Jump to content

A Question For Non-believers


Recommended Posts

We are hardly taking you out of context. You are putting forward wind as an intangible to create a connection with the concept of an invisible creator. We are pointing out that it is extremely inappropriate.Wind is tangible, it has substance and the effects can be seen directly and real time. A correct analogy would be to supply something that is intangible, without substance that has real world effects in the physical world.I am no expert on the subject, however I believe there are scientific theories on love (and other emotions) and brain activity, which if true would imply that yes you can measure it.Lets get one thing perfectly clear.Intelligent Design is not a science.It is simply a deceitful effort by fundamentalist creationists to enforce their teachings upon school students.This has been shown in a court of law and is obvious to anyone which a pinch of intelligence. I rate anyone that suggests it is a science as filthy as those scum that created that pack of lies.Religion is a very touchy subject and you need to realise that others will read/hear what you say on the subject. People's psyche and emotional well being are often very tied up within this realm and it is important that what we state as fact, is fact. I can't stand it when people are 'tricked' into a belief system.If you want to expouse your beliefs, be my guest. We will debate civily.If you want to sell deceipt and misdirection through circular arguments, inappropriate analogies and blatant false claims I will take you to task and not be graceful about it.Perhaps ensure you have some substance to your points, or state when you don't and are tabling a subject for discussion.OK. If this is the case, terrific. Just be careful what you sell as fact. You believe in God? Excellent. May He fill all your gutshots :club:
Wow I dont think Ive ever been so insulted by someone so directly for what i believe followed by something so respectful. Thats a neat trick but it lacks the sincerity I was hoping for. I dont expect someone who doesnt believe in God to understand. I would be baffled if you did quite frankly. It is beyond you at this point. To try and logically discuss something (God) that is inherently mysterious and, for all intents and purposes, illogical to those who are 'uninspired' is, you are right, circular and misdirected. My point wasnt to argue the existence of God or to allow my beliefs to be drug through the proverbial mud by you or anyone else, but simply to say I dont understand the claim of Atheists based on the definition of the word. Somehow it has gotten turned into a battle to prove that God does exist and you have skillfully redirected and manipulated your way away from the orginal challenge to prove that God doesnt exist. Well done sir. You have now proven nothing to me to change my mind about atheists and only proven my point even more; the majority of those that claim to be atheists are just unwitting agnostics. I really dont know you and so for me to make personal shots at you is pointless and would provide me no pleasure. I wish you well in your future endeavors and hope you find meaning and fulfillment in your life. Religion aside, purpose is something we all want defined. I wish that upon you all. I hope your purposes are realized and actualized. GL.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Somehow it has gotten turned into a battle to prove that God does exist and you have skillfully redirected and manipulated your way away from the orginal challenge to prove that God doesnt exist.
It's always been a battle to prove god does exist. If someone wants to make a wacky claim based on nothing, they better have some tangible evidence to support it. If I say that invisible aliens from Pluto are all around us, after being laughed at, I would be challenged to produce such an alien. Before I respond to your challenge of proving god doesn't exist, I would like you to prove that my house, your house, the highest branches or government and everywhere else is not infested with my invisible aliens from Pluto. See how that doesn't work? You can't disprove such a claim, you can only prove it. Asking me or anyone else to prove god doesn't exist doesn't make sense and doesn't work. I didn't want to get bogged down in the semantics of atheism vs. agnosticism, but here we are here's where I stand: I reject your phony baloney christian god as depicted in the bible. You reject Zeus. We're both athiests. The only difference is that I reject one more god than you. That's all I meant when I said I was an athiest. I wasn't claiming I had proof that god doesn't exist or that I know for certain that no universal creator put everything in motion. That'd be crazy talk.Edit: And what is it with College Station, Texas in this forum? I'm curious to take a trip there to see exactly what this place is like. I bet the bumper stickers alone would drive me insane.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow I dont think Ive ever been so insulted by someone so directly for what i believe followed by something so respectful. Thats a neat trick but it lacks the sincerity I was hoping for. I dont expect someone who doesnt believe in God to understand. I would be baffled if you did quite frankly. It is beyond you at this point. To try and logically discuss something (God) that is inherently mysterious and, for all intents and purposes, illogical to those who are 'uninspired' is, you are right, circular and misdirected. My point wasnt to argue the existence of God or to allow my beliefs to be drug through the proverbial mud by you or anyone else, but simply to say I dont understand the claim of Atheists based on the definition of the word. Somehow it has gotten turned into a battle to prove that God does exist and you have skillfully redirected and manipulated your way away from the orginal challenge to prove that God doesnt exist. Well done sir. You have now proven nothing to me to change my mind about atheists and only proven my point even more; the majority of those that claim to be atheists are just unwitting agnostics. I really dont know you and so for me to make personal shots at you is pointless and would provide me no pleasure. I wish you well in your future endeavors and hope you find meaning and fulfillment in your life. Religion aside, purpose is something we all want defined. I wish that upon you all. I hope your purposes are realized and actualized. GL.
Frankly, I think I caused some of the misdirection by making the point (which is really just a personal opinion) that proving god doesn't exist (an atheist's goal) is just as easy as proving he does. This led to the argument about the proof's of God.I don't want to rehash unnecessarily, but I think you are missing an important point within your own arguments.You first argue that you don't think true atheism is possible, since no one can possibly prove that God does not exist.Your second point boils down to God's existence cannot necessarily be proved, because of its inherent mystery, but is logical to its believers.I can only point out the contradiction there. Just as you accept/believe something as certain, despite a lack of absolute proof, atheists can do the same.It is my personal opinion that atheism is misguided, as God's existence cannot be disproven. It follows then that I believe people with strong faith are misguided, since God's existence cannot be proven. I believe that it is not difficult to show that atheism is just as illogical as strong belief. I don't mean to get personal, but I found your opinions interesting in that I'd consider them to be very clearly contradictory.
Link to post
Share on other sites

and with everyone's comments I am clearly out numbered here and not interested in changing anyones mind about anything. That was never my intention. Only to make a point that to believe something simply 'because' (i.e. that God doesnt exist at all) without proof is illogical. I believe what I believe for MANY personal reasons most of which are based on my own experiences and not from something that has been fed to me my whole life. Me saying that I know God exists because, for example, i believe he has saved my life several times, or that I feel that when I pray that God hears me and answers my unselfish and glorifying prayers, because some miraculous things have happened as a result would, to the 'atheist' seem ludicrious and explained by sheer chance and that my attribution of the outcome to God is simply arbitrary. So my goal has never been to prove that God exists. It was simply to ask how, if someone as analytical and logical as most 'atheists', when science explains/proves/theorizes everything, can have no scientific or emperical proof of something that defines them.. (The NON-existence of God), can you continue to call yourself an atheist? That is my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My point wasnt to argue the existence of God or to allow my beliefs to be drug through the proverbial mud by you or anyone else, but simply to say I dont understand the claim of Atheists based on the definition of the word. Somehow it has gotten turned into a battle to prove that God does exist and you have skillfully redirected and manipulated your way away from the orginal challenge to prove that God doesnt exist. Well done sir. You have now proven nothing to me to change my mind about atheists and only proven my point even more; the majority of those that claim to be atheists are just unwitting agnostics. I really dont know you and so for me to make personal shots at you is pointless and would provide me no pleasure. I wish you well in your future endeavors and hope you find meaning and fulfillment in your life. Religion aside, purpose is something we all want defined. I wish that upon you all. I hope your purposes are realized and actualized. GL.
I'm not trying to prove God doesn't exist, nor am I 'dragging your beliefs through mud'You theists are always a little slow, and take everything as a personal attack on your beliefs. :club: Go back and read my posts here and anywhere else in this forum and find where I have done anything like that.I've always stated why I think the Christian teachings are wrong, but in the terms of common sense and logic based thinking.What I do 'drag through the mud' as you put it, is fallacious claims that could convince others of a belief under false pretencesLet me give you a simple example and then you can review my posts and see where I am coming from.If you say "Intelligent Design is a science" I will not apologise for any mud dragging that ensues.If, however, you state "My religous beliefs are the same as those described by Intelligent Design" we would have a civil chat where I would tell why I think you are wrong and vice-versa.Put some effort in and try to see why there is a subtle but extremely significant difference.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not trying to prove God doesn't exist, nor am I 'dragging your beliefs through mud'You theists are always a little slow, and take everything as a personal attack on your beliefs. :club: Go back and read my posts here and anywhere else in this forum and find where I have done anything like that.I've always stated why I think the Christian teachings are wrong, but in the terms of common sense and logic based thinking.What I do 'drag through the mud' as you put it, is fallacious claims that could convince others of a belief under false pretencesLet me give you a simple example and then you can review my posts and see where I am coming from.If you say "Intelligent Design is a science" I will not apologise for any mud dragging that ensues.If, however, you state "My religous beliefs are the same as those described by Intelligent Design" we would have a civil chat where I would tell why I think you are wrong and vice-versa.Put some effort in and try to see why there is a subtle but extremely significant difference.
Just when I thought this might be worth continuing. Im done, its not worth it. GL to you sir.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just when I thought this might be worth continuing. Im done, its not worth it. GL to you sir.
Well I was pretty sure I answered your concerns directly, intelligently, with no personal attacks, but you don't seem interested in discussing that either.I hope your faith does not create a dogmatic attitude, since you at least seem to believe you are open to other's opinions, though I'm not sure that is the case.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I was pretty sure I answered your concerns directly, intelligently, with no personal attacks, but you don't seem interested in discussing that either.I hope your faith does not create a dogmatic attitude, since you at least seem to believe you are open to other's opinions, though I'm not sure that is the case.
I am open to it for sure but ill be honest I have spent more time than I have trying to 'debate' with 3-4 different people. Id be much more willing if this was in person where I didnt have type everything but seeing as ive been challenged from all different angles by 3 different people Im having a hard time keep up. If you notice Im the only one in this thread on this side of the debate. Makes it hard to answer everything from everyone.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just when I thought this might be worth continuing. Im done, its not worth it. GL to you sir.
Well I initially pointed you to a thread explaining my 'broadstroke', and finally spelt it out to and yet it still it fly's over your head.As I said before you haven't shown any potential, so your absence will be appreciated
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I initially pointed you to a thread explaining my 'broadstroke', and finally spelt it out to and yet it still it fly's over your head.As I said before you haven't shown any potential, so your absence will be appreciated
After all this you are still acting as juvenile as when we started.
Link to post
Share on other sites
actually there is a lot of direct evidence that all emotions have physical causes.nobody is missing your point. you are trying to justify belief in the metaphysical by comparing it to physical things, which doesn't work. as has been pointed out here numerous times there is no scientific evidence for ID, no objective scientists believe in it, and everything written in support of it has been shown to be unscientific propaganda.
Actually, the opposite is true, and this is where it gets sticky. The only scientific evidence for evolution is that scientists believe in it. Ain't that something? Fossil record doesn't support evolution, and "evidence" that has been produced have all been fakes. What is ONE absolutely true thing regarding evolution? Just one.
I am open to it for sure but ill be honest I have spent more time than I have trying to 'debate' with 3-4 different people. Id be much more willing if this was in person where I didnt have type everything but seeing as ive been challenged from all different angles by 3 different people Im having a hard time keep up. If you notice Im the only one in this thread on this side of the debate. Makes it hard to answer everything from everyone.
I'll give you a hand but let me warn you, I have said some stupid **** in the past. I bounce back quick, though. Advice? Disregard Canada. Canada has one interest, and that is being an ***.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, the opposite is true, and this is where it gets sticky. The only scientific evidence for evolution is that scientists believe in it. Ain't that something? Fossil record doesn't support evolution, and "evidence" that has been produced have all been fakes. What is ONE absolutely true thing regarding evolution? Just one.
Wow.I'm on my way out the door. Who wants it?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, the opposite is true, and this is where it gets sticky. The only scientific evidence for evolution is that scientists believe in it. Ain't that something? Fossil record doesn't support evolution, and "evidence" that has been produced have all been fakes. What is ONE absolutely true thing regarding evolution? Just one.
I have said some stupid **** in the past.
and you just did again
Link to post
Share on other sites
Good luck proving it with facts- I don't mean contempt, or disbelief that anyone dare question unproven conjecture, but actual facts. They aren't there, and you know it.
not really interested in going there again with you. enjoy your cave.
Link to post
Share on other sites
not really interested in going there again with you. enjoy your cave.
Not suprising. I will do it for you. What have we got, boys and girls? A peppered moth experiment that was a doctored falsehood. Computer simulations of the evolution of the eye that don't exist. A fossil record which shows a non darwinian progression, most noticeably lacking transitional species. Where are the rejects, the weaker versions? Non-existent. Whereas I fill in the gaps with a higher power, you fill in the gaps with gaps,in that the ideas that you get behind to fill the gaps are completely unproveable. You know, growing up I generally shied away from even considering evolution- what for? That was a mistake, because the more I research/read/study the easier it is to see exactly what I knew all along- evolution is not a science, rather it's the complete lack of.
not really interested in going there again with you. enjoy your cave.
One more thing. I said no contempt, but that was really rhetoric- I realize that it's the only weapon you have got. I don't know if there is enough of us to do this- I really don't, but it's time for believers to take this board back. I don't care about the differences in religion- it doesn't matter at this point, I don't think that battle can even be fought if we can't even win this battle, for now it's enough that we all believe in God. So, chime in. Don't leave JadeTiger hanging, don't leave me hanging, if you believe in God and not this preposterous pseudoscience than say so- speak up, and together we will find the links, the books, the facts to refute this crap once and for all.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not suprising. I will do it for you. What have we got, boys and girls?
apparently all you've personally got is the creationionist-agenda propaganda you read. since you've never been willing to consider information from other sources it's not worth rehashing.
I don't know if there is enough of us to do this- I really don't, but it's time for believers to take this board back. I don't care about the differences in religion- it doesn't matter at this point, I don't think that battle can even be fought if we can't even win this battle, for now it's enough that we all believe in God. So, chime in. Don't leave JadeTiger hanging, don't leave me hanging, if you believe in God and not this preposterous pseudoscience than say so- speak up, and together we will find the links, the books, the facts to refute this crap once and for all.
good luck with that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
apparently all you've personally got is the creationionist-agenda propaganda you read. since you've never been willing to consider information from other sources it's not worth rehashing. good luck with that.
No defense except for creationist propoganda? Good one. Who's believing in a fairy tale now? We should do a Full Contact trip to the Galapagos Islands and hang out with some mutated finches. For good measure- a little peoples elbow for your candy ***.
Link to post
Share on other sites

[steps on soapbox]Ok, I know I'm new to this Religion forum, but my first experience is a little disheartening. Comments like1: "These theists are a little slow.."2. Complaining about the term "unbeliever" (I'm fine with the complaint), then equating ones view with the term "free thinker" and failing to see this is offensive in the same manner3. "Try to keep up.."4. "Enjoy your cave.."I don't feel like searching for more, but a lot of you (not all) seem to be in this for sport (both sides..), and not for honest debate. I realize this is a very personal and emotional subject, but it would be nice if we could clean it up. It just seems all this dialogue is so hate-laden, and it makes RodReynolds cry. [/steps off soapbox]Edit: Everybody who has corresponded with me directly has been completely civil, I want to make that clear. Also, a lot of this debate has been good, if you can ignore such things as listed above. I apologize if I come off sounding like a self-righteous ass, that is not my intent. Though if it was, I think I succeeded admirably.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No defense except for creationist propoganda? Good one. Who's believing in a fairy tale now? We should do a Full Contact trip to the Galapagos Islands and hang out with some mutated finches. For good measure- a little peoples elbow for your candy ***.
you're welcome to re-read the case for christ thread if you want anti-creationist arguments, info, links etc. last i checked it is still up there. it is pretty amusing to see you accuse the worlds entire scientific community of believing in fairy tales, though. indeed you must be the smartest person in the world.
[steps on soapbox]Ok, I know I'm new to this Religion forum, but my first experience is a little disheartening. Comments like1: "These theists are a little slow.."2. Complaining about the term "unbeliever" (I'm fine with the complaint), then equating ones view with the term "free thinker" and failing to see this is offensive in the same manner3. "Try to keep up.."4. "Enjoy your cave.."I don't feel like searching for more, but a lot of you (not all) seem to be in this for sport (both sides..), and not for honest debate. I realize this is a very personal and emotional subject, but it would be nice if we could clean it up. It just seems all this dialogue is so hate-laden, and it makes RodReynolds cry. [/steps off soapbox]
if those innocuous comments bother you you're lucky no one here is posting what they really think.
Link to post
Share on other sites
if those innocuous comments bother you you're lucky no one here is posting what they really think.
Ok, ignoring the fact that they bother me, comments like these hinder debate. If your goal is debate issues honestly, how does childish namecalling aid the process? Whether or not Canada or you make any good points, I tend to not really consider anything you say too seriously because of how you come across. However, posts from mrdannyg, LongLiveYorke, or BearCanada, (from what I've seen so far) who tend to attack the arguments and not the person, make for much more interesting and honest debate.
Link to post
Share on other sites
how does childish namecalling aid the process?
who's calling childish names? i said LMD is living in a cave because it is well known here that he refuses to even acknowledge that scientific findings supporting evolution exist. he's never bothered to try to specifically refute anything that's been posted in response to his rhetoric - proof for an old earth, genetic evidence for evolution, proof transitional fossils exist etc. i'm sure i'm not the only one here that's utterly bored with trying to debate him.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Good luck proving it with facts- I don't mean contempt, or disbelief that anyone dare question unproven conjecture, but actual facts. They aren't there, and you know it.
I realize that it may come off as circular, but you seem to consider what most of us consider scientific facts as necessitating belief. that is correct insofar as most of us, myself included, do not understand the science behind the evidence we "believe in," but I do think that an objective look at many scientific "facts" would force you to realize that they are either true, or the product of impossibly vast conspiracies.What we term "facts" are indeed what scientifically-minded people "believe" in, much like creationism and biblical stories are what other (i'm not sure what term would be correct there) people "believe in." I think the main difference is that the scientific story adheres much more closely to logic and causality, without need for acceptance of a convenient, all-encompassing detail, such as a God or Creator.I don't mean 'logic' to have circular meaning either, but in a more defined sense, such as a conclusion resulting from reasonable, consistent arguments.
Ok, ignoring the fact that they bother me, comments like these hinder debate. If your goal is debate issues honestly, how does childish namecalling aid the process? Whether or not Canada or you make any good points, I tend to not really consider anything you say too seriously because of how you come across. However, posts from mrdannyg, LongLiveYorke, or BearCanada, (from what I've seen so far) who tend to attack the arguments and not the person, make for much more interesting and honest debate.
glad to be included on that list, as if I was making a similar list I would include you as well. I wanted to point out also that although I generally consider his points absolutely ludicrous, loismustdie generally makes them well and respectfully. I can't think of an uncondescending way to describe why I think it's important that he makes them, but he generally does so in a way to encourage honest debat.e
Link to post
Share on other sites
A fossil record which shows a non darwinian progression, most noticeably lacking transitional species. Where are the rejects, the weaker versions? Non-existent.
I made a long post in the Evolution vs Not-evolution thread about gaps in the fossil record. I don't think you ever responded.I'm pretty sure it's actually the first post in the thread. Go check it out.Edit: yes it's the first post. Here, I'll make it easy...http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...c=53274&hl=
Link to post
Share on other sites

The fossil record will always have gaps. Duh.Say we have fossils of creatures A and C. There's a gap in the record. We don't know how A became C. Then someone discovers a fossil of species B. Now we know more about how A became C. But we still don't know how A became B and how B became C. The more fossils we find, the more gaps there will be.For example, people used to wonder about the "missing link" between humans and apes. Fossils of austrolopithicus and neanderthals and other species were discovered. Now people are wondering where the "missing link" between apes and austrolopithicus is, and they are wondering what the "missing link" between austrolopithicus and humans is.Go here for "proof" of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/After reading it, please come back and explain how each point is flawed.

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...