Jump to content

Recommended Posts

the biggest problem with this debate is you guys have a schooling level that makes me always be on the defensive, but you're basic foundation is still flawed. Where did the matter come from, what gave the big bang the detonation power. Until you have an answer for point A, really point B-Z are basically educated guesses that can appear very reasonable, but still be very wrong.
1. there is no reason to suspect the explanations for B-Z are reliant on A.2. if the evidence indicates god is not involved in B-Z (as it does), even though we don't understand A (yet) the logical inference is that it's unlikely god is involved in A either. there is no reason to postulate god as the cause of A.point A is just something we don't understand. nothing more nothing less. a gap in our understanding is NOT A FLAW in our understanding. a gap does not invalidate what we do understand.and just because there is a gap in our understanding does not automatically imply god is necessary to fill it. in fact invoking god does not actually simplify or explain anything, all it does is make things even more complex by adding *another level* (an unnecessary one) to our lack of understanding.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. there is no reason to suspect the explanations for B-Z are reliant on A.2. if the evidence indicates god is not involved in B-Z (as it does), even though we don't understand A (yet) the logical inference is that it's unlikely god is involved in A either. there is no reason to postulate god as the cause of A.point A is just something we don't understand. nothing more nothing less. a gap in our understanding is NOT A FLAW in our understanding. a gap does not invalidate what we do understand.and just because there is a gap in our understanding does not automatically imply god is necessary to fill it. in fact invoking god does not actually simplify or explain anything, all it does is make things even more complex by adding *another level* (an unnecessary one) to our lack of understanding.
If your basis for B-Z is that all things continue as they always have, than A becomes a problem. You are basicallty saying, we have good strong belief that we are right about B-Z, therefore we will eventually make A work for us. until then we'll just assume it does work. But in order for all things to continue as they always have, you must not have a point in time when they didn't continue as they do. Or else you have a need for a cause.It is not a gap, it is the foundation. Without it, all your pretty lights go out.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"The sun revolves around the earth, and to be honest I don't see much value in the proof that I'm wrong. In fact, I'm glad that the church is torturing people who dare to claim otherwise."-balloonguy'sgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandfatherI kid (sort of). That level of detail is way over my head too.
I meant that I can search out answers on google, but what's the point of arguing like that. I prefer to speak of what I have knowledge of.Boy did I set myself up thereAlthough Grandpa BG was a strange old coot and he made a mean chilli
Link to post
Share on other sites
If your basis for B-Z is that all things continue as they always have, than A becomes a problem. You are basicallty saying, we have good strong belief that we are right about B-Z, therefore we will eventually make A work for us. until then we'll just assume it does work.
science freely admits it doesn't know much about the big bang. it assumes based on current pattern that it is most likely that we will find a naturalistic explanation for the big bang, but that's a justified assumption based on evidence. if contrary evidence is found the assumption will be dropped.
But in order for all things to continue as they always have, you must not have a point in time when they didn't continue as they do. Or else you have a need for a cause.
not sure i understand that, but there is no evidence that "what exists" isn't infinite in some sense. the necessity of a "first cause" is just another assumption - not to mention one that uses a double standard for the concept of god (if god doesn't require a cause then why does the universe yada yada).
It is not a gap, it is the foundation. Without it, all your pretty lights go out.
whatever caused the big bang has nothing to do with the foundation of different aspects of scientific knowledge. that's silly. discovering that an intelligence was behind the big bang would not invalidate the evidence for naturalistic evolution etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, picking the worse traits of a group and applying it to the entire group as a whole, that's not intellectually lazy.
I said religion not practitioners. I'm not picking on the group - every group has it's embarrasments. I am picking on the teachings of Bible. It is the contents of the Bible I find repugnant.So again not intellectually lazy. That would be someone who reads my post and has a predetermined notion of what I was saying.
But as we already see, you 'know' there is no God therefore any answer with God in it will be false, and a cop out. You have a nice neat little world set out for yourself. I wouldn't want to upset it.
With over 4,000 religions through out history all claiming to be the right one I don't find it unreasonable to step back and wait for one to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that it is correct. Until that happens relying on my ability to look out the window and see a world that differs from the one in the story you want me to swallow is again a reasonable and intellecually honest approach.
Having a knowledge of a subject, and instead of challenging this knowledge with your equals on a forum that is appropriate, you spend your time basically pounding people that are not as well read to make yourselves feel that you are superior is intellectually lazy.You guys want to say you believe such and such while talking about other things, I got no problem. When you spend the vast majority of your time at a poker website tearing into the worldviews of kids who have maybe 1/10th your schooling, I see you as intellectual bullies.
So we're intellectual lazy or intellectual bulliles? You do realise that they are likely to be mutually exclusive. Nevermind, you're throwing around the accusations, I'll let you choose.Regardless, putting up worldviews that contradict those of the parents of kids who are less schooled does nothing more than give them a reason to think for themselves. It also serves to debunk a whole lotta lies on what is a touchy subject - and before you go into another rant about the nasty lazy, athiest bullies, those lies are present in all camps.
Link to post
Share on other sites
science freely admits it doesn't know much about the big bang. it assumes based on current pattern that it is most likely that we will find a naturalistic explanation for the big bang, but that's a justified assumption based on evidence. if contrary evidence is found the assumption will be dropped. not sure i understand that, but there is no evidence that "what exists" isn't infinite in some sense. the necessity of a "first cause" is just another assumption - not to mention one that uses a double standard for the concept of god (if god doesn't require a cause then why does the universe yada yada).whatever caused the big bang has nothing to do with the foundation of different aspects of scientific knowledge. that's silly. discovering that an intelligence was behind the big bang would not invalidate the evidence for naturalistic evolution etc.
But the beginning sets in motion all that we know. The idea that everything radiates from a central point is what led science to postulate a big bang. That is how the current system came into being. Without this there is only faith that it wasn't God.If the universe were a computer, you are saying that the hardware isn't relevant to our belief that the computer is self existing. After all it has in itself the ability to check for viruses, scan its own hard drive and delete old files without outside influence. It's existance is just random chance.So I say the hardware shows that need for a Creator, and you say science doesn't know but you have faith that one day you will and that what you learn will continue your current belief that there is no Creator.You also are trying to say that if the computer was built, then it's builder would need a builder. But the builder is not a computer, it's not even remotely similar to a computer. Your objection is based on like creating like.God is outside of Time Space, to imply that He answers to you about His maker is a dodge on your part. You are not high enough in the food chain to yet understand DNA, but you suppose to challenge God due to a logical fallacy? To place a burden of logic on matter is very different than demanding an equal burden on the Creator.But I'm glad to see you rely on faith for your world view almost as much as I do.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I said religion not practitioners. I'm not picking on the group - every group has it's embarrasments. I am picking on the teachings of Bible. It is the contents of the Bible I find repugnant.So again not intellectually lazy. That would be someone who reads my post and has a predetermined notion of what I was saying.With over 4,000 religions through out history all claiming to be the right one I don't find it unreasonable to step back and wait for one to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that it is correct. Until that happens relying on my ability to look out the window and see a world that differs from the one in the story you want me to swallow is again a reasonable and intellecually honest approach.So we're intellectual lazy or intellectual bulliles? You do realise that they are likely to be mutually exclusive. Nevermind, you're throwing around the accusations, I'll let you choose.Regardless, putting up worldviews that contradict those of the parents of kids who are less schooled does nothing more than give them a reason to think for themselves. It also serves to debunk a whole lotta lies on what is a touchy subject - and before you go into another rant about the nasty lazy, athiest bullies, those lies are present in all camps.
Doesn't matter who says what about which is right. I can have all the goodness in the world, but if you ask directions to the moon, there is a correct answer on how to get there. Just because others say there are different ways doesn't change the fact that you can't get there on a skateboard.And your angry desciptions of the Bible are not based on anything but a desire to poison the debate. It is laziness coupled with an attempt to bully. Pretending you are right doesn't justify the methods. I think you learned this from little Dicky Dawkins. See what I did there?
Link to post
Share on other sites
But the beginning sets in motion all that we know. The idea that everything radiates from a central point is what led science to postulate a big bang. That is how the current system came into being. Without this there is only faith that it wasn't God.
yeah faith, in the same way you have faith that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth.it does not take faith to not believe in something that is contradicted by evidence.
If the universe were a computer, you are saying that the hardware isn't relevant to our belief that the computer is self existing. After all it has in itself the ability to check for viruses, scan its own hard drive and delete old files without outside influence. It's existance is just random chance.
not sure i understand the connection you're trying to make. you seem to be confusing "random chance" with "no outside purpose". those are different things. there is no reason to think all of nature can't be self-organizing and non-random without the help of a purpose outside itself.
So I say the hardware shows that need for a Creator, and you say science doesn't know but you have faith that one day you will and that what you learn will continue your current belief that there is no Creator.
i don't "believe" there is no intelligent creator. i think it's unlikely there is one based on evidence (the fact that B-Z appear to be creator-free). there is no faith involved.
You also are trying to say that if the computer was built, then it's builder would need a builder. But the builder is not a computer, it's not even remotely similar to a computer. Your objection is based on like creating like.
the builder is *exactly* like the computer in this type of argument. you can't hold god and the universe to different standards of logic. if you postulate that the universe requires a builder based on design, complexity, or the fact that it exists at all, then those same logical arguments must apply to whatever built it.if you postulate that god does not require a builder, then that invalidates your argument that the universe requires one.
To place a burden of logic on matter is very different than demanding an equal burden on the Creator.
the FSM will be glad to hear you think that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And your angry desciptions of the Bible are not based on anything but a desire to poison the debate. It is laziness coupled with an attempt to bully. Pretending you are right doesn't justify the methods. I think you learned this from little Dicky Dawkins.
Yes I did see - wasn't your best work, but that's always better than most.Perhaps you can explain to me though why you can freely rip into "the insanity that is the mormon religion" but when I announce I find the teachings of Christianity repugnant I am "poisoning the debate"?
Link to post
Share on other sites

<quote> God is outside of Time Space </quote>No offense, but this is where I look at you and show you how the aliens probed my friend's anus all night long and somehow managed to recover Top Secret government files that they are going to use to take over the country.See what I did there? :PThe real argument that CrowT and most atheists are making is what we call the "leap in faith". If B-Z all say one thing, then it makes sense for A to follow step. That is only a THEORY (not fact), but it is actually relative the all the evidence we have. The idea of a god isn't. If the first humans who saw fire didn't think "wow, god did it", then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Why?Because "God started it" is just as plausible as 123498712340981273490183 other theories that don't have any evidence to back it up.Not really trying to change your mind, but more of... explaining how we think.Plus, God being outside of Time/Space is considered by us (the magic words) intellectually lazy ::coughcoughcoughcough::

Link to post
Share on other sites
What does it matter what religion any candidate is? It has little to no bearing on one's presidency. George Bush is supposedly a Christian, yet very few of his political actions mirror said philosophy.
This is very short sighted. As BG pointed out only some of the few things that are under the surface of the mormon religion. I grew up with lots of mormons who were and continue to be me friends. But their religion cult, is only a few shades of gray away from scientology when you get down to the nuts and bolts. Everything BG has said so far is true. There are foundationd and help groups set up to get people out of the church and changing identities so they are not harrased/harmed/killed. Mormons do business with other mormons, this isn't necisarrily a bad thing, but when you look at the bigger picture, especially politics, this can be very dangerous.Mormon temple ceremonies/rituals are beyond bizzare and real devout speak in tounges and baptise the dead. They basically have taken all the worst controlling items from the major religions and cults and bottle them up, sealed them, and slowly let their followers know after years of brainwashing.So that is why any non-mormon can't vote for Romney
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is very short sighted. As BG pointed out only some of the few things that are under the surface of the mormon religion. I grew up with lots of mormons who were and continue to be me friends. But their religion cult, is only a few shades of gray away from scientology when you get down to the nuts and bolts. Everything BG has said so far is true. There are foundationd and help groups set up to get people out of the church and changing identities so they are not harrased/harmed/killed. Mormons do business with other mormons, this isn't necisarrily a bad thing, but when you look at the bigger picture, especially politics, this can be very dangerous.Mormon temple ceremonies/rituals are beyond bizzare and real devout speak in tounges and baptise the dead. They basically have taken all the worst controlling items from the major religions and cults and bottle them up, sealed them, and slowly let their followers know after years of brainwashing.So that is why any non-mormon can't vote for Romney
I really do not understand how you (and others) can classify Mormonism and/or Scientology a Cult, but Christianity as a religion. IMHO the ONLY difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of "success" it gets into recruiting new members. For this reason, I think that: 1) At one point, a cult becomes a religion - Mormonism and Scientology having already achieved that.and2) Christianity, and all other established religions were at some point a cult as well.Do you agree with what I'm saying? Would you concede that the major religions were never a cult, and have been a religion from day 1? What do others think about this?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I really do not understand how you (and others) can classify Mormonism and/or Scientology a Cult, but Christianity as a religion. IMHO the ONLY difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of "success" it gets into recruiting new members. For this reason, I think that: 1) At one point, a cult becomes a religion - Mormonism and Scientology having already achieved that.and2) Christianity, and all other established religions were at some point a cult as well.Do you agree with what I'm saying? Would you concede that the major religions were never a cult, and have been a religion from day 1? What do others think about this?
100% agreement. The line between cult and organized religion is drawn by the number of there followers. If that is the case, I don't know if I would put Scientology in as a religion yet (I don't know what the census is on them, but I don't think it is very high), but LDS I would definitely classify as a religion. At one time they were the fastest growing religion (although I heard that similar to baptizing the dead, they would adopt the entire family tree of deceased family members of a new living convert. So if you were to join, Great Grandma and Grandpa also join. I'm sure this skewed the numbers quite a bit) and they also own an entire city, Salt Lake City, Utah. Salt Lake City is to Mormons what Rome is to Catholics.We have a big Mormon community here in AZ. My high-school was right across from one of there wards and about 50% of the students of my school were LDS. My best friend at the time was also LDS and I would go over to his house all the time so I got to see all the quirks. Not to keen on women holding power, when they pray there are two rooms, one for the men, and one for the women. Men talk business, women talk baking or whatever. Like to do business with there own kind. Also my friend's father like to beat on him and his mother, could have been an isolated event, but I got the opinion that Mormons were quick to slap a b@tch.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mormons can be a little unusual. A friend of my family fell in love with a Mormon girl, and had to convert before he could marry her. That isn't so strange, but, after he did, he barred his parents (and a whole lot of other people, too) from attending the wedding because they weren't Mormons too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I really do not understand how you (and others) can classify Mormonism and/or Scientology a Cult, but Christianity as a religion. IMHO the ONLY difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of "success" it gets into recruiting new members. For this reason, I think that: 1) At one point, a cult becomes a religion - Mormonism and Scientology having already achieved that.and2) Christianity, and all other established religions were at some point a cult as well.Do you agree with what I'm saying? Would you concede that the major religions were never a cult, and have been a religion from day 1? What do others think about this?
Funny but when I think of a cult, I look from the Christian side and I can explain it easily. But trying to see from yours I have a harder time explaining the difference.From my side a cult does a few things: Refuses it's members from reading outside source material. JWs, Mormons etc are clear on this and have banned books listed. Christians have recommendations, but no you are not allowed to read this book list that I am aware of. A cult usually denies the Diety of Christ. Actually this is the first thing all cults do.Cults place their works as a requirement for salvation; Jws sell watchtowers, mormons do their missionary service and their tithes etc. Christianity clearly says your works are worthless, only Christ's blood saves you.Cults as a rule place women below men. Christianity clearly says: Men and Women, all are one in Christ. And the husband is to serve the wife as Christ serves the church, etc. There are differences which result in different stations, ie no women pastors, but this is not resulting in a women being less valuable than a man. I will agree this is probably where the Christian church has made the most errors in, but the teaching is still clear, even if the student are boneheads.Cults have really bad music, we have DC Talk and Steven Curtis Chapman.Oh and Christmas, which I might add is the NUMBER ONE holiday in the world, that's ours. Mormans got no holiday...booya
Link to post
Share on other sites
i would have thought you were smart enough not to say this one lol.
I would imagine there are many things I disagree with Lois about, but like I said before, we will argue these points in heaven, no need to waste interweb space here.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would imagine there are many things I disagree with Lois about, but like I said before, we will argue these points in heaven, no need to waste interweb space here.
hu?i meant it should be obvious that every non-christian belief in the world denys the diety of christ. that can't be any kind of objective qualification for cult status. you might as well just say anyone who believes different than i do is a member of a cult.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I really do not understand how you (and others) can classify Mormonism and/or Scientology a Cult, but Christianity as a religion. IMHO the ONLY difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of "success" it gets into recruiting new members. For this reason, I think that: 1) At one point, a cult becomes a religion - Mormonism and Scientology having already achieved that.and2) Christianity, and all other established religions were at some point a cult as well.Do you agree with what I'm saying? Would you concede that the major religions were never a cult, and have been a religion from day 1? What do others think about this?
I can see your side, I believe that most religions and specifically individual curches are hipocrits. They are out for money and I have had too many bad experiences to ever belong to a specific church or religion. I guess I would be on the christian side of agnostic if you had to pigeon hole me. But as ballon guy said a few posts up, their are definite things that make mormons and scientology a cult instead of a religion, I won't repeat them.
Mormons can be a little unusual. A friend of my family fell in love with a Mormon girl, and had to convert before he could marry her. That isn't so strange, but, after he did, he barred his parents (and a whole lot of other people, too) from attending the wedding because they weren't Mormons too.
He didn't, the Mormon Church did, unless you are a devout converted Mormon and gone through specific rituals you cannot set foor inside of a Temple and witness the crazinees that is a mormon wedding. They are not even alowed to talk about what goes on in the ceremony. I had a frined who converted, then uncoverted?, and he still would not talk about the ceremny he went through. I have another friend who snuck into the temple in Utah when he was there skiing and he said the ceremony was like something from indiana jones and the temple of doom.Oh and Mormons own Provo Utah, and large parts of Salt Lake, but not the whole city. The mormon church is the largest entity landowner in the unites states, which is frightening. Across the highway from my town, they own thousands of acres of farm land that is doing nothing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
He didn't, the Mormon Church did, unless you are a devout converted Mormon and gone through specific rituals you cannot set foor inside of a Temple and witness the crazinees that is a mormon wedding.
Yes, that is what I meant. But my post was shorter.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is very short sighted. As BG pointed out only some of the few things that are under the surface of the mormon religion. I grew up with lots of mormons who were and continue to be me friends. But their religion cult, is only a few shades of gray away from scientology when you get down to the nuts and bolts. Everything BG has said so far is true. There are foundationd and help groups set up to get people out of the church and changing identities so they are not harrased/harmed/killed. Mormons do business with other mormons, this isn't necisarrily a bad thing, but when you look at the bigger picture, especially politics, this can be very dangerous.Mormon temple ceremonies/rituals are beyond bizzare and real devout speak in tounges and baptise the dead. They basically have taken all the worst controlling items from the major religions and cults and bottle them up, sealed them, and slowly let their followers know after years of brainwashing.So that is why any non-mormon can't vote for Romney
Oh dear. This is a fantastic example of a jackass-ish bigotry at its finest. There are so many things that are wrong about this post...I can't even start. It makes me mad just thinking about the fact that people like you exist...just smart enough to properly articulate arguments as tragically stupid as this one.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...