be used to describe a mighty, powerful being). i personally believe in one true god almighty, to which the bible testimony shows that he frequently humiliated the "gods" of other nations, such as through the 10 plagues, or the challenge for baal to start a fire on a stack of firewood
Same for your religion.
Seeing how you easily brush aside the other religions but believe the crap of yours is interesting. This is EXACTLY the same. Just because you believe the stories in those books are real doesn't prove anything. Again, how convenient it is that when we have recording capabilities, there is no proof of god existence.
I don't really have a "theory" as to how the universe came about. People that study astronomy have presented several working theories that explain the evidence we have, the Big Bang being one of those.
If you want proof for that, study astronomy. I am an accountant.
I don't know, and I am fine with not knowing. I just am not going to make up some story about magic beings creating everything to fill in the blanks.
The way I figure it, if some fantastical being gave a shit what I think they can damn well show up and speak for themselves. Such a being would not need to rely on flawed arguments.
cool man. i didnt make anything up though. i simply read writings thats been preserved for thousands of years, that i have thoroughly researched and have found plenty of reason for myself to believe is true. but to each their own. im not trying to force anyone to believe what i do.
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 01:36 PM
2: you do not have any way of assessing the probability of the universe ending up the way it did, because you do not have any other universes to actually compare it to.
and you do?
I could just as easily say: the odds of the universe ending up the way it did is 1.0, with just as much justification.
prove it
As far as reasons go, this is an especially shitty/flawed one that is easily picked apart.
literally the same can be said for your argument for the exact same reasons. funny how that works.
So... that all sailed right over your head.
Let me re-state, and hopefully that will make things clearer:
I have no idea what the actual odds are of the universe ending up the way it did.
and neither do you.
imho yes, it makes more sense that a universe that works harmoniously and a planet with perfect balance and physics to allow trillions of life forms to all coexist, was intelligently created than happened by a googolplex's chance to come together harmoniously from a random nonsensical chaotic explosion.
You pulled a probability out of your ass. I pulled a different one out of mine.
My point was that they both stink.
You CAN'T know the odds. You can't even do an educated guess.
Since you can't know the odds, saying something is "more reasonable" based on those odds, is... not reasonable.
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 01:39 PM
cool man. i didnt make anything up though. i simply read writings thats been preserved for thousands of years, that i have thoroughly researched and have found plenty of reason for myself to believe is true. but to each their own. im not trying to force anyone to believe what i do.
Except those writings haven't been preserved.
:lol
If you are talking about the bible... wow.
Feel free to show an original manuscript.
SpursforSix
06-04-2021, 01:39 PM
i dont know that agnostic would describe that
could still be a theist, but not tied to a specific religion.
or could be a deist, ie some supernatural essence did set the universe/reality into motion but doesnt have any special relationship or interaction with humans.
but a person who says "yeah, i think some supreme being started the universe, but doesnt have a special interaction with humans... though we really cant know for sure since this is an unprovable statement at this time" would be an agnostic deist, for example.
I'm not sure I would call them a theist or deist because they really wouldn't believe there is a god. Just leaning to "might be" and if there is, it (god) doesn't give a shit what people do.
But I suppose there's a lot of crossover.
spurraider21
06-04-2021, 01:40 PM
I'm not sure I would call them a theist or deist because they really wouldn't believe there is a god. Just leaning to "might be" and if there is, it (god) doesn't give a shit what people do.
But I suppose there's a lot of crossover.
i wouldnt stress too much about the labels tbh. they're helpful to quickly identify what somebody's view is, but if 2 people are willing to have a conversation about them, you can just lay out your belief system instead of using a 1-2 word shorthand
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 01:42 PM
i didnt make anything up though. i simply read writings thats been preserved for thousands of years,.
How do you know those people writing things down didn't make them up?
Maybe you want to prove Moses existed? (hint: he didn't)
Frenchfred
06-04-2021, 01:43 PM
then perhaps people should stop presenting theories such as big bang and evolution as a fact, instead of a theory
on the flip side, one could say the whole "burden of proof" is an easy way to not address the fact that it cant be proven a god doesnt exist. however as mentioned, there are plenty of historical documents archeological findings that have been preserved for thousands of years that provide the best proof they could possibly provide. if we are just going to dismiss the bible because "oh we dont have any current eyewitness accounts that prove the existence of god", then you could do the exact same for much of human history that has been recorded in books and preserved in various archeological findings but there are no current eyewitness accounts of ever happening
it is called big bang THEORY.
This is how religious people reply when they cannot prove the existence of their god, they say probe he doesn't exist because they know they cannot prove anything
Same for your religion.
Seeing how you easily brush aside the other religions but believe the crap of yours is interesting. This is EXACTLY the same. Just because you believe the stories in those books are real doesn't prove anything. Again, how convenient it is that when we have recording capabilities, there is no proof of god existence.
theres a big difference between telling stories to try to explain something you dont understand, and retelling events that happened during your lifetime as guys like moses did
lol recording capabilities have existed for what, 100 years or so? the bible records events that spans thousands years and doesnt have record of god making some sort of annual appearance or anything. there were periods where he didnt interact with humans for hundreds of years. why would we expect him to suddenly appear just to make you happy?
it is called big bang THEORY.
i called it the theory too.
but many people present it as fact.
This is how religious people reply when they cannot prove the existence of their god, they say probe he doesn't exist because they know they cannot prove anything
lol and the same is done by atheists, they want religion to probe that he exists because they know they cant prove that its outside the realm of possibility that he exists, which has been my point all along, both sides do the same thing just on the other end of the spectrum
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 01:49 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea'
So they had all sorts of "writings" in 325, HUNDRED OF YEARS after this stuff about Jesus supposedly took place, but so much of it contradicted each other, or was so fantastical that it seemed embarrassing even then.
So they edited it.
We don't even have copies of that. It's lost. We have copies of copies of translations of whatever they picked out of the hat by committee.
Then we have a book that was kept in some rough form by the Catholic church. Until that became inconvenient for a certain king of england who didn't like popes muscling in on his power and divinity.
So King James appointed some people to come up with THE version of these writings, i.e. yet another committee, who edited out stuff HE didn't like.
The King James version.
What really got preserved? The work of multiple committees over thousands of years.
A few writings from Saul of Tarsus, who was inspired decades after this all supposedly took place. That's it.
SpursforSix
06-04-2021, 01:51 PM
i wouldnt stress too much about the labels tbh. they're helpful to quickly identify what somebody's view is, but if 2 people are willing to have a conversation about them, you can just lay out your belief system instead of using a 1-2 word shorthand
Agree with this.
Personally, I don't really know how we got here. I was exposed to a lot of religion when I was younger...Catholic School and a lot of Baptist Church stuff. But none of it really ever took.
That being said, I don't discount the possibility that some kind of intelligence put all of this in motion. Even if it's just based on some equations.
I also accept the fact that it may be beyond human understanding. Just like a dog isn't capable of understanding algebra, maybe we aren't capable of grasping how everything really works.
How do you know those people writing things down didn't make them up?
Maybe you want to prove Moses existed? (hint: he didn't)
how do we know everything recorded about the american revolution wasnt made up? how do we know that the han dynasty wasnt made up? how do we know that the nation of egypt actually existed and wasnt made up?
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 01:51 PM
it is called big bang THEORY.
This is how religious people reply when they cannot prove the existence of their god, they say probe he doesn't exist because they know they cannot prove anything
Things don't get to be a theory in science until there is evidence of it.
Theory in everyday use is means "guess".
The two usages are different.
Frenchfred
06-04-2021, 01:52 PM
theres a big difference between telling stories to try to explain something you dont understand, and retelling events that happened during your lifetime as guys like moses did
lol recording capabilities have existed for what, 100 years or so? the bible records events that spans thousands years and doesnt have record of god making some sort of annual appearance or anything. there were periods where he didnt interact with humans for hundreds of years. why would we expect him to suddenly appear just to make you happy?
and it is funny that somebody who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient and in-temporal god will choose to believe that one day god woke up and decided to create everything and not show up after?
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 01:53 PM
how do we know everything recorded about the american revolution wasnt made up? how do we know that the han dynasty wasnt made up? how do we know that the nation of egypt actually existed and wasnt made up?
We have evidence, buildings structures, artifacts, contemporaneous accounts, and some direct, untranslated writings.
Same thing about the nation of Egypt.
Now what evidence do you have that Jesus rose from dead?
spurraider21
06-04-2021, 01:55 PM
Agree with this.
Personally, I don't really know how we got here. I was exposed to a lot of religion when I was younger...Catholic School and a lot of Baptist Church stuff. But none of it really ever took.
That being said, I don't discount the possibility that some kind of intelligence put all of this in motion. Even if it's just based on some equations.
I also accept the fact that it may be beyond human understanding. Just like a dog isn't capable of understanding algebra, maybe we aren't capable of grasping how everything really works.
maybe there's a supernatural beyond our comprehension, outside our reality, where god's domain is, and god is the ultimate power of our reality.
but maybe there's a super-duper-natural beyond god's comprehension, where supergod's domain is... and he is the ultimate power of god's reality.
mindblown.gif
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 01:57 PM
Agree with this.
Personally, I don't really know how we got here. I was exposed to a lot of religion when I was younger...Catholic School and a lot of Baptist Church stuff. But none of it really ever took.
That being said, I don't discount the possibility that some kind of intelligence put all of this in motion. Even if it's just based on some equations.
I also accept the fact that it may be beyond human understanding. Just like a dog isn't capable of understanding algebra, maybe we aren't capable of grasping how everything really works.
That's about where I am at.
I don't think we will ever really know one way or the other. Either way would require way more proof and knowledge than we have now.
Those that claim there is can only point to books, or bad arguments. That is how people communicate ideas, and the creator of the universe would have no such constraints.
Why not simply code the knowledge and stories directly into our DNA? or some other method that would leave no doubt.
Except those writings haven't been preserved.
:lol
If you are talking about the bible... wow.
Feel free to show an original manuscript.
materials decayed, therefore it was common to have copyists to keep records of history, not just for the bible but for basically any nation that had written documents of its history
plenty of copies have been discovered, along with fragments of decayed copies to preserve the message
if copies of bible manuscripts are unacceptable then so is 99.9% of writings not done in the past 100 years
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 01:59 PM
now i pretty much agree with this post. i fully understand why many people raised in religious environments turn atheist, because of the absolute hypocrisy of most christians. i dont disagree with you that the bible and religion is used to control people, and i think its absolutely wrong to do that. but i dont agree that the bible was made to be used as a system of control. some sick individuals have simply used it for such purposes (or for personal gain and greed, or a way to influence governments/politics), and there are few people in the world i have a greater disdain for than them.
what made me an atheist was reading the bible.
It's so obviously the attempt of a primitive people to explain the universe.
Same thing with all the other holy books I have read.
Some of them, like the bible, depict an outright evil "god" that I would not worship even if it was real.
and it is funny that somebody who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient and in-temporal god will choose to believe that one day god woke up and decided to create everything and not show up after?
except based on bible history, he had plenty of interactions with humankind after creation. nice try making stuff up again.
what made me an atheist was reading the bible.
It's so obviously the attempt of a primitive people to explain the universe.
Same thing with all the other holy books I have read.
Some of them, like the bible, depict an outright evil "god" that I would not worship even if it was real.
fair enough. if thats the conclusion you drew, so be it. im not trying to sway your opinion.
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 02:02 PM
maybe there's a supernatural beyond our comprehension, outside our reality, where god's domain is, and god is the ultimate power of our reality.
but maybe there's a super-duper-natural beyond god's comprehension, where supergod's domain is... and he is the ultimate power of god's reality.
mindblown.gif
if everything has to have a cause, then what caused God? super-duper God.
Then what created super-duper God? Super-super-duper God?
heh.
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 02:03 PM
except based on bible history, he had plenty of interactions with humankind after creation. nice try making stuff up again.
According to smurf history, smurfs had plenty of interactions with humans after they smurfed into existence.
That is how you sound. "the book is true because the book says its true"
We have evidence, buildings structures, artifacts, contemporaneous accounts, and some direct, untranslated writings.
Same thing about the nation of Egypt.
but but but what if it wasnt actually egyptians building the pyramid, and it was actually people from asia performing a massive trolljob to confuse all of future humankind?
Now what evidence do you have that Jesus rose from dead?
multiple written eyewitness accounts. no different than what many history books have that we have no problem accepting. not sure why eyewitness accounts suddenly arent credible in the case of the bible, but are fully acceptable in pretty much any other case. or maybe we should just dismiss half the stuff that was talked about in The Last Dance about Michael Jordan, since there was no video evidence or artifacts found of him punching Will Perdue, only eyewitness accounts.
According to smurf history, smurfs had plenty of interactions with humans after they smurfed into existence.
That is how you sound. "the book is true because the book says its true"
so basically everyone picks and chooses what eyewitness accounts they want to believe and not believe. got it :tu
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 02:07 PM
See there is a story about a real person, Neal Patrick Harris, who we know is real.
He was in New York that we know is real.
https://akns-images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201588/rs_1024x759-150908102753-1024.smurf2.cm.9815.jpg
Therfore smurfs are real.
---------------------------------------------------------
We have a story with [bible charactor] in it, and we found his tomb, so he was real.
The story took place in [bible place] that we figured out was also real based on archeology.
Therefore magic man in the sky made things happen in the story and is real.
Blake
06-04-2021, 02:09 PM
what proof is there of his existence?
There are books about him. Just like the Bible
Agree with this.
Personally, I don't really know how we got here. I was exposed to a lot of religion when I was younger...Catholic School and a lot of Baptist Church stuff. But none of it really ever took.
That being said, I don't discount the possibility that some kind of intelligence put all of this in motion. Even if it's just based on some equations.
I also accept the fact that it may be beyond human understanding. Just like a dog isn't capable of understanding algebra, maybe we aren't capable of grasping how everything really works.
i think this is a very fair and reasonable assessment. while i personally believe in god, i have my fair share of questions as well, such as how he came about. its an answer i may never get. but i personally dont feel unsatisfied by not having that question answered. there is plenty more in life to keep my mind occupied that i find more satisfaction in, and i have no problem accepting that i have major limitations as a human.
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 02:10 PM
so basically everyone picks and chooses what eyewitness accounts they want to believe and not believe. got it :tu
Not really.
Somethings have more evidence that others.
Provide evidence to a sufficient degree, and I will believe something is true.
I have yet to see a god claim that meets that burden. If there is some universe creating powerful being, it would know what it would take to prove its existence to me.
That it hasn't either means it is playing hide and seek... or it doesn't exist.
Either it does not exist, or it does not care that I know it's real.
See there is a story about a real person, Neal Patrick Harris, who we know is real.
He was in New York that we know is real.
https://akns-images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201588/rs_1024x759-150908102753-1024.smurf2.cm.9815.jpg
Therfore smurfs are real.
---------------------------------------------------------
We have a story with [bible charactor] in it, and we found his tomb, so he was real.
The story took place in [bible place] that we figured out was also real based on archeology.
Therefore magic man in the sky made things happen in the story and is real.
welp then i guess no history books or eyewitness accounts of anything have any meaning for you, since it can all be made up
if thats how you choose to live, more power to you :tu
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 02:13 PM
multiple written eyewitness accounts. no different than what many history books have that we have no problem accepting. not sure why eyewitness accounts suddenly arent credible in the case of the bible, but are fully acceptable in pretty much any other case. or maybe we should just dismiss half the stuff that was talked about in The Last Dance about Michael Jordan, since there was no video evidence or artifacts found of him punching Will Perdue, only eyewitness accounts.
Bible history fail.
None of the books of the bible were actually written by actual witnesses to the events.
We dont' even know who the original authors were.
Some passages are thought to be outright forgeries, inserted waaay after the fact.
Exactly what one would expect from a work of humans.
Provide evidence to a sufficient degree, and I will believe something is true.
I have yet to see a god claim that meets that burden. If there is some universe creating powerful being, it would know what it would take to prove its existence to me.
That it hasn't either means it is playing hide and seek... or it doesn't exist.
Either it does not exist, or it does not care that I know it's real.
so basically you and i have different levels of proof that satisfies our questions. ive personally found proof, reasoning and evidence that is strong enough for me to believe in the bible. you havent. so be it. again, im not trying to sway your thinking, or make fun of you for your stance. i respect your decision, and can even understand it to some degree.
Blake
06-04-2021, 02:15 PM
but but but what if it wasnt actually egyptians building the pyramid, and it was actually people from asia performing a massive trolljob to confuse all of future humankind?
multiple written eyewitness accounts. no different than what many history books have that we have no problem accepting. not sure why eyewitness accounts suddenly arent credible in the case of the bible, but are fully acceptable in pretty much any other case. or maybe we should just dismiss half the stuff that was talked about in The Last Dance about Michael Jordan, since there was no video evidence or artifacts found of him punching Will Perdue, only eyewitness accounts.
Have you ever heard of Zoroastrianism?
Blake
06-04-2021, 02:16 PM
so basically you and i have different levels of proof that satisfies our questions. ive personally found proof, reasoning and evidence that is strong enough for me to believe in the bible. you havent. so be it. again, im not trying to sway your thinking, or make fun of you for your stance. i respect your decision, and can even understand it to some degree.
So you're good with the slavery in it,? The killing of the ghey?
Bible history fail.
None of the books of the bible were actually written by actual witnesses to the events.
moses, isaiah, daniel, paul and many others literally wrote about their own life events, what are you talking about
Have you ever heard of Zoroastrianism?
heard of it, havent done major research on it. why?
So you're good with the slavery in it,?
the slavery that resulted in the mistreatment and oppression of people? no
slavery in terms of simply working to repay a debt and not be mistreated or oppressed in the process? not much different than repaying a loan tbh
Blake
06-04-2021, 02:23 PM
heard of it, havent done major research on it. why?
Some scholars say that tenets of Zoroastrianism helped to shape the major Abrahamic religions—including Judaism, Christianity and Islam—through the influence of the Persian Empire.
Zoroastrian concepts, including the idea of a single god, heaven, hell and a day of judgment, may have been first introduced to the Jewish community of Babylonia, where people from the Kingdom of Judea had been living in captivity for decades.
When Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 B.C., he liberated the Babylonian Jews. Many returned home to Jerusalem, where their descendants helped to create the Hebrew Bible.
https://www.history.com/topics/religion/zoroastrianism
SpursforSix
06-04-2021, 02:44 PM
if everything has to have a cause, then what caused God? super-duper God.
Then what created super-duper God? Super-super-duper God?
heh.
I mean...that's the whole rub isn't it? What's before point A in time? Or what's beyond point Z in the universe?
It's fun to think about. I'm just not sure we can grasp it. Even it it was presented to us.
SpursforSix
06-04-2021, 02:49 PM
I mean...that's the whole rub isn't it? What's before point A in time? Or what's beyond point Z in the universe?
It's fun to think about. I'm just not sure we can grasp it. Even it it was presented to us.
The above being said, I do lean to the idea that we really don't have free will and everything is 100% predictable if someone had 100% perfect knowledge.
It's all just a mix of chemical and physics equations.
Blake
06-04-2021, 02:49 PM
the slavery that resulted in the mistreatment and oppression of people? no
slavery in terms of simply working to repay a debt and not be mistreated or oppressed in the process? not much different than repaying a loan tbh
Leviticus 25:44-46
New International Version
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Sounds completely not oppressive in the least
Spurtacular
06-04-2021, 02:50 PM
Christian Blake reads his Bible religiously.
spurraider21
06-04-2021, 02:50 PM
ridicule is a pretty bad way to approach these discussions if your goal is to actually sound convincing
now if your goal is just to dunk on somebody like we used to do with avante... different story
Blake
06-04-2021, 02:50 PM
I mean...that's the whole rub isn't it? What's before point A in time? Or what's beyond point Z in the universe?
It's fun to think about. I'm just not sure we can grasp it. Even it it was presented to us.
If only there was a gauntlet
It comes down to what you're compelled to believe. Regardless, it doesn't make any of it true (or false). If all you need to believe is a story, then you are compelled easier than some other are. This is why some people fall for scams and some don't. The Christian religion, for example, has had at least a thousand years to get their stories straight and create caveats for the inconsistencies, yet there are still inconsistencies and still there's no clear message, and there are hundreds of different denominations who interpret the same book differently. They all claim to believe god exists, they claim to believe Jesus died on a cross, but many differ about things like the triune nature of the Christian god, about the divinity of the birth of Mary (immaculate conception) and a host of other things. These forks in belief aren't thousands of years old, so if a true story (it rained a lot and our village flooded) gets passed down, eventually the entire world flooded. No one in that day knew the world was round, so if they saw water everywhere they have to assumed the entire world was flooded. It doesn't withstand scientific scrutiny today however. This doesn't stop Christians from believing it, accepting instead that God works in mysterious ways or some more educated Christians might say that the story is an allegory to show God's love. It seems the more educated the Christian, the less likely they are to push the supernatural stories and instead fall back on the true love and sense of the numinous that humans have.
Blake
06-04-2021, 02:58 PM
.
SpursforSix
06-04-2021, 03:17 PM
If only there was a gauntlet
I don't know what you're getting at?
Are you in for SpursTalk Fantasy this year?
Blake
06-04-2021, 03:23 PM
Christian Blake reads his Bible religiously.
I read it growing up in school, genius.
Blake
06-04-2021, 03:24 PM
I don't know what you're getting at?
Are you in for SpursTalk Fantasy this year?
No, I think I'm out unless you guys are really desperate for players
See there is a story about a real person, Neal Patrick Harris, who we know is real.
He was in New York that we know is real.
https://akns-images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201588/rs_1024x759-150908102753-1024.smurf2.cm.9815.jpg
Therfore smurfs are real.
---------------------------------------------------------
We have a story with [bible charactor] in it, and we found his tomb, so he was real.
The story took place in [bible place] that we figured out was also real based on archeology.
Therefore magic man in the sky made things happen in the story and is real.
Even if he isn't real, we're not worshipping him or making social policy based on his supposed edicts.
Frenchfred
06-04-2021, 03:31 PM
except based on bible history, he had plenty of interactions with humankind after creation. nice try making stuff up again.
and again never when there was possibility of recording. Really convenient
Leviticus 25:44-46
New International Version
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Sounds completely not oppressive in the least
literally one verse prior
Lev 23:43
NIV
43 "Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God."
other translations say "you must not treat him cruelly" or "you shall not exploit him"
also the end of verse 46 that you quoted said the same
the very next verses
Lev 23:47-52
NIV
47 “ ‘If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner’s clan, 48 they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves. 50 They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. 51 If many years remain, they must pay for their redemption a larger share of the price paid for them. 52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, they are to compute that and pay for their redemption accordingly. 53 They are to be treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly.
slaves could redeem themselves if they or someone else were able to repay their debt
Lev 23:36, 37
NIV
36 Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit.
no exploiting them
Ex 21:20, 26, 27
NIV
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result
26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
mistreating slaves was not acceptable and could result in immediate release
killing slaves was punishable by death
Ex 21:16
NIV
16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
taking and forcing someone into slavery for no reason at all was unacceptable and punishable by death
Ex 21:2
NIV
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.
slaves were to serve a maximum of 6 years then be set free
Lev 25:40, 41
NIV
40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors.
slaves were to be released on jubilee year, regardless of how long they served or how much they still owed
Deut 15:13-15
NIV
13 And when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. 14 Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.
upon release slaves were not to be sent out with nothing, they were to be treated generously and provided supplies, especially in consideration for the years of slavery that israel endured in egypt
so yes you are correct that such slavery was not oppressive in the least. it was a way to repay debt, or in some cases, simply a way to find work if you were extremely poor and didnt have the means to provide on your own, as people could voluntarily become slaves.
and again never when there was possibility of recording. Really convenient
fair enough. if you have to see it to believe it, i understand. i personally feel otherwise.
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 04:02 PM
welp then i guess no history books or eyewitness accounts of anything have any meaning for you, since it can all be made up
if thats how you choose to live, more power to you :tu
that's the rub though. the modern fights over what should go into history books should give anyone pause to accept ancient holy books making fantastic claims.
I am happy lending a modest amount of credence to books of history, insofar as those claims have evidence to support them.
The big difference though is the nature of the claims made.
"the French army invaded Russia in 1836" is much more mundane than "this guy walked on water, rose from the dead, and all the animals on earth could fit into a boat".
Extra-ordinary claims of fantastic happenings should require more evidence.
what we have with the bible etc, is LESS, not more, for the very claims that are central to the myths.
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 04:06 PM
moses, isaiah, daniel, paul and many others literally wrote about their own life events, what are you talking about
no. they didn't.
Bible scholars tend to agree that the names of the books... were not the names of the authors.
Moses didn't even exist. Feel free to try and shoehorn that in. it is one of the most obviously allegorical stories in the bible.
that's the rub though. the modern fights over what should go into history books should give anyone pause to accept ancient holy books making fantastic claims.
I am happy lending a modest amount of credence to books of history, insofar as those claims have evidence to support them.
The big difference though is the nature of the claims made.
"the French army invaded Russia in 1836" is much more mundane than "this guy walked on water, rose from the dead, and all the animals on earth could fit into a boat".
Extra-ordinary claims of fantastic happenings should require more evidence.
what we have with the bible etc, is LESS, not more, for the very claims that are central to the myths.
the thing with the bible is, you are making all these claims assuming there is no god.
so yes, if we say there is no god, then the bible obviously is a farce. however if there was a god that exists and is capable of supernatural things, then how would it be so impossible for events of the bible to be true?
ultimately in the end, it comes down to whether you believe in god existing or not. if you believe he does or maybe exists, then everything about the bible is absolutely a possibility. if you dont believe he exists, then based on our knowledge of the universe, many things in the bible seem completely impossible and unbelievable. so in the end, we are never going to see eye to eye on this because of that simple difference between the two of us. and im fine with that, like i said im not trying to change your mind. i just think there are some double standards here.
no. they didn't.
Bible scholars tend to agree that the names of the books... were not the names of the authors.
Moses didn't even exist. Feel free to try and shoehorn that in. it is one of the most obviously allegorical stories in the bible.
lol ok.
and there are many more bible scholars to agree that the names of the books in many cases were the names of the authors
im pretty confident that many if not most of the ones who dont believe that, arent bible scholars because they believe the bible. they are bible "scholars" because they want to discredit it.
Blake
06-04-2021, 04:26 PM
literally one verse prior
Lev 23:43
NIV
43 "Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God."
other translations say "you must not treat him cruelly" or "you shall not exploit him"
also the end of verse 46 that you quoted said the same
the very next verses
Lev 23:47-52
NIV
47 “ ‘If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner’s clan, 48 they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves. 50 They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. 51 If many years remain, they must pay for their redemption a larger share of the price paid for them. 52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, they are to compute that and pay for their redemption accordingly. 53 They are to be treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly.
slaves could redeem themselves if they or someone else were able to repay their debt
Lev 23:36, 37
NIV
36 Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit.
no exploiting them
Ex 21:20, 26, 27
NIV
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result
26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
mistreating slaves was not acceptable and could result in immediate release
killing slaves was punishable by death
Ex 21:16
NIV
16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
taking and forcing someone into slavery for no reason at all was unacceptable and punishable by death
Ex 21:2
NIV
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.
slaves were to serve a maximum of 6 years then be set free
Lev 25:40, 41
NIV
40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors.
slaves were to be released on jubilee year, regardless of how long they served or how much they still owed
Deut 15:13-15
NIV
13 And when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. 14 Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.
upon release slaves were not to be sent out with nothing, they were to be treated generously and provided supplies, especially in consideration for the years of slavery that israel endured in egypt
so yes you are correct that such slavery was not oppressive in the least. it was a way to repay debt, or in some cases, simply a way to find work if you were extremely poor and didnt have the means to provide on your own, as people could voluntarily become slaves.
Oh, the good kind of human ownership.
If only the Confederacy had used the six year plan
Blake
06-04-2021, 04:29 PM
the thing with the bible is, you are making all these claims assuming there is no god.
so yes, if we say there is no god, then the bible obviously is a farce. however if there was a god that exists and is capable of supernatural things, then how would it be so impossible for events of the bible to be true?
ultimately in the end, it comes down to whether you believe in god existing or not. if you believe he does or maybe exists, then everything about the bible is absolutely a possibility. if you dont believe he exists, then based on our knowledge of the universe, many things in the bible seem completely impossible and unbelievable. so in the end, we are never going to see eye to eye on this because of that simple difference between the two of us. and im fine with that, like i said im not trying to change your mind. i just think there are some double standards here.
If Bible God exists, seriously based on the laws and actions in the Old Testament, he's a huge insecure asshole
It's either believe/ worship me or die. That's the main message from front to back.
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 04:30 PM
literally one verse prior
Lev 23:43
NIV
43 "Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God."
other translations say "you must not treat him cruelly" or "you shall not exploit him"
also the end of verse 46 that you quoted said the same
the very next verses
Lev 23:47-52
NIV
47 “ ‘If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner’s clan, 48 they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves. 50 They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. 51 If many years remain, they must pay for their redemption a larger share of the price paid for them. 52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, they are to compute that and pay for their redemption accordingly. 53 They are to be treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly.
slaves could redeem themselves if they or someone else were able to repay their debt
Lev 23:36, 37
NIV
36 Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit.
no exploiting them
Ex 21:20, 26, 27
NIV
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result
26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
mistreating slaves was not acceptable and could result in immediate release
killing slaves was punishable by death
Ex 21:16
NIV
16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
taking and forcing someone into slavery for no reason at all was unacceptable and punishable by death
Ex 21:2
NIV
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.
slaves were to serve a maximum of 6 years then be set free
Lev 25:40, 41
NIV
40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors.
slaves were to be released on jubilee year, regardless of how long they served or how much they still owed
Deut 15:13-15
NIV
13 And when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. 14 Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.
upon release slaves were not to be sent out with nothing, they were to be treated generously and provided supplies, especially in consideration for the years of slavery that israel endured in egypt
so yes you are correct that such slavery was not oppressive in the least. it was a way to repay debt, or in some cases, simply a way to find work if you were extremely poor and didnt have the means to provide on your own, as people could voluntarily become slaves.
Tap dancing.
You are allowed to beat them as long as they don't die within a few days.
That is mistreatment by any measure.
You skipped over the parts that outline how slavery was permanent for everybody but male jews, and could even be made permanent for them by tricking them into it by giving them wives and children who were absolutely property.
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
different rules for jews and non-jews.
Women were forced into sexual slavery.
Cherry pick and dodge all you want, it is there.
the thing with the bible is, you are making all these claims assuming there is no god.
so yes, if we say there is no god, then the bible obviously is a farce. however if there was a god that exists and is capable of supernatural things, then how would it be so impossible for events of the bible to be true?
ultimately in the end, it comes down to whether you believe in god existing or not. if you believe he does or maybe exists, then everything about the bible is absolutely a possibility. if you dont believe he exists, then based on our knowledge of the universe, many things in the bible seem completely impossible and unbelievable. so in the end, we are never going to see eye to eye on this because of that simple difference between the two of us. and im fine with that, like i said im not trying to change your mind. i just think there are some double standards here.
The Bible isn't a farce whether or not a god exists. The Bible is a story of the linage King David, complete with the things they believed to be true in those days. I read it about like the Hobbit only less entertaining and certainly there aren't nearly as many large buildings dedicated to worshipping Saruman. The New Testament is the attempt by a relatively small group of people to fulfill prophesy they all knew about from the days of King David. It's not a coincidence that David was a king and that his prophesy just had to be fulfilled. Just as atheists today say there is no god, and that notion is a paradigm shift for many people, the Christians of those days were shifting the paradigm to say Jesus was a god and that the OT had been fulfilled. The trend has been to go from the Christian god wanting everything you have, all the time (think Allah) to just a thought and a prayer, as long as you accept a premise of Jesus being the eternal savior and you renounce your sins. Christians made religion more user friendly and atheists have simply applied hacks.
As Hitchens said, we were born sick and commanded to be well, else we face eternal hellfire and we have freedom of choice because God demands it.
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 04:36 PM
and away we go.
Evil shit condoned by the God of the bible:
Let's start with rape and murder of children.
15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Murder the boys and male infants, and any woman not a virgin. Keep them for yourselves as sex slaves.
Pretty clear.
The problem of evil only matters if you don't allow god to exist outside of his own edict. If god is a slave to his own commandments, he's not actually god, but a subject to a set of rules.
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 04:42 PM
ooh here's a good one. sentence rape victims to death just like their rapists.
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
she didn't scream loud enough... is enough to condemn a rape victim to death.
RandomGuy
06-04-2021, 04:43 PM
The problem of evil only matters if you don't allow god to exist outside of his own edict. If god is a slave to his own commandments, he's not actually god, but a subject to a set of rules.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Blake
06-04-2021, 04:58 PM
The problem of evil only matters if you don't allow god to exist outside of his own edict. If god is a slave to his own commandments, he's not actually god, but a subject to a set of rules.
It's the problem of avoiding contradiction. Nowhere in the bible does it say God is above his own commandments.
You can't say Thou shalt not kill right after you flooded nearly everyone out because of regret.
Tap dancing.
You are allowed to beat them as long as they don't die within a few days.
That is mistreatment by any measure.
You skipped over the parts that outline how slavery was permanent for everybody but male jews, and could even be made permanent for them by tricking them into it by giving them wives and children who were absolutely property.
different rules for jews and non-jews.
Women were forced into sexual slavery.
Cherry pick and dodge all you want, it is there.
and away we go.
Evil shit condoned by the God of the bible:
Let's start with rape and murder of children.
Murder the boys and male infants, and any woman not a virgin. Keep them for yourselves as sex slaves.
Pretty clear.
ooh here's a good one. sentence rape victims to death just like their rapists.
she didn't scream loud enough... is enough to condemn a rape victim to death.
:lmao whining about "cherry picking" then immediately cherry picking and in some cases literally making stuff up
if thats how you want to discuss, then i will not be discussing with you. like i said, you have your mind made up and i have mine. ill have a civil discussion, but i wont bother if you are just going to do stuff like this.
cue the "thats what i expect from a theist who cant back his claims up" posts
The Bible isn't a farce whether or not a god exists. The Bible is a story of the linage King David, complete with the things they believed to be true in those days. I read it about like the Hobbit only less entertaining and certainly there aren't nearly as many large buildings dedicated to worshipping Saruman. The New Testament is the attempt by a relatively small group of people to fulfill prophesy they all knew about from the days of King David. It's not a coincidence that David was a king and that his prophesy just had to be fulfilled. Just as atheists today say there is no god, and that notion is a paradigm shift for many people, the Christians of those days were shifting the paradigm to say Jesus was a god and that the OT had been fulfilled. The trend has been to go from the Christian god wanting everything you have, all the time (think Allah) to just a thought and a prayer, as long as you accept a premise of Jesus being the eternal savior and you renounce your sins. Christians made religion more user friendly and atheists have simply applied hacks.
As Hitchens said, we were born sick and commanded to be well, else we face eternal hellfire and we have freedom of choice because God demands it.
when i say a farce, im talking about the supernatural things recorded, such as plagues, flood, resurrections, feeding thousands with almost no food etc... its pretty obvious that those things cannot happen by the power of any human, but needs some form of intervention from a more powerful being. otherwise mankinds problems would be solved if humans could simply just do those types of miracles.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. (a human construct)
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Terms like omnipotent and malevolent are human concepts. Would a puppy think it's mother malevolent when she begins to ween the puppy? You and I know why the mother does it, but the puppy doesn't know. To the puppy, the weening is evil, it's done intentionally by an uncaring mother. If she's not willing to prevent it, why call her mother?
Supposedly god doesn't rely on you accepting his being there, supposedly god is there regardless and you can like it or go fuck yourself in hell. Why call him god? Why worship him? Because you don't want to burn in hell for all of eternity. Same reason people in NK worship Kim Jong Il.
when i say a farce, im talking about the supernatural things recorded, such as plagues, flood, resurrections, feeding thousands with almost no food etc... its pretty obvious that those things cannot happen by the power of any human, but needs some form of intervention from a more powerful being. otherwise mankinds problems would be solved if humans could simply just do those types of miracles.
These are the reasons I dismiss Christianity's excuses when asked for evidence. The people alive when Jesus walked on Earth had to see miracles, and Jesus felt obliged to perform them. God had to do a lot of cool shit to get anyone to believe he existed, and the Bible is full of shit like that just as selling points as to why this family of people believed in this god. However suddenly these things stopped happening once cameras were invented.
These are the reasons I dismiss Christianity's excuses when asked for evidence. The people alive when Jesus walked on Earth had to see miracles, and Jesus felt obliged to perform them. God had to do a lot of cool shit to get anyone to believe he existed, and the Bible is full of shit like that just as selling points as to why this family of people believed in this god. However suddenly these things stopped happening once cameras were invented.
cameras were invented in 100 AD?
cameras were invented in 100 AD?
So you're saying no miracles happened after 100 AD?
It's the problem of avoiding contradiction. Nowhere in the bible does it say God is above his own commandments.
You can't say Thou shalt not kill right after you flooded nearly everyone out because of regret.
I can't, you're right. I am not God.
So you're saying no miracles happened after 100 AD?
on par with parting the red sea or resurrections? im not aware of any, doesnt mean none happened.
however i personally think the preservation of scripture is a miracle in its own right with all the attempts to conceal and destroy it, even killing people for attempting to translate, copy and distribute it.
regardless, even if people saw a miracle happen, does that mean every atheist would suddenly believe in the existence of god? or would there just be more attempts to chalk it up to unexplained phenomena, or perhaps the manifestation of aliens? even in the bible many people that witnessed miracles and the incredible power of god still didnt change their mind and did their own thing. maybe it would work for you personally, idk, but im sure it still wouldnt work for many. i mean theres still people who legitimately believe bill russell would be the best player in the nba in any day and age, so some people simply are going to believe what they want to believe no matter how compelling any evidence or reasoning is.
on par with parting the red sea or resurrections? im not aware of any, doesnt mean none happened.
however i personally think the preservation of scripture is a miracle in its own right with all the attempts to conceal and destroy it, even killing people for attempting to translate, copy and distribute it.
regardless, even if people saw a miracle happen, does that mean every atheist would suddenly believe in the existence of god? or would there just be more attempts to chalk it up to unexplained phenomena, or perhaps the manifestation of aliens? even in the bible many people that witnessed miracles and the incredible power of god still didnt change their mind and did their own thing. maybe it would work for you personally, idk, but im sure it still wouldnt work for many. i mean theres still people who legitimately believe bill russell would be the best player in the nba in any day and age, so some people simply are going to believe what they want to believe no matter how compelling any evidence or reasoning is.
Would you believe in the existence of Thor if you saw a man fall from the sky wielding a hammer with a Viking helmet on?
Why would anyone automatically associate odd happenings with the Christian version of a god? There are thousands of different gods that might be a better fit. It's no coincidence that people typically follow the religion of the region in which they were born and live. It's a learned, engrained concept and as a child you are basically made to feel ashamed if you don't subscribe to it wholeheartedly. There will likely be a gay POTUS before there's a professed atheist POTUS. That's how unwelcome the atheist is in this country.
Would you believe in the existence of Thor if you saw a man fall from the sky wielding a hammer with a Viking helmet on?
Why would anyone automatically associate odd happenings with the Christian version of a god? There are thousands of different gods that might be a better fit.
lol you clearly missed the point
It's no coincidence that people typically follow the religion of the region in which they were born and live. It's a learned, engrained concept and as a child you are basically made to feel ashamed if you don't subscribe to it wholeheartedly. There will likely be a gay POTUS before there's a professed atheist POTUS. That's how unwelcome the atheist is in this country.
sounds an awful lot like what atheists try to do too tbqh
ElNono
06-05-2021, 01:31 AM
I agree completely that religion has most definitely been used as a tool for control, and it's pretty sad. but as you said, it's not the only reason.
I personally feel that a proper understanding and application of the bible isnt a matter of control at all, as opposed to a way to know our creator and advice on how to live life decently and have unity with one another. when people use it to try to control others or take away choice, it's a very sad thing and horrible misuse of the scriptures imo
Agree. Plus there's the whole 'personal god' thing, which we can frame into a multitude of things: psychology, spirituality, etc and has nothing to do with control of the masses.
That's why in general I don't have a problem with people enjoying and experiencing their religion. It can have a positive, utilitarian value to that person. My patience ends when some people want to impose it on me, whether it's because they truly believe in it or anything else.
Frenchfred
06-05-2021, 02:17 AM
i called it the theory too.
but many people present it as fact.
lol and the same is done by atheists, they want religion to probe that he exists because they know they cant prove that its outside the realm of possibility that he exists, which has been my point all along, both sides do the same thing just on the other end of the spectrum
it is called a theory by scientist
again, religious people are the ones claiming the existence of a god and asking to follow rules based on that.
Frenchfred
06-05-2021, 02:23 AM
theres a big difference between telling stories to try to explain something you dont understand, and retelling events that happened during your lifetime as guys like moses did
lol recording capabilities have existed for what, 100 years or so? the bible records events that spans thousands years and doesnt have record of god making some sort of annual appearance or anything. there were periods where he didnt interact with humans for hundreds of years. why would we expect him to suddenly appear just to make you happy?
there are no difference between your religion and the other I mentioned. You choose to believe that the stories told by others are true; that's all.
Why don't you expect him to appear? He is just a sperm donor, he has a kid and leaves never to show up again? At least he should pay alimony but we are left with diseases, natural disasters, murders and other catastrophes. For a guy who could have everything stop, he seems happy to see his spawns suffer
Frenchfred
06-05-2021, 02:30 AM
on par with parting the red sea or resurrections? im not aware of any, doesnt mean none happened.
however i personally think the preservation of scripture is a miracle in its own right with all the attempts to conceal and destroy it, even killing people for attempting to translate, copy and distribute it.
regardless, even if people saw a miracle happen, does that mean every atheist would suddenly believe in the existence of god? or would there just be more attempts to chalk it up to unexplained phenomena, or perhaps the manifestation of aliens? even in the bible many people that witnessed miracles and the incredible power of god still didnt change their mind and did their own thing. maybe it would work for you personally, idk, but im sure it still wouldnt work for many. i mean theres still people who legitimately believe bill russell would be the best player in the nba in any day and age, so some people simply are going to believe what they want to believe no matter how compelling any evidence or reasoning is.
if a guy shows up and make something disappear or appear like a building out of thin air, it would be difficult not to believe.
Better question, if god appears and create such miracles and tells you that he is allah, would you convert to islam or decide that this is impossible and continue believing in the bible?
leemajors
06-05-2021, 12:22 PM
If Bible God exists, seriously based on the laws and actions in the Old Testament, he's a huge insecure asshole
It's either believe/ worship me or die. That's the main message from front to back.
That's why he rebirthed himself.
Blake
06-05-2021, 03:18 PM
if a guy shows up and make something disappear or appear like a building out of thin air, it would be difficult not to believe.
Better question, if god appears and create such miracles and tells you that he is allah, would you convert to islam or decide that this is impossible and continue believing in the bible?
At that point the Christians would want hard proof
koriwhat
06-05-2021, 03:20 PM
Blake fights so hard for abortion yet his mommy didn't abort him and his ex-wife didn't abort his own child. It's quite comical the hill some of you fuck faces want to die on.
Too bad mommy didn't abort Blakey poo though... :(
Blake
06-05-2021, 03:44 PM
Blake fights so hard for abortion yet his mommy didn't abort him and his ex-wife didn't abort his own child. It's quite comical the hill some of your fuck faces want to die on.
Too bad mommy didn't abort Blakey poo though... :(
Remember det time you said you found God while hopped up on LSD?
koriwhat
06-05-2021, 04:56 PM
^ You're still here? What's your mother's number so I can call her and tell her she fucked up and was supposed to abort your bitchass?! :lmao
Blake
06-05-2021, 05:05 PM
^ You're still here? What's your mother's number so I can call her and tell her she fucked up and was supposed to abort your bitchass?! :lmao
Nobody is telling you to give me free rent. That's all on you.
RandomGuy
06-07-2021, 08:57 AM
:lmao whining about "cherry picking" then immediately cherry picking and in some cases literally making stuff up
if thats how you want to discuss, then i will not be discussing with you. like i said, you have your mind made up and i have mine. ill have a civil discussion, but i wont bother if you are just going to do stuff like this.
cue the "thats what i expect from a theist who cant back his claims up" posts
Dude, I am totallly willing to talk about the bible in its entirety.
You are the one that has to cherry pick and dodge the parts that make you uncomfortable.
I am happy to accede there are part of it that claim there is a "loving God" bla bla bla.
They are at odds with the "Ima drown everyone" passages that you try to pretend aren't there.
If I can roll with all of it, and you can't, who is doing the cherry picking?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.