AgentKuo
Regular
I'm just amazed that this thread is still gong. I got bored about 3 pages in when it first started, after my viewpoints were not considered, and all that was being said were the same arguments I've already heard a hundred times.
Religion?
- Thread starter AgentKuo
- Start date
- Status
Specs112
Veteran
“Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.” ~Thomas Paine
ZamHalen
Veteran
It's things like this I find unfavorable to quality discussion, as most atheists I have met, as I said, are some of the most unreasonable people I know.
Just remember you still trust scientific knowledge observed by religious people. (Gregor Mendel anyone?)
Muesli
Premium Member
Whilst I would have gladly given Specs a slap for what he just wrote (the trick is to not be an ass), what you wrote after is completely irrelevant. Just because the scientific knowledge was discovered by religious people bears no consequence to the truth of said religion. Nothing they discovered was because of their religion (and often in spite of it.).
It's entirely possible for people like Newton (a devout christian) to be genius in their field yet completely wrong in another (namely his theological views). For all we know he could have wiped his arse back to front. Does that make it right? Thankfully not.
It's an argument from authority and it's stupid.
Specs112
Veteran
Seconded.
If you wish to slap me, I would prefer that you do so with a large trout. Here, use this.
*awaits slapping expectantly*
Edward
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 2,497
- Location
- Your default internet browser
- WCA ID
- 2011KING01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
H
Hershey
Guest
How so?
Godmil
Premium Member
What was the point in the ID link?
Do I need to dig out the Judges report from the Dover Trial?
Do I need to dig out the Judges report from the Dover Trial?
ZamHalen
Veteran
I was trying to say that religious affiliation is irrelevant in "reason" as the principle found in his studies was based on on reasoning if you think about it.
It has little to do with religion and more to do with the connotation of his statement.
@Hershey
I mean seriously unreasonable, straight out acting badly, causing harm to both themselves and others on multiple levels.(Not religious wise but just the way they are towards others).In all reality most of their arguments involve God just being another authority figure and absolutely nothing else, which I don't believe is an entirely valid argument as there needs to be just a little bit more thought put into your argument than just rebellious attitude.(I mean come on, anyone can be rebellious if they wanted to be no matter what).
I don't think my argument suffices but I'll expand it tomorrow.
Last edited:
Tyjet66
Veteran
I'm incredibly curious, what's wrong with doing that? As long as said area becomes void of left over material, who cares how it's done or to say it's done correctly or not?
EeeeeWarne
Regular
Arguments between Theists and Atheists are quite simple.
Man-kind cannot explain everything around us with science.
Atheists say that everything can be explained with science, it's just we haven't figured a way to do it...yet.
Theists say that everything which we cannot explain with science is in existence as a result of some kind of supreme being/s. (I do not acknowledge creationists as Theists. They are in their own separate category of "Nut-job").
Then there are all sorts of counter arguments to that. But what they basically get down to is this:
Atheist: There is this infinite line of cause and effect which resulted in us being here today typing about this topic. It is kinda like a line of dominoes. We know about some of the dominoes, and we know other ones are there...we just are not sure which colour it is. The whole idea of an infinite line of cause and effect is very confusing for Humans because we are mortal, but it is possible.
Theist: There is not an infinite chain of cause and effect. It goes back to just before the big bang (NOTE: Those who deny basic scientific and common knowledge like this are not theists, but rather nut-jobs) when the universe was smaller than a tea spoon. After setting up his/her long domino line, god (or gods, I am working with the main 3 here...sorry Hindu's) flicked the first one and he watched them go.
Atheist: Ahhhh! But where did he come from! This god of yours! There is an infinite chain of cause and effect! Because your God is infinite isn't he!
Theist: Mmmm. I guess so. In that case, God existing fits perfectly into your views right! Because his creation is an infinite domino line!
Atheist: Damn...I guess it does. But still, the chance of the "god domino" existing is pretty small, as there are other ways the domino line could go!
Someone who has reasonable intelligence: Guys! Stop arguing! You cannot prove either of your points 100%. It is up to the individual to decide which one they think is more likely, or just have faith in one of them. This should be an individual choice and it's all about personal preference. Atheist and Theist debates are like GuHong and ZhanChi debates. No-one will ever win!
Also. This thread is also about religion, and religion is SO MUCH more than believing in a supreme being/s. Religion teaches us what is right and wrong, and tells us how to live a good, life. I'm an Atheist, but I think Jesus was a great guy, and he said some great things, which you would have to be a totally *****ic, stuck up atheist to ignore...
Man-kind cannot explain everything around us with science.
Atheists say that everything can be explained with science, it's just we haven't figured a way to do it...yet.
Theists say that everything which we cannot explain with science is in existence as a result of some kind of supreme being/s. (I do not acknowledge creationists as Theists. They are in their own separate category of "Nut-job").
Then there are all sorts of counter arguments to that. But what they basically get down to is this:
Atheist: There is this infinite line of cause and effect which resulted in us being here today typing about this topic. It is kinda like a line of dominoes. We know about some of the dominoes, and we know other ones are there...we just are not sure which colour it is. The whole idea of an infinite line of cause and effect is very confusing for Humans because we are mortal, but it is possible.
Theist: There is not an infinite chain of cause and effect. It goes back to just before the big bang (NOTE: Those who deny basic scientific and common knowledge like this are not theists, but rather nut-jobs) when the universe was smaller than a tea spoon. After setting up his/her long domino line, god (or gods, I am working with the main 3 here...sorry Hindu's) flicked the first one and he watched them go.
Atheist: Ahhhh! But where did he come from! This god of yours! There is an infinite chain of cause and effect! Because your God is infinite isn't he!
Theist: Mmmm. I guess so. In that case, God existing fits perfectly into your views right! Because his creation is an infinite domino line!
Atheist: Damn...I guess it does. But still, the chance of the "god domino" existing is pretty small, as there are other ways the domino line could go!
Someone who has reasonable intelligence: Guys! Stop arguing! You cannot prove either of your points 100%. It is up to the individual to decide which one they think is more likely, or just have faith in one of them. This should be an individual choice and it's all about personal preference. Atheist and Theist debates are like GuHong and ZhanChi debates. No-one will ever win!
Also. This thread is also about religion, and religion is SO MUCH more than believing in a supreme being/s. Religion teaches us what is right and wrong, and tells us how to live a good, life. I'm an Atheist, but I think Jesus was a great guy, and he said some great things, which you would have to be a totally *****ic, stuck up atheist to ignore...
Muesli
Premium Member
Then we are in agreement... Your previous statement read as if you thought that religion was a factor in their discovery. That's what I was objecting to.
Depends what gender you are...
Last edited:
Muesli
Premium Member
False. We will be able to.
Untrue. Atheism doesn't say anything about what the person actually says beyond "I don't believe in god". (AgentKuo corrected me here)
DEISTS think this. Theists believe in a personal God who helps them in their lives and listens to their prayers. Learn what you're saying.
It's very disingenuous to say "Atheists" think this. The only thing that Atheists have in common is their lack of belief in a God.
Some Atheists might think what you wrote, but I don't. I don't claim to know.
Got any evidence for that?
That question is a perfectly valid response from my position. From the strawman that you deliberately set up it obviously fails. Pr0tip: When debating, attack the position that your opponent actually holds. If you don't you look like an ass.
The rest of this little story is just fallout from the last 2 points, so it's pointless to address.
Sure, you can believe in these things. That's your right. But you can't expect to go around saying them without people calling you on your crap. That's all I'm doing, that's all my position is. I never, EVER, make affirmations of truth as regards to the start of the universe because I quite simply don't know.
Nobody does, so why do theists say they do? Because as far as I can tell they liked what they read in a dusty old book and decided that it was fact. I don't buy it.
And you analogy fails. A more apt one would be someone just telling me that they'd just got a 4.12 second solve, and I had to believe them because they're 'honestly telling the truth!
Nope.
Meh. Depends what parts you read.
>implying there's evidence that Jesus was real.
Last edited:
AgentKuo
Regular
No part of being an atheist says anything about their views on science.
EeeeeWarne
Regular
@Museli: While I agree that there are no set guidelines which Theists and Atheists must follow other than basic definitions, I used typical arguments which they use.
In terms of
Also, While there is no concrete evidence of Jesus existing, there is evidence that he was around. The question is, was he some amazing healer who came back from the dead? No. And even if he didn't exist, the stories of him and the things which it is recorded he said made sense and gave many tips on how to live. I still don't get how I imply his existence as a physical figure. I can say Captain Jack Sparrow is really cool without acknowledging that he is a fictional character.
How is my statement false? I did not say "and it will stay this way for all time". I was just stating, that, at this moment in time, not everything can be explained with science by humans. We know very little about anti-matter for example. I am not saying that everything cannot be explained with science (what I believe).
Also, you seem to have missed the main point of my post. A questioning of "why are you arguing about this!", "why do you care". You could simply have replied with "I have a passion for Philosophy".
@AgentKuo: That is correct. I was stereotyping
In terms of
- read what?
Also, While there is no concrete evidence of Jesus existing, there is evidence that he was around. The question is, was he some amazing healer who came back from the dead? No. And even if he didn't exist, the stories of him and the things which it is recorded he said made sense and gave many tips on how to live. I still don't get how I imply his existence as a physical figure. I can say Captain Jack Sparrow is really cool without acknowledging that he is a fictional character.
How is my statement false? I did not say "and it will stay this way for all time". I was just stating, that, at this moment in time, not everything can be explained with science by humans. We know very little about anti-matter for example. I am not saying that everything cannot be explained with science (what I believe).
. Evidence for what? The Big Bang, the great big domino line? I make so many statements in that section you were referencing too. In terms of it being the general thoughts of all Theists...no, that is not the case. It is just a common argument my religious friends have made.
Also, you seem to have missed the main point of my post. A questioning of "why are you arguing about this!", "why do you care". You could simply have replied with "I have a passion for Philosophy".
@AgentKuo: That is correct. I was stereotyping
Cube-Fu
Regular
I came THIS close to living in China and studying Shaolin martial arts (they are Buddhists) but the monks I met, were all quite rude, being judgemental and 'snooty' for want of a better word. One of the founding beliefs for Buddhism, is that life is a bad thing, and we should get it over with, quickly; I just don't agree. Nowadays, I'm much more akin to the Zen-Buddhists, and/or Taoists. Yin-Yang all the way, baby!
And when it comes to you guys, dominating the thread, it seems that you're both arguing a point neither can prove. But, I believe if you look at the possible origins of things, there is only one answer. Things cannot be infinite, as otherwise, we would be able to perceive it as such, there being no boundries, as all things would happen at once; therefore, things started, and as there is no possible way for things to start by them selves (or would you like to argue a new definition of 'life' as we know it) it must have been started, and not by the definition of God as we now know, but by some quite different entity. I can't see how there can be another reasonable conclusion, as particles just 'popping' into existence, still sounds like a very un-scientific principle to me. But I don't really care, I've been blessed to have this chance to be poor and hungry. To quote Sancho Panza (a close and personal friend of mine) 'I was born into this world, naked and crying; if I leave the same way, I'll know things are to rights.' Maybe, we should all get together, and sit around the fire, where we can talk properly ...
Igora
Regular
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2010
- Messages
- 49
This is a direct contradiction. There is no evidence outside of the bible that there was a "Jesus" of either mortal or supernatural descent that claimed to be the son of God.
There is a very big difference between cannot (is not able to) and does not.
I am going to say it was referencing the domino line that began from god(s).
Escher
Babby
There is indeed 'evidence' of the same calibre as the bible in external sources, such as writings from Flavius and Pliny the Younger.
I'm not too sure if anything more solid exists than these accounts (which were post-Jesus' life).
JonnyWhoopes
Premium Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,009
- Location
- Massachusetts, USA
- WCA ID
- 2011GRAY02
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Yes, there is very intellectually sound evidence of Jesus' existence. The question is not whether or not he existed, it is the classification of his existence. Was he a liar, a lunatic, or Lord of the universe?
Godmil
Premium Member
Or he was entirely reasonable and his story got exaggerated way out of proportion.
- Status
