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

LOLZ, what a Bozo!

:lmao


Science? How did it get here?

:lmao

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

[quote from Einstein]

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ience.religion

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

I liked this bit at the end:

Quote:

---

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

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

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

---

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

mars has two moons, bill.

fucking moons, how do they work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

:lmao


Science? How did it get here?

:lmao

---

Fucking magnets, how do they work?



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

- Insane Clown Posse, Miracles (2009)


Heh. Know your meme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greyforest

fucking moons, how do they work?

---

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

Dammit. :depressed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

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

mars has two moons, bill.

---

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

http://cdn3.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/0...jpg?1271129149

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ience.religion

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

I liked this bit at the end:

---

I don't like organized religion either.

LOL @ all of you missing his point entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

LOL @ all of you missing his point entirely.

---

What exactly was his point then? Do enlighten us.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

What exactly was his point then? Do enlighten us.

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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

---

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








HA!

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



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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

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

---

Einstein didn't think it was laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Einstein didn't think it was laughable.

---

I think you misunderstood Einstein.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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

---

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

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

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

And how did that moon get there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody

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

---

:lol

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

And how did that moon get there?

---

:lmao

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

Lean basic science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Einstein didn't think it was laughable.

---

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

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

:lol @ blocking comments on the youtube video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc

:lol @ blocking comments on the youtube video

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ience.religion

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

I liked this bit at the end:

Quote:

---

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

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

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

---

---

You have to remember, Einstein was Jewish. Perhaps he read the original language and could understand the Torah as it was meant to be, rather than man's interpretation to suit King James. What I have studied of the Torah, and later works would have me pegged as an atheist as well.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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

---

They'd rather pick apart the messenger than understand his intent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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

---

There is a degree of order to the known universe.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

There is a degree of order to the known universe.

---

From where does the order come?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

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

---

What does it mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

From where does the order come?


What does it mean?

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody

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

---

Everything has a genesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Everything has a genesis.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody

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

---

I think it is necessarily true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody

...and regardless, it misses the point of my question.

---

Then, your question misses the point of my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody

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

---

I'm saying, if the laws of physics are accurate and the state of matter is inextricably headed in one direction, it must have began at some point; even if that point was at the end of another such progression.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Everything has a genesis.


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

---

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

you might be the biggest hypocrite I have EVER come across

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

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

you might be the biggest hypocrite I have EVER come across

---

You don't know many people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

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

you might be the biggest hypocrite I have EVER come across

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

You don't know many people.

---

:lmao


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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

:lmao


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

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

---

So, back to the topic... genesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

So, back to the topic... genesis.

---

Shitty 80s band... next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

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

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

---

[email protected] with you, I'm butthurt and I think I am a badass. I have like 2 conversations with you a year, if that. Idiot.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

[email protected] with you, I'm butthurt and I think I am a badass. I have like 2 conversations with you a year, if that. Idiot.

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

---

funny that you are calling someone a hypocrite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

funny that you are calling someone a hypocrite

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

funny that you are calling someone a hypocrite

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

I don't know, I'm retarded

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

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

---

And, that must be mocked.

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

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

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

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

bush talks to god. ask him.

lmao

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

"I can. The Bible states..."

:rollin

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ience.religion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ience.religion

---

from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...607298,00.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einstein

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

So, Einstein agrees with me. Nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einstein

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

So, Einstein agrees with me. Nice.

---

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

MiamiHeat was just pwnd by a dead person. Awesome.

What? Yornivore you're a fool.

I posted 2 things

- a post about religion

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Einstein

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

---

and by the way, Einstein is overrated.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

and by the way, Einstein is overrated.

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

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

---

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

Not bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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

Not bad.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

and by the way, Einstein is overrated.

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

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

---

You mad?

mad about what?

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

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

Waste of time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

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

---

Your advice will be given the consideration it deserves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

mad about what?

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

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

Waste of time

---

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

Seems to me that Einstein believed in intelligent design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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

---

I'm an atheist. Einstein was not.

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

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

be gone, pest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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

Seems to me that Einstein believed in intelligent design.

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

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

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

I'm an atheist. Einstein was not.

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

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

be gone, pest.

---

:lmao Fuck you.

So, back to the original question. What created?

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

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

---

I never asked the question why but, how.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

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

---

Or, we can seek to discover...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

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

---

Yeah, let's just quit wondering and seeking an answer. That's what we should do. Let fate have her way because, there's no way we'll ever answer the unanswerable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

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

---

Odd statement from someone who keeps proclaiming their faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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

---

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

Quantum mechanics and how all things work?

Because if you are, they have other explanations.

This is cause ----> effect.

NOT effect -----> cause.

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

This is an easily spotted flaw in thinking...

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

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


Cause comes first, then effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Odd statement from someone who keeps proclaiming their faith.

---

what faith?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Or, we can seek to discover...

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

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

---

But, recognizing there is an order that speaks to the possibility of intelligent design is seeking to discover.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

what faith?

---

The one you keep proclaiming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

what faith?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by you

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

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

Quantum mechanics and how all things work?

Because if you are, they have other explanations.

This is cause ----> effect.

NOT effect -----> cause.

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

This is an easily spotted flaw in thinking...

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

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


Cause comes first, then effect.

---

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

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

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

-quoted from chipbuddy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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

---

You're just trolling now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proxy

You're just trolling now.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proxy

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

-quoted from chipbuddy

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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

---

No it isn't.

http://yfrog.com/5lsy8z

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proxy

No it isn't.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

It's a belief there is no God.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proxy

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

---

Suit yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proxy

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

-quoted from chipbuddy

---

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


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