Most of them, especially the conservative ones.
Atheists please answer this
- Thread starter Joe K.
- Start date
Most of them, especially the conservative ones.
because they believe in [insert your critreia]?
because they "believe" period?
as LG said, atheists are dumber for not "believing"..if that's your argument.
limiting your life to the scientific method is as inane as it sounds..even to a scientist.
Yeah, I got criteria bitches.
So there are "nasty bitches", "effing bitches" and such, and then there are "criteria bitches". Interesting.
K
keith1
Guest
I need not be advanced enough to ascertain the exact function of consciousness, or of its physical drive component structure, to know for certain it is "connected to the matter" of the human units it is associated with.
To elaborate further is fanciful conjecture. I dare not go there with you. It might be unhealthful and contagious.
Your further conjecture:
You are immersed in something so dense, you cannot visualize clearly enough to communicate its dynamics to me. Come back after some retrospect and education, and try again.
If the cosmic microwave background is an "intelligent signature imprint", then the data will be coaxed out as such. Or it will not.
If the CMB is a "braking FTL object", skipping briefly upon a Planck-sized Zero-point--creating the universe in it's wake...then the data will be coaxed out as such. Or it will not.
Building a religion on conjecture is putting the cart before the horse. Count me out...and please cough in the other direction.
next.
keith1,
"connected", and "asociated".
What are you suggesting?
You've already gone there, by using the above terminologies.
Best grab the paracetemol.
Are you familiar with the description 'second nature'?
Come back when you have unlearned shit, and can see that the trees
are what make the forest.
Now put that into context.
Building a religion is conjecture.
jan.
"connected", and "asociated".
What are you suggesting?
You've already gone there, by using the above terminologies.
Best grab the paracetemol.
Are you familiar with the description 'second nature'?
Come back when you have unlearned shit, and can see that the trees
are what make the forest.
Now put that into context.
Building a religion is conjecture.
jan.
Depends on Who's building it...
"I will build my church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it." ...not conjecture on His part
It reeks of education.
It reeks of dictionary.
Q is educated, and and I'm pretty certain Q has a dictionary.
I have never met Q. Just because you are semi literate, and Q may have made this point before, doesn't mean there is any relationship between Q and I.
It's pretty infantile to suggest one, actually.
depends on how you look at it - it doesnt account for things outside of the scope of the theory - like electromagnetism, or gravity for example - but within the scope of what it sets out to explain it is very comprehensive.
Correct, but it is part of the methodology of science, without it science is prone to become pseudo-science.
That which is not required in order to explain something can be safely excluded until such a time when the explanatory or predictive capacity of a theory cannot progress without its inclusion.
So far god is not needed to explain the process of evolution, or any other natural process.
Now whether this is adequate justification for unbeleif is another matter - for some people like Richard Dawkins it is - but there are plenty of scientists who have no problem in reconciling beleif in a personal god with a determination that the theory of evolution is correct.
quite right - an absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence.
However, the universe that we observe today - one which appears to operate completely autonomously from any invisible guiding hand, on (mostly / superficially) simple rules - does stand at odds with the god or gods described in the various holy books of the world - namely a god who regularly manifests itself or interfers, performs miracles, takes a personal role in daily events etc.
Either it is a shocking co-incidence that these various manfestations of the work of your god of choice have decreased over the last 200-or-so years in direct corelation to the rate at which we have developed naturalistic explanations to how things operate, or god just happens to have chosen this exact time to hit the autopilot button on the universe, nipped off for a little break and will be right back in her firery chariot to get back to the job of dragging the sun across the sky every day some time in the next century or so.
So the point as to whether god takes a personal involvement in the running of the universe is a moot one - we cant detect it, we cant measure it - so to all intents and purposes it isnt there in any real sense.
Furthermore, you can replace the word "god" in the "you cant prove that evolution is not guided by god" sentence, by any deity or supernatural entity you like (or more probably quite a few that you don't like), and there's no genuinely demonstrable reason why your god is a better candidate than anyone elses. But ulitmately it gets us nowhere as the point isnt testable.
actually there is some pretty good work being done
there's a lovely simple demo here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Last edited:
I don't know if I missed some earlier posts but I'll start here.
Those rigorously designed studies are offensive to God and he avoids them. People who participate in them cannot expect God to take them seriously.
So? That does not disprove God.
I don't care about all of the details and proofs of the creationists, but there is no scientific evidence to prove that God did not get the whole thing started. That whole topic is beyond science, there is no evidence or proof and we cannot recreate the conditions to study them empirically..
How do you know? I just read a book by a man who converted to Christianity while in prison. He wrote how Christian groups came in from the outside to help and encourage prisoners, even providing them with a banquet of home cooked food, a real treat after prison fare. I never heard of atheists going into prisons to help people, and giving them copies of Darwin's books to give them guidance.
Do you read them as they were meant to be read? Contradictions have resolutions. Give me one contradiction and I'll give you an example.
That is speculation,many believe otherwise, there is unity of authorship.
Miracles by definition are rare and do not submit themselves to being studied.
That depends on the date of authorship. Yes,if you accept later dates, no if you acept earlier dates. This is outside of the realm of science.
9. Religious texts promote immoral behavior.
So does Darwinsm - people are just animals. The teachings of Christ do not in any way promote immoral behavior, they condemn it and call us to a very high level of ersonal ethics.
10.The universe is not fine-tuned for life.
Many people say otherwise. If we were a bit farther from the sun or closer, to give only one example, life aswe know it would not be possible.
You have given debatable arguments, not scientific evidence or proof.
That argument makes no sense whatever.
1. No one knows what was there in the first beginnnings.
2. No one has ever believed in or preached a God that could not exist until enough information was present. You are not refuting any kind of God known tothe three major religions.
3. God is not limited by physical constraints, he is above and beyond them.
4. Who says God is so complex he could not exist until a certain amount of information was present? This is pure speculation on your part, without a shred of empirical justification.
Where is the evidence that he didn't?
We have left the laboratory far behind. Your test tubes, miscroscopes, and telescopes won't help you here.
There is internal evidence in the hearts of those to whom Christ has revealed himself, but that falls outside of your self-imposed criteria so you can easily dismiss it.
There is no evidence to claim God is guiding evolution, but there is no evidence to prove he is not. That was the point of this thread. If a theistic evolutionist says evolution is a fact but it works as it does as god is guiding it, you may not like the idea but your rejection is based on something other than cold and calculated study of empirical evidence.
My point is that saying "There is no God" is a personal decision based on many things, many factors, but not on empirical evidence or plain and simple fact.
These are important questions and merit careful consideration.
Right, there is no proof. This branches out into another topic - the limitations of proof. There really is very little we can prove.
So what?
Being "caught up" doesn't mean you've actually provided satisfactory (or even rational) answers.
Don't tell me that's what you're assuming.
Edit: or even answered all the points raised.
Presumably then, by "caught up" you simply mean you've managed to get the first post on page 7.
Wow! Kudos. I'm impressed.
Just a reminder to myself - not that I answered every point to your satisfaction of course, just a short note jotted off in haste to remind myself of where to start next.
1. You have no idea of what the universe was like at the beginning.
2. You fail to distinguish between the physical creation and the creator. If the Creator existed before the physical creation, then he would not be dependent on it in any way.
Physical things need a beginning, but God is spirit and hence outside of all of your materialistic conceptions.