Print

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

[chaoticag]

Here's a good quote against Atheism:
"If there's a God, and you believe in him, you're good. If there isn't a God, and you don't believe in him, you're good. If there isn't a God, and you believe in him, you're good. If there is a God, and you don't believe in him, you're screwed."
That's only a 25% chance of "being good" and set. Since we go for the 75% right, we're stupid. Don't stop reading yet, because this is a Christian saying.
Another fun fact, it takes more faith to be Atheist then it does to be religious, isn't that ironic too? You have more of what you're against, that's stupid.

Eh? Are you saying there is a fifty fifty chance of god existing there, becasue he may or may not exist?

That is silly, very very very silly. If so, then there may be a more powerful god behind him (25%) and another even more powerful one behind him (12.5%) and on and on and on.
God is not a coin, his existance is not a 50% chance.

@Greatoliver: The world turning around the sun is also a theory. Objects falling are also a theory. In fact, the only absolute science which can actually prove things is Mathamatics.

@masam: Absorbing as much of it while skimming over semantics. I know I cannot disprove a god, but I still have a right to find it implausible enough to not believe in one.

[IronyOwl]

The problem here is that you are thinking merely inside your own capacities... How can you deny the possibility that there may be things you cannot imagine? Are there things you cannot think? There is no way to answer this as you cannot imagine an unimaginable thing...

Not again. If it's beyond your comprehension, it's beyond your comprehension. There's no point speculating that a box you can't get into contains apple pie specifically because you can't know that it doesn't. You can keep it in mind that it could contain apple pie, but no more than cherry pie or elephant tusks or live mice. Until it gives you something you can understand, it's not worth bothering with because it's impossible to come up with the correct answer.

First, your perception of the world is not necessarily true, for example, look at the Matrix.  This was roughly based upon what Descartes was going on about, which is a world where only deductive reasoning is true, i.e. our senses are deceiving.  You can claim the Universe is real, but this is based upon a flawed perception.

I don't even know what you're trying to get at here. Again, the problem with being in The Matrix is that you're in The Matrix. If you have no means of observing that you're not in The Matrix, it's a moot point, because the only way to realize what's truly happening is to completely guess and happen to be right.

Only when you break free of your senses, can you see what the Universe is actually like.

I can't fathom this being anything but deep-sounding babble. If you mean "only when you ignore your means of acquiring information can you acquire the real information," I'm going to have to disagree. If you mean "only when your means of acquiring information rises above its current petty state can you acquire real information," I'm going to have to suggest you phrase it as such.

I do, it's a Deerhound  Still, it is a theory... All of evolution could be a coincidence, or God could have done it... There are a lot of explanations to what it could be otherwise, and so it is still a theory.

No. You're more likely to jump off a cliff and be set gently on the ground by freak hurricane-force winds than for evolution to be an illusion of coincidences, and "God could have done it" is applicable for, pretty much by definition, anything. It's not a theory in the sense you're thinking.

So I have a question for everyone involved in this conversation, when you read the response of your debating opponent, are you really reading it and absorbing the ideas they lay out?  Or are you skimming it while thinking of the fastest way to respond back?

I read fast. Most of the ideas I've seen are fairly basic.

[Chud]

Couldn't God get enough informtation to acurately predict the future without getting anything like the butterfly effect?

No, because the information is simply not there. Stephen Hawking has a wonderful lecture on the topic, titled Does God play dice. He used to have it on his website, but you can google for it easily.

Did you read what he said? He's practically saying this:
If there is a guy who can do anything he wanted, can he look into the future?
Your answer:
no.
Irony is harsh dude.

[Chud]

Do we know Evolution happens?  As far as I know, Evolution is still a theory, albeit a very persuasive one.  I have a feeling that something has changed recently that has proved it, or it may just be because of the anniversary of it... I digress.

This is a common mistake, that evolution is a theory. Evolution is a fact. And evolution is a theory.

The observable fact evolution is that genetic changes result in differing characteristics among a population. Darwins theory says that this occurs due to a process whereby the best fitted to an environment are more likely to survive. This is as opposed to say Lamarks theory that children inherit physical characteristics developed during their parents life.

Arguing against the fact of evolution is equatable with arguing against the fact of say gravity.

Atheist's belief in evolution, that we are evolved beings, is a theory. Let's prove this the Atheist way. You get me files, reports and documents that beings have been changing, and I might believe you. Now all you need is a time machine.
And the second evolution has a name, hereditary

[dreiche2]

Forensics?

Also, oh boy...

Here's a good quote against Atheism:
"If there's a God, and you believe in him, you're good. If there isn't a God, and you don't believe in him, you're good. If there isn't a God, and you believe in him, you're good. If there is a God, and you don't believe in him, you're screwed."
That's only a 25% chance of "being good" and set. Since we go for the 75% right, we're stupid.

Unfortunately, different religions have different gods to believe in and different rules to follow. Which one shall I pick?

The Torah says you have to respect Sabbath. Do you?

According to Islamic law, meat needs to be Halal. Do you only eat Halal food?

In Hinduism, cows are holy. Do you think cows are holy?

Etc.

[chaoticag]

Do a search on Richard Lenski. He made evolution in a lab.

[masam]

Forensics is the academic term for debate teams.  Sorry, I call it that cause I have family members who teach it and would gut me for calling it the speech or debate team. lol.

[IronyOwl]

Atheist's belief in evolution, that we are evolved beings, is a theory. Let's prove this the Atheist way. You get me files, reports and documents that beings have been changing, and I might believe you. Now all you need is a time machine.
And the second evolution has a name, hereditary

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF-

Okay, read this:

Spoiler: Mutation (click to show/hide)

So as you probably know, living things have DNA, which acts as sort of a "blueprint" for making them. As far as I know, not even young-earth Creationists object to this much.

So, generally each cell needs its own copy so it knows what to do. Which means, naturally, that if you're going to make more cells, you need to make more DNA.

Making more DNA is a copying process. Like any copying process, it is prone to errors. These errors are called mutations.

Most mutations are meaningless because they affect meaningless stretches of code. This is another explanation, but suffice to say any document will have unnecessary writing in it.

The general term for mutations over time is genetic drift. If you give a book to several different people to copy by hand, and each of them gives several copies to other people to copy by hand, and so on, you'd expect versions of the book to "drift" further and further apart.

The result, then, is that creatures become less and less similar as generations progress.

Spoiler: Natural Selection (click to show/hide)

Okay, so we've got all these creatures mutating into whatever they happen to mutate into. But not all mutations are equal- if you've got a box of variety popsicles, some will get eaten faster than others. So this is where natural selection comes in.

Natural selection operates on an extremely simple principle: Whatever's there, is there. If one type of fly gets eaten before breeding, presumably there won't be as many of those types of fly. If another creates a hundred copies of itself before being eaten, presumably there'll be more of those kind around.

So, that's it. Successful creatures stick around and make successful (but slightly mutated) copies, unsuccessful ones die off and aren't around for us to claim they're successful.

Spoiler: Evolution (click to show/hide)

So, what happens when we get creatures becoming more and more dissimilar, but being pruned into sets of features that encourage them to be around to produce more of themselves?

Well, one thing might be a core of "normal" traits that occasionally branch off into a successful alteration, that continues to alter until it's its own set of traits, rather than a variant of the parent set. In other words, evolution.

That's the principle ("This can happen"). As for the specific occurrence ("This happened in this particular instance"), Atheism is not "The belief in that which is recorded in first-hand accounts and files of the incident at the time," any more than belief in a religion is "The belief in what God(s) has personally revealed to you in personal conversation." You get me a hotline to God, I'll get you a time machine. Until then try to make reasonable assertions.

[chaoticag]

Let's not forget about this site either:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
50,000 generations of E. Coli. All of them evolved at some point, and they have all their bacteria on file since day 1. You can literally go to them, and ask for that. In fact, a trait popped out of nowhere, ie. Not hereditory.

[Siquo]

So I have a question for everyone involved in this conversation, when you read the response of your debating opponent, are you really reading it and absorbing the ideas they lay out?  Or are you skimming it while thinking of the fastest way to respond back?  Because it's the first that will allow you to understand the most and then form a better overall approach to the response, or in some cases, allow you to concede without looking like a damn fool.

Well, I try to. I've had to restate my assumptions several times due to good points made by others here. That got me angry looks, because how are they ever going to win against an opponent that's changing his mind all the time?! Even when I told them they had won they weren't pleased...
And when I point out the meanings of "validity" in Logic, or the assumptions of science, and can back those things up, it's suddenly very silent. 

(Oh, and i'm not calling anyone here a damn fool, I'm speaking purely from my own experience.  Faith without reason breeds zealots of every kind.)

Faith with reason breeds them too. See topic title 

Also, I'm not entirely with Chud here. I've created evolution using models (read: computer programs) myself, and it just works that way. The only reason not to accept evolution is when you believe the world was created 6000 or so yrs ago complete with all currently known species. And dinosaurbones and bones of pre-human no-longer-missing links, and fossils, et cetera.

For all intents and purposes, God really went out of His way to create all that proof of evolution 6000 yrs ago, and if He did all that effort, it was probably His intention for us to believe in evolution 

[Greatoliver]

Here's a good quote against Atheism:
"If there's a God, and you believe in him, you're good. If there isn't a God, and you don't believe in him, you're good. If there isn't a God, and you believe in him, you're good. If there is a God, and you don't believe in him, you're screwed."

I love this.  I thought God was all-loving? Jesus died for our sins, so I am going to Heaven. Unless you are thinking about a God where disbelief leads to Eternal Damnation, in which case, what makes your God the right one? How can you prove Him over Allah or Vishnu? I am either eternally damned by loads of Gods or I am going to Heaven, regardless of what I do in this life...

But damn, those Atheists need to stop raping, murdering and pillaging the lands. Oh, without a God, there is no morality! Those poor fools, leading the lives of barabaric Heathens.  No! They cannot have good lives, following the exact same moral code as any religious person, without belief in God.  It is the belief in God that makes you good, not your actions, as without belief in God, you are evil.

EDIT: Oh God! I forgot to refresh 

@Greatoliver: The world turning around the sun is also a theory. Objects falling are also a theory. In fact, the only absolute science which can actually prove things is Mathamatics.

Yup, deductive truth; inductive reasoning is a lie.  Note how all of maths is tautological...

Not again. If it's beyond your comprehension, it's beyond your comprehension. There's no point speculating that a box you can't get into contains apple pie specifically because you can't know that it doesn't. You can keep it in mind that it could contain apple pie, but no more than cherry pie or elephant tusks or live mice. Until it gives you something you can understand, it's not worth bothering with because it's impossible to come up with the correct answer.

That is what I was saying, right?  It's the point I've been trying to get across about a Transcendental God. 

I don't even know what you're trying to get at here. Again, the problem with being in The Matrix is that you're in The Matrix. If you have no means of observing that you're not in The Matrix, it's a moot point, because the only way to realize what's truly happening is to completely guess and happen to be right.

The Matrix was meant to be a modern analogy of what Descartes said, about the "evil demon".  Basically, your senses are deceiving.  That was one of the ideas of the Matrix as your senses could not make out that what you were seeing was not actually real.  It is the problem with Inductive Reasoning, according to Descartes and other Realists.

I can't fathom this being anything but deep-sounding babble.... ...I'm going to have to suggest you phrase it as such.

Yeah, it was very fluffy.  What I meant was that your senses will continue to hinder your perspective and thus, your perception of the world.  Look into how Kant destroyed Hume's idea of Primary and Secondary qualities.

No..... theory in the sense you're thinking.

Yeah, this was before my enlightenment of evolution as a theory and a fact. The wool has been taken from my eyes 

[Sergius]

It seems like since Atheism became a "religion" (which is ironic in itself), the world no longer gives a crap. People believe that they are just animals, so they act like them, that's why the U.S's government is failing.

Another question for Atheists, why do they call any religious people stupid because we rely on books written by people smarter then they'll ever be and then waste millions on millions of dollars on supporting completely unprovable things, and calling it the truth.

Here's a good quote against Atheism:
"If there's a God, and you believe in him, you're good. If there isn't a God, and you don't believe in him, you're good. If there isn't a God, and you believe in him, you're good. If there is a God, and you don't believe in him, you're screwed."
That's only a 25% chance of "being good" and set. Since we go for the 75% right, we're stupid. Don't stop reading yet, because this is a Christian saying.
Another fun fact, it takes more faith to be Atheist then it does to be religious, isn't that ironic too? You have more of what you're against, that's stupid.
Yet another fact, it is more provable that Jesus was the Son of God then it is to say that George Washington was the U.S's first president.

Congratulations, you just proved the existence of God beyond any doubt. We've seen the light. I mean, from your post I can see that there's like 99.9% chance of God existing, and the other 0.1% is that if He doesn't exist, we're screwed for not believing in Him anyway.

And George Washington? C'mon, I mean, if he exists, then surely Pink Unicorns also exist. God, on the other hand, is right there, because he's everything! How can you see, I mean, a rock, and a rock is part of everything, therefore God! Where's your rock, George Washington? HUH?! WHERE!!

All this time, I've been using all my faith being an atheist, but no more! I can no longer deny the scientific existence of Jesus. All these nights praying to Darwin have been a waste of time, in the end, reason and logic have triumphed.

Besides, those are all theories! Like, for instance, the moon is made of cheese, that's also a scientific theory! It's no more true than the theory of acceleration, or the theory of killer tomatoes! So is gravity and evolution, just theories. They just sound very convincing, but that's just the devil whispering in our ears. This chair I'm sitting on, it's just the theory of chairs. I figured out that I'm actually sitting on God.

Yep. Thanks old chap!

[Andir]

If you can truly imagine infinite, you are exceptional. What I mean by understand is to actually realise what it is in a positive manner.  People can concieve of infinity, but this is by saying what it is not, i.e. without limits.  But to actually imagine a number that is infinitely large is something I cannot do, without refering to things it is not.

I don't think there is anything outside of our understanding.  The universe is a very real place. ... ...It just happens to fill in your blank spots with benevolent gods, invisible unicorns and happy trees because you don't seem to be able to cope in a world that's honest and truthful.

The problem here is that you are thinking merely inside your own capacities... How can you deny the possibility that there may be things you cannot imagine? Are there things you cannot think? There is no way to answer this as you cannot imagine an unimaginable thing...

I don't think I'm a genius/exceptional or anything of the likes (thought I was placed in a "gifted studies" class as a kid, I think it was more along the lines to get me to think more than be bored to death in school), but I take the world as it's given.  Inifinity is easy to imagine.  Write a 1 on a sheet of paper and continue writing zeros on it until you die and you still won't be done coming up with a number to define it.  The concept, the idea, and the reality of it is easy for me to understand.  It just doesn't end.  Take off in a spaceship and head in any direction you desire.  Correcting for planets, suns, etc. you will travel forever without hitting anything.  That's infinite.  Even if the theories are true and the Big Bang happened, there's infinite something just outside that horizon of space goo at the estimated edge.  IMHO.

Technically, we could have an infinite number being used every day.  PI.  There's no known limit to the value.  It's infinite in nature as far as we are concerned.  Dealing with the finite points of it are mostly pointless in our day to day lives, just as trying to find the reason we are here.  Yes, there are people looking for that answer.  I personally think it's fruitless, but whatever.  Also, I don't discount the idea that E=MC² is not universal.  Heck, it doesn't even cleanly apply to the atomic scale, only galactic.  It's the best guess we have for how things work in our part of the universe, but there's no telling if that theory alone will be deprecated or "refined" later.  We can only theorize that light is constant, we can only theorize that Gravity is a pushing effect rather than a pulling effect (I happen to think it might be a little of both... but that's only a thought) but that's reality.  You just deal with it.  There's really no point trying to nail down that last digit of PI because at that point the calculation will be so accurate that you would just stop caring how many decimal places the circumference is because there will be something coming along to change it (temperature, someone stepping on it...) and you'll have to figure it all out again.

First, your perception of the world is not necessarily true...

Who says?  You think truth is that we are all batteries?

As far as the "Matrix" world idea.  The movie pretty much defined the problem in that.  Any system bent on creating an alternative reality will be met by the inquisitive folks who second guess it.  In the Matrix, you have Deja-vu.  In that Truman Show movie, you had people walking on water in the horizon, but there's always proof that it's not real.  Consider that a story "tactic" (can't think of the word right now) to give the reader/watcher the truth or not... if there was a non-potent god controlling things, there would be glitches and someone would find it.  (I've already given my thoughts on omnipotence being impossible.)  [that was kind of a ramble, sorry]

Reality is what we live in.  If a god chooses to be outside that reality, it's not real and has no effect on our experiments so the only logical path is to assume it doesn't exist. ... on that note:
On the topic of having a 25% chance of being wrong, you don't cover the thought that this god might not want you to think about it.  You may have a 75% chance of pissing it off and ending that experiment.  Why would it create you and want you to think about it?  The experiment would be wasted if people changed their lives based on what they thought you wanted.  Observational bias.  Monkeys behave different when a human is sitting in their tree.

[Andir]

Great oliver appears to be well versed in forensics and philosophy.  While I do believe, and that choice is my own, i'm actually enjoying his rather...thorough debunking of arguments that haven't been quite thought through all the way. 

Unfortunately because they haven't been thought through all the way, the posters arguing against you are so busy defending their points that they aren't listening to your argument.

So I have a question for everyone involved in this conversation, when you read the response of your debating opponent, are you really reading it and absorbing the ideas they lay out?  Or are you skimming it while thinking of the fastest way to respond back?  Because it's the first that will allow you to understand the most and then form a better overall approach to the response, or in some cases, allow you to concede without looking like a damn fool.

(Oh, and i'm not calling anyone here a damn fool, I'm speaking purely from my own experience.  Faith without reason breeds zealots of every kind.)

And for the record, you are basically calling everyone a fool for not agreeing with you.  The points being brought up are being read and debated.  Because we don't agree with them doesn't make them any less valid or invalid.  Because you agree with them doesn't make them any more valid.  You seem to agree with those points because you claim we are being debunked, which in itself is debatable, so you concluded that we MUST be skimming and ignorant.

[Siquo]

Sergius: Sarcasm can be funny if it's intended as such. If it's intended to make a point, it's a form of weakness, of being unable to say what you really want to say.

Andir: The glitches are non-reproducible. The only proof of glitches that we can possibly have is through personal experience, or from stories of others. That makes them kinda useless to science, but does not mean they do not exist...