Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

I'm not sure about insulting, but it did come off as really condescending to me.

[Hiiri]

<snip> Nevermind...

[MonkeyHead]

Wolfy, I think you have made some mistakes there about how Science operates. It sure as anything does not strive to disprove the existence of God(s), and unlike faith based dogma clearly accepts its own limitations, and is open to being rewritten in light of new information. Heck, if evidence showing the undeniable existace of God(s) tomorrow, it would be incorporated into the pantheon (pun totally intended) of knowledge already produced.

As for the second part of the post, the burden of proof has already been discussed many times in this thread and I see no need to go into depth on it here.

Faith is not a prerequisite for being a good human. If through faith you have become a better person, good on you. However, if it is the only reason why someone is a good human (NOTE: no impliciation that this is you or anyone else in this thread at all), then that is very shallow, and merely providing lip service to thier faith out of duty or fear. This to me seems slightly selifsh and only down to self interest (bibles in Ethiopa, anyone?), rather than through true altruistic intent (though admittedly people often only do good to make themselves feel good). Evangelising will elicit a negative response in people who really dont want an alternate way of thinking thrust upon them, no matter how innocent or positive you feel your motive is.

[Wolfy]

Wolfy, I think you have made some mistakes there about how Science operates. It sure as anything does not strive to disprove God, and unlike faith based dogma clearly accepts its own limitations, and is open to being rewritten in light of new information.

Faith should also be open to chnage, our faiths have chnaged, we have chnaged with the times, we went form saying "world was made in 7 days no if ands or butts about it" we went form "God made men the way he is, no monkeys" etc

Faith knows its limitations as well, we admit we DONT know god fully, but atheist ALWAYS use the fact we cant explain everything as "proof" that God dose not exist, even in this thread I've been asked sevreal times to exsplain things, and if I dont have an awnser they act like its "cause God dont exist"
As for the second part of the post, the burden of proof has already been discussed many times in this thread and I see no need to go into depth on it here.
We always have to "Exspalin" how something happen in the bible, but atheist dont have to becuse they are "willing to admit they are wrong" 9Emplying we dont)

Faith is not a prerequisite for being a good human.

no one here said it was as far as I can tell.

If through faith you have become a better person, good on you. However, if it is the only reason why someone is a good human (NOTE: no impliciation that this is you or anyone else in this thread at all), then that is very shallow, and merely providing lip service to thier faith out of duty or fear. This to me seems slightly selifsh and only down to self interest (bibles in Ethiopa, anyone?), rather than through true altruistic intent (though admittedly people often only do good to make themselves feel good). Evangelising will elicit a negative response in people who really dont want an alternate way of thinking thrust upon them, no matter how innocent or positive you feel your motive is.

If they want to they are free to say "nope" and then there is no harm done, if it elicits a negative spot dont that mean they are   

unlike faith based dogma clearly accepts its own limitations, and is open to being rewritten in light of new information.

your not willing to hear MAYBE this guy has new info and maybe it will convince you, you refuse to hear, it dont want hear it, and when you do you get mad, not hearing our side and willing to be rewritten, so you first say "we are open" then deny to hear us, dont want to hear us, and not willing to think we may have new info...

[Graknorke]

Okay, Wolfy, you seem to be missing something out here. In that post in particular, it's that what science assumes are just about always the simplest option that explains events around. For example, we know for a fact that people can feel like they have other people talking to them; which are actually just a part of that person's mind. This is not an unreasonable thing to assume happens during prayer, compared to assuming the whole train of things you have to assume to justify God doing it.

And then, with choosing belief, you really can't. You can choose to act like one or the other, but you chose to join the Christian church because that is either what you truly believe, or what you want to be true to the point where you have convinced yourself that you think it's true.
For your end of the world analogy, it doesn't really work because those who do understand would explain the facts and research to those who don't, until the only people who don't acknowledge it probably do understand, but don't want to admit it because it isn't what they want. That's different because the study would be backed up by research and evidence. Christianity does not have this, all that it has is an outdated book and some people who feel good because of it.

EDIT: If anything, it's religions that jump on anything science can't explain as proof that their particular god exists. For example, abiogenesis is something that religious types constantly use as "proof" for a creator, because they don't think it's possible (Though it's actually been shown that it is by now.).

And the reason science does not accept things based in religion is because religion is not based in facts. You can't make a scientific theory when all you have to go on is faith.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Thecard,

I remember one situation when I was younger and briefly visited one of the western style protestant churches.
I remember how two men argued like that:

"God said me bla bla bla "
" But God said me directly opposite bla bla bla bla"

As a Christian I believe that there are only one source of God's words - The Bible. It has all answers to all questions. As for prayer: IMO,  it's one way communication. I do believe in words "If you talk to God it's Prayer, if God talks to you it's Schizophrenia "

How can you be sure that you talked with God? Not with a part of you mind? Not with some other spirit? Not with a demon? Not the Satan himself? Don't be so proud of your praying abilities.  We can't know the source of our "own" thoughts. That's a sad truth

[Wolfy]

Okay, Wolfy, you seem to be missing something out here. In that post in particular, it's that what science assumes are just about always the simplest option that explains events around. For example, we know for a fact that people can feel like they have other people talking to them; which are actually just a part of that person's mind. This is not an unreasonable thing to assume happens during prayer, compared to assuming the whole train of things you have to assume to justify God doing it.

i disagree, why did God do it? becuse he says in the bible he wants to talk to all of us

Also science is NOT al;ways about the "simplest" option, thats why science gets VERY complex, in fact if you thinok that, I'd agure you should not follow science as it has many complex rules that are NOT simple in any strech of the mind

Why is it your mind? whats simple? the only way its simple is if you elimnate god, in till you do there is always the option its God and it requires no more "complex" things, then God wants to talk to you.


And then, with choosing belief, you really can't. You can choose to act like one or the other, but you chose to join the Christian church because that is either what you truly believe, or what you want to be true to the point where you have convinced yourself that you think it's true.

For your end of the world analogy, it doesn't really work because those who do understand would explain the facts and research to those who don't, until the only people who don't acknowledge it probably do understand, but don't want to admit it because it isn't what they want.

you would be wrong again, try as you might, you CAN NOT exsplain the scienc of warp speed to us, we simply would not get it right now

thats my example so while they have "proof" the others would deny it as proof

and if you "simplify it" that's like when we show you ours and you deny it as proof and say its a "cop out" or the easy answer

That's different because the study would be backed up by research and evidence. Christianity does not have this, all that it has is an outdated book and some people who feel good because of it.

We belive there is evince, we believe that the world it self is proof of God and that

you claim that The fact that there are laws and science can expelling everything means there is no God
but we DONT know IF its possible to have these laws with a God or not, or if God can exist where there are laws, if it turns out that it is physacily impossible to have these laws with out God, that is proven by science.

why assumed that "rules" mean No God, where is the evdince for it?
Why believe or disbelieve it?
There are plenty of things in science we have not proven yet that many take to be ture and talk about, you belive them to be true

[MonkeyHead]

OK, I am not going to bother to construct much in the way of a reply to your last two posts (despite having very strong feelings about large parts of what you have typed) as I suspect this will descend into the repetition of the same ideas again and again... lets agree to disagree shall we? I really dont want to waste hours of my life on the same old discussion points.

Just do me a favour - change the tune will you? This thread is in danger of being totally ruined if you keep on bringing up the same points with the same flaws in understanding again and again, which will be challenged in the same way each time. Your faith is blinding you.

[Graknorke]

Okay, Wolfy, you seem to be missing something out here. In that post in particular, it's that what science assumes are just about always the simplest option that explains events around. For example, we know for a fact that people can feel like they have other people talking to them; which are actually just a part of that person's mind. This is not an unreasonable thing to assume happens during prayer, compared to assuming the whole train of things you have to assume to justify God doing it.

i disagree, why did God do it? becuse he says in the bible he wants to talk to all of us

Also science is NOT al;ways about the "simplest" option, thats why science gets VERY complex, in fact if you thinok that, I'd agure you should not follow science as it has many complex rules that are NOT simple in any strech of the mind

Why is it your mind? whats simple? the only way its simple is if you elimnate god, in till you do there is always the option its God and it requires no more "complex" things, then God wants to talk to you.


And then, with choosing belief, you really can't. You can choose to act like one or the other, but you chose to join the Christian church because that is either what you truly believe, or what you want to be true to the point where you have convinced yourself that you think it's true.

Let me specify here.
Science is all about making the least unproven/untestable assumptions. In the prayer case, there would be the single assumption that prayer is internal thoughts; coming after the fact that people can sometimes experience part of their own mind as an external voice. Saying that it is God, however, requires that you assume that it is God, and before that assume that God has a desire to talk to people, and before that assume that God loves everyone and so on and so on.

[Wolfy]

Let me specify here.
Science is all about making the least unproven/untestable assumptions. In the prayer case, there would be the single assumption that prayer is internal thoughts; coming after the fact that people can sometimes experience part of their own mind as an external voice. Saying that it is God, however, requires that you assume that it is God, and before that assume that God has a desire to talk to people, and before that assume that God loves everyone and so on and so on.

I could go around and say
A. your assuming that God would NOT talk to people
B. God don't exist
C. that God dont love evrey one
D that becuse its the "Easy way" it means its right
E. that a man cant tell when God or him self is talking
and on and on and on


your "shorten" yours to make it "smallar" so you can justfy your belive, both can be as short or as long as who ever is thinking about itwants

We can also shorten as you did with your version that it was God talking to him.

[Hiiri]

How can you be sure that you talked with God? Not with a part of you mind? Not with some other spirit? Not with a demon? Not the Satan himself? Don't be so proud of your praying abilities.  We can't know the source of our "own" thoughts. That's a sad truth

Which version of the Bible? How do you know it was written by God and not Satan? How do you know Thecard is not actually speaking with God?

Following a book blindly, instead of your conscience, is a horrible way to go.

[Wolfy]

So how do you know that?
where is the "fact" there?

You belive its true? so what makes you diffreint form him?

[XXSockXX]

I'm not sure about insulting, but it did come off as really condescending to me.

What's more condescending, claiming to talk to a deity or poking fun at that idea? Anyway, I'm rather peaceful and didn't mean to insult anyone, but if that seems insulting already you got to be pretty thin-skinned which one should not be on the internets.
Also the idea of being able to talk to god is a pretty dangerous one. If you claim you can do that and thus know gods will, you can easily manipulate people for personal gain. The whole point of televangelism, faith healing and that kind of fraud.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

A. your assuming that God would NOT talk to people
B. God don't exist
C. that God dont love evrey one
D that becuse its the "Easy way" it means its right
E. that a man cant tell when God or him self is

Funny thing is; those are all valid points.

[Wolfy]

Funny thing is; those are all valid points.

i'm not quite sure what you mean? do you mean me saying those are things they could add or someone beliving those are true to be right?