Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why do you believe?

Notamoron
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As we know, the majority of people who conform to a specific religious belief are hell-bent that they are right and regardless of the outcome of any intellectual argument they will continue to pedal the belief. At this point, it's near pointless to discuss the matter from an intellectual standpoint as it's likely you wont get anywhere (however if you have a specific point to make or reason as to why a specific belief is logical, I will happily discuss it).

This brings me to my next point, rather than starting the discussion by debating specifics I'm going to point out some statistical facts and state the implications of the statistics and go from there.

Globally approximately 80% of the population are religious, however in the scientific field that number drops to 30%. When you narrow the field even further and look at the most respected in the field, the number drops significantly again with 93% of the scientists in the American National Academy of Sciences being Atheist of Agnostic.
The statistics insinuate that there is a direct correlation between an understanding of how things work, and a lack of religious belief.

When you start to analyse this concept and build a comparison between it and anything else, the dumb-founded ignorance is incredible. 80% of the general population are insinuating that those who have the greatest understanding of our existence and study the field for a living are wrong on the premise of anecdote's from ancient scripture.

To give an explanation of how this thought process is incredibly flawed lets look at a correlation applying this conceptual idea to other areas of thought. When these same individuals make scientific advancements in the area of medicine, be it a cure for an illness/disease etc, as an outsider who lacks the deep understanding which they posses, do you proceed to question the legitimacy of the discovery on the basis of a lack of respect for the intellectual ability of these individuals?

The answer to the rhetorical question is obvious, so I proceed, how do you then imply you have greater knowledge than those who specifically study our origin for a living?
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 8:22:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:
The answer to the rhetorical question is obvious, so I proceed, how do you then imply you have greater knowledge than those who specifically study our origin for a living?

Science has been countless times wrong, why should I trust it now?

At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:
Why do you believe?

Bible is my reason to believe.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 11:49:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:
As we know, the majority of people who conform to a specific religious belief are hell-bent that they are right and regardless of the outcome of any intellectual argument they will continue to pedal the belief. At this point, it's near pointless to discuss the matter from an intellectual standpoint as it's likely you wont get anywhere (however if you have a specific point to make or reason as to why a specific belief is logical, I will happily discuss it).

I agree with that but there are also nonreligious people who are just as stubborn as the religious when it comes to being hell bent that they are right about something. Being stubborn and hell bent about being right seems to be part of human nature. It can be an asset or liability depending on how you wish to perceive it. It obviously has its positive aspects as well as its negative aspects.

This brings me to my next point, rather than starting the discussion by debating specifics I'm going to point out some statistical facts and state the implications of the statistics and go from there.

Globally approximately 80% of the population are religious, however in the scientific field that number drops to 30%. When you narrow the field even further and look at the most respected in the field, the number drops significantly again with 93% of the scientists in the American National Academy of Sciences being Atheist of Agnostic.
The statistics insinuate that there is a direct correlation between an understanding of how things work, and a lack of religious belief.

Statistics can insinuate a lot of things.
What those statistics point out to me is that the world is very unbalanced when it comes to belief in an invisible supernatural God. Most people appear to lean toward the superstitious belief that an invisible supernatural character exists and they will one day be required to give an account of their lives to that character. The only reason they have for their belief is that "the book" says so and they choose to believe it.

When you start to analyse this concept and build a comparison between it and anything else, the dumb-founded ignorance is incredible. 80% of the general population are insinuating that those who have the greatest understanding of our existence and study the field for a living are wrong on the premise of anecdote's from ancient scripture.

What makes you believe that scientists have the greatest understanding of our existence when it comes to origin theories?
I agree that when it comes down to understanding the reproduction cycles of nature and biology and other practical sciences that those who study those fields have a greater understanding than those who don't. BUT.. when it comes to theories about the origin of the universe and the speculation that once upon a time no life at all existed, I think the science field and the religious field are both speculating as much as each other. Believing that once upon a time no life at all existed has no practical value at all regardless of whether ones belief is based on a religious book or on scientific theories. Common sense and Biogenesis teach us that life must have always come from the life before it. That ultimately creates a paradox of infinite regress which both science and religion seem to deny or appear to ignore as they claim or suggest or imply there was a finite beginning point to the universe and all of life.
In that sense both sides are as ignorant as each other.

To give an explanation of how this thought process is incredibly flawed lets look at a correlation applying this conceptual idea to other areas of thought. When these same individuals make scientific advancements in the area of medicine, be it a cure for an illness/disease etc, as an outsider who lacks the deep understanding which they posses, do you proceed to question the legitimacy of the discovery on the basis of a lack of respect for the intellectual ability of these individuals?

The answer to the rhetorical question is obvious, so I proceed, how do you then imply you have greater knowledge than those who specifically study our origin for a living?

No sensible person questions scientific advancements in practical fields like medicine or technology. Most people simply take them for granted and accept what comes and enjoy the end result if they benefit mankind or complain thoroughly about them if they do not.
The concepts that are under scrutiny are impractical theories about "origins" which no one can actually prove or disprove as being correct or incorrect like... Did the universe have a beginning point or has it always existed? Did life itself have a beginning point and all evolve from the same primordial cell or has life always existed in innumerable different forms like it does today and some forms simply become extinct as they are replaced by others in the process of life changing and recycling itself constantly ?

When it comes to origins there are the practical concepts of life coming from life which can be easily observed. Simple biogenesis and biology is taken for granted by most people. Then there are the impractical theories and speculations about life and the universe itself having some finite beginning point. Those kind of speculations result in sci fi theories and religious doctrines which are as bad as each other when it comes to trying to prove or disprove them. They need to be accepted by faith on both sides since there is absolutely no proof available for a finite beginning point of the universe or life in general and no man will ever find such evidence since the universe is in constant recycling mode and recycles itself till all evidence disappears as visible matter and returns to the state of invisible energy which cannot be created or destroyed.
IF the Law of Conservation of Energy is correct, then energy cannot increase or decrease and any perceived increase or decrease in visible matter is merely an illusion due to matter simply being a form of energy which the L.O.C.E. implies has always existed and has no beginning or end.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 11:58:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 8:22:58 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:
The answer to the rhetorical question is obvious, so I proceed, how do you then imply you have greater knowledge than those who specifically study our origin for a living?

Science has been countless times wrong, why should I trust it now?

At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:
Why do you believe?

Bible is my reason to believe.

Science is the exploration of knowledge, how can pursuing truth be wrong? Your view of what science is is immature and pathetic.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 2:11:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 8:22:58 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:
The answer to the rhetorical question is obvious, so I proceed, how do you then imply you have greater knowledge than those who specifically study our origin for a living?

Science has been countless times wrong, why should I trust it now?
He says via a computer on the internet. Go you good thing.
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:
Why do you believe?

Bible is my reason to believe.
You obviously haven't read it then.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 2:26:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 8:22:58 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:
The answer to the rhetorical question is obvious, so I proceed, how do you then imply you have greater knowledge than those who specifically study our origin for a living?

Science has been countless times wrong, why should I trust it now?

What Hayd said above me. Science is not an absolute truth. It is "this is how we believe is the case now, but we search continously for new ways of seeing it" Also, if you don't trust science, how do you even live your life? Hunting your own food?

At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:
Why do you believe?

Bible is my reason to believe.

Wouldn't be a little begging the question? That is basically "I am believing in the Bible because the Bible"
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 4:31:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:
As we know, the majority of people who conform to a specific religious belief are hell-bent that they are right and regardless of the outcome of any intellectual argument they will continue to pedal the belief. At this point, it's near pointless to discuss the matter from an intellectual standpoint as it's likely you wont get anywhere (however if you have a specific point to make or reason as to why a specific belief is logical, I will happily discuss it).

Sounds like debating an Atheist. no intellectual discussion can persuade them from their delusion of what logic is. They make such emotional outburst and assertions and refuse to back any of them up. Their critiques of religious statements are hot air.


This brings me to my next point, rather than starting the discussion by debating specifics I'm going to point out some statistical facts and state the implications of the statistics and go from there.

implications of statistics. Thank you. I know immediately you lack an understanding of them. And that you are prone to mistake correlation with causation.


Globally approximately 80% of the population are religious, however in the scientific field that number drops to 30%. When you narrow the field even further and look at the most respected in the field, the number drops significantly again with 93% of the scientists in the American National Academy of Sciences being Atheist of Agnostic.
The statistics insinuate that there is a direct correlation between an understanding of how things work, and a lack of religious belief.

As an Atheist you probably are not use to backing up your assertions. but how is an advanced science degree imply a "better understanding of how things work"?

A large number of Atheist are white and male. The majority of the scientist in the National Academy of Sciences are white and male. The increase could be because of a disproportionate and shrinking population. This may be no more than birds of a feather flock together.

We can see the same loss of religious tenets in the prison population. Take the whole prison population and we have something in the 90's for religious. Compare that with the list of serial killers you see nearly all of them are Atheist.

Should we infer that the more human lives you take the more you are to be an atheist?

Or should we note that among Serial killers 93% are male, and predominately white. Not to mention that among Serial killers a disproportionate amount of them (43%) are homosexual. Compared with less than 2% of the general population being homosexual.

So using your same method of statistics we know that the more dick you suck and get rammed by the more Atheist you become. The more human lives you kill the more Atheist you become.


When you start to analyse this concept and build a comparison between it and anything else, the dumb-founded ignorance is incredible. 80% of the general population are insinuating that those who have the greatest understanding of our existence and study the field for a living are wrong on the premise of anecdote's from ancient scripture.

You think scientist have some monopoly on understanding reality. The issue I have with this is those scientist are generally very specific in a domain of study. Most of which is theoretical and unproven.

Then when the scientist are doing a real world experiment they concern themselves with taking out as many variables as possible. A laboratory is a far cry from the real world.

So what you could really infer is people that spend their days imagining how the world works, operating in sterile environments, engaged in political correct and secular communities, are likely to be Atheists. Atheism the state religion.


To give an explanation of how this thought process is incredibly flawed lets look at a correlation applying this conceptual idea to other areas of thought. When these same individuals make scientific advancements in the area of medicine, be it a cure for an illness/disease etc, as an outsider who lacks the deep understanding which they posses, do you proceed to question the legitimacy of the discovery on the basis of a lack of respect for the intellectual ability of these individuals?

You mean like Jenner that cured small pox. Wait no, he was a deeply religious man. Sounds like you revere scientist as if they are some kind of bishops. But I think I understand what you're saying, the guy that comes up with a drug that partially reduces the symptoms of the common cold, surely that same guy most know if God exists or not.

Tell me how does the invention of a pharmaceutical invariably relate to the knowing if God exists or not?


The answer to the rhetorical question is obvious, so I proceed, how do you then imply you have greater knowledge than those who specifically study our origin for a living?

Was it rhetorical? Because it made me just want to ask how does making a drug mean that person has some inside knowledge about the creation of life or universe? how does that activity give insight and affirmation that God does not exist?

If one of these scientist tells you what is wrong with your car are you going to immediately believe them?

At least you are in good company there are many people who are enamored with celebrities and completely accept what they say about the world.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 4:45:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 11:49:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:

What those statistics point out to me is that the world is very unbalanced when it comes to belief in an invisible supernatural God.

That should read, " ... when it comes to belief in an invisible, supernatural god." "God" is lower-case in the sentence because it is a common noun.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 5:16:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 4:31:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Sounds like debating an Atheist. no intellectual discussion can persuade them from their delusion of what logic is. They make such emotional outburst and assertions and refuse to back any of them up. Their critiques of religious statements are hot air.
Myk claims that gods exist.
Myk can supply no evidence to support said claim.
Myk's claim is therefore rejected on said lack of support reasoning.
Myk proves atheism correct without bul even making a claim.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 5:44:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 4:45:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:49:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:

What those statistics point out to me is that the world is very unbalanced when it comes to belief in an invisible supernatural God.

That should read, " ... when it comes to belief in an invisible, supernatural god." "God" is lower-case in the sentence because it is a common noun.

Incorrect Anna. Just because that is what you wish it said, or that's the way you want to interpret it, does not mean I got it wrong.
If you had any comprehension Anna you might understand the word God in the sentence is referring to the God of Abraham or the God who you believe is the very real creator of the universe. Would you like me to refer to that particular God with a lower case g or an upper case G? You choose and let me know.
It seems referring to the character with an upper case G is the correct way to go since that is what the English bible does as well.

If you want to nit pick and twist my words or try to tell me how to communicate with correct grammar little princess, I can nit pick a lot better than you can. I have had way many more years experience at it than you have.

Go back to your childish belief in an invisible supernatural God with an upper case G who punishes talking snakes with a lower case s for telling people they can also be gods with a lower case g.

At least I am fully aware that the invisible supernatural Father God with an upper case F and G is a myth which is no different to Mother Nature with an upper case M and N.
I sincerely hope you grow up mentally and realize that too one day.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 5:51:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 5:44:14 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/27/2015 4:45:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:49:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:

What those statistics point out to me is that the world is very unbalanced when it comes to belief in an invisible supernatural God.

That should read, " ... when it comes to belief in an invisible, supernatural god." "God" is lower-case in the sentence because it is a common noun.

Incorrect Anna. Just because that is what you wish it said, or that's the way you want to interpret it, does not mean I got it wrong.
If you had any comprehension Anna you might understand the word God in the sentence is referring to the God of Abraham or the God who you believe is the very real creator of the universe. Would you like me to refer to that particular God with a lower case g or an upper case G? You choose and let me know.
It seems referring to the character with an upper case G is the correct way to go since that is what the English bible does as well.

LMAO @ this numbskull. Would you be so kind - or so gullible - as to inform us whether the word "God" up there in your sentence is a common noun or a proper noun? If it's a proper noun, could you explain for us you placed an indefinite article in front of it?

BTW, I do not recall the English Bible referring to God as "a God" or "an invisible God". Could you direct us to that passage?

A correct sentence would be, "God is an invisible supernatural god."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 5:52:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 5:44:14 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/27/2015 4:45:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:49:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:

If you want to nit pick and twist my words or try to tell me how to communicate with correct grammar little princess, I can nit pick a lot better than you can. I have had way many more years experience at it than you have.

I'm sure your husband can attest to that!
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 5:55:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
By the way, I happened to recall that the Bible translators infrequently committed the error of placing an article before God, as in "a jealous God". That's an incorrect usage.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 6:07:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 5:44:14 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/27/2015 4:45:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:49:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:

What those statistics point out to me is that the world is very unbalanced when it comes to belief in an invisible supernatural God.

That should read, " ... when it comes to belief in an invisible, supernatural god." "God" is lower-case in the sentence because it is a common noun.

At least I am fully aware that the invisible supernatural Father God with an upper case F and G is a myth which is no different to Mother Nature with an upper case M and N.

And I am "fully aware" that when someone asks you if you believe in God, you answer in the affirmative! Then you launch off into some sort of esoteric jibberish. The truth of the matter is that you do NOT believe in God at all. You believe in multiple gods. So do all atheists, I guess, since two of the definitions of such gods are (1) a person or thing of supreme value and (2) a powerful ruler.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 6:09:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 5:51:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:44:14 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/27/2015 4:45:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:49:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:

What those statistics point out to me is that the world is very unbalanced when it comes to belief in an invisible supernatural God.

That should read, " ... when it comes to belief in an invisible, supernatural god." "God" is lower-case in the sentence because it is a common noun.

Incorrect Anna. Just because that is what you wish it said, or that's the way you want to interpret it, does not mean I got it wrong.
If you had any comprehension Anna you might understand the word God in the sentence is referring to the God of Abraham or the God who you believe is the very real creator of the universe. Would you like me to refer to that particular God with a lower case g or an upper case G? You choose and let me know.
It seems referring to the character with an upper case G is the correct way to go since that is what the English bible does as well.

LMAO @ this numbskull. Would you be so kind - or so gullible - as to inform us whether the word "God" up there in your sentence is a common noun or a proper noun? If it's a proper noun, could you explain for us you placed an indefinite article in front of it?

BTW, I do not recall the English Bible referring to God as "a God" or "an invisible God". Could you direct us to that passage?

Col 1 :15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Ex 6:7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

Obviously you need to do a LOT more study Anna.
Try to stop making such a fool of yourself.

A correct sentence would be, "God is an invisible supernatural god."

I understand you enjoy your nit picking as a distraction from the real issues which you do not wish to face Anna.
The issue you are attempting to avoid is your own foolishness and childish belief in the existence of your invisible God/god regardless of whether you want to refer to that character with an upper or lower case G/g

Now grow up and find some maturity in your thinking process if you can.
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 6:14:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 8:22:58 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:
The answer to the rhetorical question is obvious, so I proceed, how do you then imply you have greater knowledge than those who specifically study our origin for a living?

Science has been countless times wrong, why should I trust it now?

that is a logical fallacy known as a strawman
science hasn't been wrong, scientists have been wrong in explaining the data
besides unlike your god, prayer and your book of mythology, science actually works
the only thing that can disprove science, is more science


At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:
Why do you believe?

Bible is my reason to believe.

reading the bible is the main reason that i'm an atheist. is your god even capable to convince me that it exists?
all you have to do is accept that your god is evil and sadistic, and your god predetermined that most people will burn in hell, before the earth was even created
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 6:16:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 6:09:49 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:51:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:44:14 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/27/2015 4:45:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:49:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:

What those statistics point out to me is that the world is very unbalanced when it comes to belief in an invisible supernatural God.

That should read, " ... when it comes to belief in an invisible, supernatural god." "God" is lower-case in the sentence because it is a common noun.

Incorrect Anna. Just because that is what you wish it said, or that's the way you want to interpret it, does not mean I got it wrong.
If you had any comprehension Anna you might understand the word God in the sentence is referring to the God of Abraham or the God who you believe is the very real creator of the universe. Would you like me to refer to that particular God with a lower case g or an upper case G? You choose and let me know.
It seems referring to the character with an upper case G is the correct way to go since that is what the English bible does as well.

LMAO @ this numbskull. Would you be so kind - or so gullible - as to inform us whether the word "God" up there in your sentence is a common noun or a proper noun? If it's a proper noun, could you explain for us you placed an indefinite article in front of it?

BTW, I do not recall the English Bible referring to God as "a God" or "an invisible God". Could you direct us to that passage?

Col 1 :15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Ex 6:7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

Obviously you need to do a LOT more study Anna.
Try to stop making such a fool of yourself.

How did I make a fool of myself? I just said that the Bible translators infrequently employed an article before the word "God" - and gave an example "a jealous God."

Why would I need to study it more?

By the way, why did you make a fool of yourself by citing a couple of examples of what I already said existed?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 6:17:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 6:09:49 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:51:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:44:14 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/27/2015 4:45:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:49:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:

By the way, you were asked, "Would you be so kind - or so gullible - as to inform us whether the word 'God' up there in your sentence is a common noun or a proper noun?"

You may have answered, but

(1) I sincerely doubt that you did, and
(2) If you did, I didn't see it
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 6:21:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 5:55:59 AM, annanicole wrote:
By the way, I happened to recall that the Bible translators infrequently committed the error of placing an article before God, as in "a jealous God". That's an incorrect usage.

Take it up with them or write your own translation with all the correct grammar.
Then you can claim Annas translation is the best and most correct in the world.

Do you believe the God character is jealous or not?

With all your nit picking you are totally missing the message Anna.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 6:32:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 6:21:52 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:55:59 AM, annanicole wrote:
By the way, I happened to recall that the Bible translators infrequently committed the error of placing an article before God, as in "a jealous God". That's an incorrect usage.

Take it up with them or write your own translation with all the correct grammar.
Then you can claim Annas translation is the best and most correct in the world.

Do you believe the God character is jealous or not?


With all your nit picking you are totally missing the message Anna.

It's not really nit-picking. It's pointing out your constant misuse and misapplication of the two words "god" and "God" - with no hope at all that the misuse will stop.

Here's the deal: you are an atheist. You do not believe in God, period. You believe in gods, like all people do - including atheists.

You ask, "Do I believe that God is a jealous god?" Certainly so. The Bible plainly states as much.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 6:42:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 4:31:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
As an Atheist you probably are not use to backing up your assertions. but how is an advanced science degree imply a "better understanding of how things work"?

great then you shouldn't have any trouble backing up any of your assertions
which version of god do you believe in?
which version of religion will you be defending
which version of which book of mythology are you claiming to be accurate and true?
which version of hell do you believe in?

A large number of Atheist are white and male.

yes we are mostly white and male, but then males tend to be less emotionally driven than women, and whites tend to be more educated than other races in our society
oh wait, there are many asians that are atheistic as well

The majority of the scientist in the National Academy of Sciences are white and male. The increase could be because of a disproportionate and shrinking population. This may be no more than birds of a feather flock together.

We can see the same loss of religious tenets in the prison population. Take the whole prison population and we have something in the 90's for religious. Compare that with the list of serial killers you see nearly all of them are Atheist.

are you capable of showing peer reviewed data to back up that assertion?


Should we infer that the more human lives you take the more you are to be an atheist?

you could if your premises were actually correct
gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people


Or should we note that among Serial killers 93% are male, and predominately white. Not to mention that among Serial killers a disproportionate amount of them (43%) are homosexual. Compared with less than 2% of the general population being homosexual.

your bigotry is showing, homosexuality has nothing to do with atheism
by the way what does your book of mythology say should be the punishment of being gay?


So using your same method of statistics we know that the more dick you suck and get rammed by the more Atheist you become. The more human lives you kill the more Atheist you become.


When you start to analyse this concept and build a comparison between it and anything else, the dumb-founded ignorance is incredible. 80% of the general population are insinuating that those who have the greatest understanding of our existence and study the field for a living are wrong on the premise of anecdote's from ancient scripture.

You think scientist have some monopoly on understanding reality. The issue I have with this is those scientist are generally very specific in a domain of study. Most of which is theoretical and unproven.

then maybe someday you will actually talk to some scientists, since their "unproven" science gives us most of our food, water, medicine, computers, technology etc.
unlike your god, prayer and your book of mythology science actually works
the only thing that can disprove science, is more science


Then when the scientist are doing a real world experiment they concern themselves with taking out as many variables as possible. A laboratory is a far cry from the real world.

So what you could really infer is people that spend their days imagining how the world works, operating in sterile environments, engaged in political correct and secular communities, are likely to be Atheists. Atheism the state religion.

atheism isn't a religion, it's the lack of religion
atheism has no dogma, or world view
most people are atheistic toward hundreds of gods, we just go at least 1 god further
is your god even capable of convincing me that it exists?



To give an explanation of how this thought process is incredibly flawed lets look at a correlation applying this conceptual idea to other areas of thought. When these same individuals make scientific advancements in the area of medicine, be it a cure for an illness/disease etc, as an outsider who lacks the deep understanding which they posses, do you proceed to question the legitimacy of the discovery on the basis of a lack of respect for the intellectual ability of these individuals?

You mean like Jenner that cured small pox. Wait no, he was a deeply religious man. Sounds like you revere scientist as if they are some kind of bishops. But I think I understand what you're saying, the guy that comes up with a drug that partially reduces the symptoms of the common cold, surely that same guy most know if God exists or not.

good point, but that shows even the smartest people can be wrong
only 1 religion can be right, but every religion can be wrong
if your god really did create the world, then science, logic, and faith should complement each other


Tell me how does the invention of a pharmaceutical invariably relate to the knowing if God exists or not?

it doesn't, that question is nonsense, it would be the same to ask "how does geology relate to whether your god exists?" but thank you for showing your ignorance it would be hilarious, if it wasn't so very sad.



The answer to the rhetorical question is obvious, so I proceed, how do you then imply you have greater knowledge than those who specifically study our origin for a living?

Was it rhetorical? Because it made me just want to ask how does making a drug mean that person has some inside knowledge about the creation of life or universe? how does that activity give insight and affirmation that God does not exist?

If one of these scientist tells you what is wrong with your car are you going to immediately believe them?

no, but if other mechanics tell there is something wrong with your car, would you get a mechanic to fix it, or would you pray and have your god fix your car for you?


At least you are in good company there are many people who are enamored with celebrities and completely accept what they say about the world.

all you have to do is accept that your god is evil and sadistic, and your god predetermined that most people will burn in hell, before the earth was even created
Electric-Eccentric
Posts: 1,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 6:48:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
those that control the concepts of money & power,

also make up the top GOD's,God's that are written in man made books.

I find it interesting that the BIG God's NEED YOUR MONEY and faithful worship.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
Life is what YOU make it,
Most just try and fake it...
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 6:48:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 6:07:45 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:44:14 AM, Skyangel wrote:

At least I am fully aware that the invisible supernatural Father God with an upper case F and G is a myth which is no different to Mother Nature with an upper case M and N.

And I am "fully aware" that when someone asks you if you believe in God, you answer in the affirmative! Then you launch off into some sort of esoteric jibberish. The truth of the matter is that you do NOT believe in God at all. You believe in multiple gods. So do all atheists, I guess, since two of the definitions of such gods are (1) a person or thing of supreme value and (2) a powerful ruler.

Just because you do not comprehend the concept of a mythical character personifying something in reality and being able to believe in the reality which the character represents while still understanding the character is a myth, does not mean I am communicating jibberish.
It simply means you do not wish to understand the concept at all and therefore make no effort to understand what I am attempting to get across to readers.

If you ask me if I believe in Mother Nature I will also say yes I do because I would presume you are talking about nature itself not about the mythical character. Even if you were referring to the mythical character, I would explain that I believe in Mother Nature in the sense of what she represents, which is nature in reality. I do not deny Nature is real and I do not deny Mother Nature represents that reality. Myths exist because humans imagine and create them, even if the creation is merely a work of art and not something that can actually communicate with people.
Myths are used by people to communicate messages to other people. It is simply a creative form of communication.

However, you and everyone else is obviously free to believe any of your mythical characters are real if you need those characters as some kind of support or security blankie. I understand children and superstitious people need something to make them feel secure.

Yes I do believe in multiple gods which are real like human rock gods or the gods of this site or gods of any clubs in the sense of being its creators and rulers who lay down whatever laws and rules by which they expect their members to abide. I do not believe any of those real gods have supernatural powers.
Whatever motivates people and is the most important thing in their lives can be perceived as their god or motivating force.
For some people that motivating force is a mythical character with supernatural powers who never uses those powers for the benefit of mankind.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 7:06:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 6:16:22 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 6:09:49 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:51:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:44:14 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/27/2015 4:45:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:49:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:

What those statistics point out to me is that the world is very unbalanced when it comes to belief in an invisible supernatural God.

That should read, " ... when it comes to belief in an invisible, supernatural god." "God" is lower-case in the sentence because it is a common noun.

Incorrect Anna. Just because that is what you wish it said, or that's the way you want to interpret it, does not mean I got it wrong.
If you had any comprehension Anna you might understand the word God in the sentence is referring to the God of Abraham or the God who you believe is the very real creator of the universe. Would you like me to refer to that particular God with a lower case g or an upper case G? You choose and let me know.
It seems referring to the character with an upper case G is the correct way to go since that is what the English bible does as well.

LMAO @ this numbskull. Would you be so kind - or so gullible - as to inform us whether the word "God" up there in your sentence is a common noun or a proper noun? If it's a proper noun, could you explain for us you placed an indefinite article in front of it?

BTW, I do not recall the English Bible referring to God as "a God" or "an invisible God". Could you direct us to that passage?

Col 1 :15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Ex 6:7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

Obviously you need to do a LOT more study Anna.
Try to stop making such a fool of yourself.

How did I make a fool of myself? I just said that the Bible translators infrequently employed an article before the word "God" - and gave an example "a jealous God."

Why would I need to study it more?

By the way, why did you make a fool of yourself by citing a couple of examples of what I already said existed?

Because you asked for examples or did you forget like you forgot you had a birthday ?
Must I remind you of your own words and lack of recall which you posted before you so conveniently remembered again?

You wrote...."BTW, I do not recall the English Bible referring to God as "a God" or "an invisible God". Could you direct us to that passage?"

I happen to read posts in chronological order and reply to them in the same order. Your lack of recall was apparent before your memory returned. I was simply doing as you requested and directed you to the passages.

I am pleased that you finally remembered examples of what you could not recall. Hopefully your mind and powers of recall will continue to improve as you make an effort to use your brain more.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 7:29:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 6:32:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 6:21:52 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:55:59 AM, annanicole wrote:
By the way, I happened to recall that the Bible translators infrequently committed the error of placing an article before God, as in "a jealous God". That's an incorrect usage.

Take it up with them or write your own translation with all the correct grammar.
Then you can claim Annas translation is the best and most correct in the world.

Do you believe the God character is jealous or not?


With all your nit picking you are totally missing the message Anna.

It's not really nit-picking. It's pointing out your constant misuse and misapplication of the two words "god" and "God" - with no hope at all that the misuse will stop.

Here's the deal: you are an atheist. You do not believe in God, period. You believe in gods, like all people do - including atheists.

You ask, "Do I believe that God is a jealous god?" Certainly so. The Bible plainly states as much.

Yet you claim the bible is incorrect in its use of grammar so inform us of the correct way to write " I the LORD thy God am a jealous God" (Exodus 20:5)

or Exodus 34:14 ( For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God)

If you write " I am a jealous god" (with a lower case g) or...
"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god" ( lower case g ).
It makes your so called real God the same kind of myth as all the rest of the gods which he commands people to not worship because they are deaf and dumb idols. It makes him just another one of the gods who exalts himself above the rest.
Zeus could have said the same thing since he is also king of the gods. Would you worship Zeus if he said that in the bible stories? Would you believe Zeus was real if he was portrayed as "The God" instead of "a god" ?

I believe your jealous God is a mythical god. I have no logical reason to believe the character is real. I grew up and advanced from that childish state of mind. I understand God represents Life and I believe in Life. There is no need to worship Life or pray to it as if it was some supernatural character who could actually hear you. The only people who actually hear you in life are other people if they bother to listen.

You obviously still have a lot of growing up to do.
Notamoron
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 7:43:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 4:31:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:

Sounds like debating an Atheist. no intellectual discussion can persuade them from their delusion of what logic is. They make such emotional outburst and assertions and refuse to back any of them up. Their critiques of religious statements are hot air.

Except that is objectively wrong....Of all known modern day intellectual prodigies, none are religious. You literally just perfectly conformed to my depiction of the group. What intellectual reason do you have for gods existence beyond the scripture of those who if put in a modern society would be considered mentally retarded?

implications of statistics. Thank you. I know immediately you lack an understanding of them. And that you are prone to mistake correlation with causation.

That didn't actually refute anything.......You simply disagreed with something that was once again, objective and not to be debated.

As an Atheist you probably are not use to backing up your assertions. but how is an advanced science degree imply a "better understanding of how things work"?

Are you trying to be funny? If that was meant genuinely, research the Dunning Kruger effect. If you spend your life studying cosmology, physics, biology etc and make factual conclusions in the area of study , is that not developing a greater understanding of the field?

A large number of Atheist are white and male. The majority of the scientist in the National Academy of Sciences are white and male. The increase could be because of a disproportionate and shrinking population. This may be no more than birds of a feather flock together.

That doesn't refute anything I said and is entirely circumstantially irrelevant. The area of discussion is that those who specifically excel in making logical and intellectual conclusions, disagree with those who are intellectually inferior. There is a specific reason the statistics vary, however you proposition relies entirely on biological factors which are entirely irrelevant. 80% of the population is white, the statistics line up. Secondly 1950's racism and white supremacy causes variation. I could go into depth, but lets see if you can draw a conclusion from my last statement to determine the implications of historical events.

We can see the same loss of religious tenets in the prison population. Take the whole prison population and we have something in the 90's for religious. Compare that with the list of serial killers you see nearly all of them are Atheist.

A different approach this time, you simply made something up. In the history of mankind, mass homicide or war has never been committed in the name of "atheism". Nearly all wars/mass murders are typically acclaimed messengers of a religion. Atheistic murders however are simply a result of mental instability entirely irrelevant to their beliefs. Also 0.2% of prisoners are atheists. nearly 15% of the general population are atheists. Further supporting my claim, and the sample size of prisoners is more than high enough to consider it realistic.

Should we infer that the more human lives you take the more you are to be an atheist?

If you genuinely believe that atheists have taken more lives than religious folk, I'd like to put money on it. You set the price, if you like we can make it millions. I'll give you 10:1 odds to.

Or should we note that among Serial killers 93% are male, and predominately white. Not to mention that among Serial killers a disproportionate amount of them (43%) are homosexual. Compared with less than 2% of the general population being homosexual.

So using your same method of statistics we know that the more dick you suck and get rammed by the more Atheist you become. The more human lives you kill the more Atheist you become.


The study your referring to used a sample size of 100 people, and the individuals considered to be homosexual weren't homosexuals. The study considered a male who molested both adults and children of either gender as gay........


You think scientist have some monopoly on understanding reality. The issue I have with this is those scientist are generally very specific in a domain of study. Most of which is theoretical and unproven.

Then when the scientist are doing a real world experiment they concern themselves with taking out as many variables as possible. A laboratory is a far cry from the real world.

Well no, it is not theoretical and unproven. The majority is proven, and theories regarding the unknown are create and hypothesized. These ideas are then studied with either entirely inconclusive information, probable information or factual information.

Which in the case of religious study, there are several contradictions of factual discoveries. (Isaiah 11.12 gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.) I mean if that verse read that the earth was rounded, that would've helped prove religion. It would've shown that the creator of the planet knew something about the planet beyond knowledge at the time which would be expected from a creator. The age of the earth was incorrect. Every single attempt at proof within the bible making a claim regarding the earth's creation turned out to be incorrect, does that not make you question it's legitimacy even slightly? If there was even a semblance of knowledge that only a creator could have known (at that time), my view would be entirely changed.

So what you could really infer is people that spend their days imagining how the world works, operating in sterile environments, engaged in political correct and secular communities, are likely to be Atheists. Atheism the state religion.

Dunning Kruger at it's finest, again. You're insinuating that those who study a specific field are incorrect on the basis they disagree with you, when in reality when put into any field of objective result they would far out perform you. Yet even in the situation of objective result you will often disagree based on your inability to understand why you are wrong. You use in-conclusive result to create a deluded perception of your own intellect and claim that your thoughts regarding the matter are justifiable and comparable to those had by intellectual prodigies.

You mean like Jenner that cured small pox. Wait no, he was a deeply religious man. Sounds like you revere scientist as if they are some kind of bishops. But I think I understand what you're saying, the guy that comes up with a drug that partially reduces the symptoms of the common cold, surely that same guy most know if God exists or not.

I can't tell whether you're joking. Small pox was cured in 1881 and your using it as a statement to debate 21st century science. At this point in time a herbal tea was thought to cure a bacterial disease. Secondly, as I explain below you don't actually understand what I said. Again the Dunning Kruger effect.

Tell me how does the invention of a pharmaceutical invariably relate to the knowing if God exists or not?
Was it rhetorical? Because it made me just want to ask how does making a drug mean that person has some inside knowledge about the creation of life or universe? how does that activity give insight and affirmation that God does not exist?

You didn't understand the point being made. It was regarding the concept of a "field master" being challenger by the mediocre. The individual creating a drug wasn't the individual in discussion, however they could be as they often still conform to the idea of higher intellect. The point was, that as a below average human you don't question Magnus Carlson's winning chess decisions, in the same way you don't question a medical researchers disease cure. However you do proceed to question a physicists or cosmologists findings?
Notamoron
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:30:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 11:49:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:

I agree with that but there are also nonreligious people who are just as stubborn as the religious when it comes to being hell bent that they are right about something. Being stubborn and hell bent about being right seems to be part of human nature. It can be an asset or liability depending on how you wish to perceive it. It obviously has its positive aspects as well as its negative aspects.

I can agree with that, but the major difference between the two is that if either side was hypothetically proven to be 100% fact ("god" came to earth and proved his power, or science determined the origin of consciousness/created it from dead matter)...I'd bet my life on the fact that the vast majority would still continue to peddle the same principle of belief, whilst those who don't believe would adapt based on the new found evidence.

What makes you believe that scientists have the greatest understanding of our existence when it comes to origin theories?
I agree that when it comes down to understanding the reproduction cycles of nature and biology and other practical sciences that those who study those fields have a greater understanding than those who don't. BUT.. when it comes to theories about the origin of the universe and the speculation that once upon a time no life at all existed, I think the science field and the religious field are both speculating as much as each other. Believing that once upon a time no life at all existed has no practical value at all regardless of whether ones belief is based on a religious book or on scientific theories. Common sense and Biogenesis teach us that life must have always come from the life before it. That ultimately creates a paradox of infinite regress which both science and religion seem to deny or appear to ignore as they claim or suggest or imply there was a finite beginning point to the universe and all of life.
In that sense both sides are as ignorant as each other.

These people are specifically studying and developing theories regarding the issue, those who excel in the field also posses natural intellect far beyond that of the average human, to imply that an average Joe has an understanding equivalent to a physicist, cosmologist etc is just Dunning Kruger at it's finest. If you haven't heard of the Dunning Kruger principal, it revolves around the fact that unskilled/incompetent people nearly always fail to recognize their own ability/lack of understanding on the basis that they do not posses the intellectual ability to understand why they are wrong or what they don't know. I didn't explain this before but that is kind of the premise of everything being said, these people do not possess the ability to understand why they are wrong, and it's impossible to explain it to them so I propose they trust those who do. Obviously my analogy has flaws regarding the fact that I was comparing theoretical science to proven science, but the point still remains the same.

To give a more accurate comparison, you can look at cancer. Conspiracy theorists will create ideas that the cure for the disease is simplistic, and that the global medical industry is hiding the cure as a way of population control and financial gain. Obviously these fools have absolutely no scientific understanding of the issue. To those who actually have some kind of understanding (to give a very basic idea of why it's difficult) A cancer cell is a regenerative cell which exceeds the regenerative capabilities of most other cells in our body meaning that destroying the cells is incredibly difficult to do without either destroying other cells or killing the person entirely. chemotherapy is a perfect example. Kills the fast growing reproductive hair cells, causes chronic fatigue, illness etc in order to stop it from spreading.

So far we have only seen life come from life and don't have a lot of theory as to what causes consciousness. You're theory that consciousness is therefore eternal is interesting and I can't really combat it with proof. We don't know a lot about consciousness. The universe as we know it has not always existed, and that can be proven which questions the idea of eternity which is a necessity in this theory. The insinuation that life is eternal insinuates the existence of the eternal which is also something which we don't know. However, the fact that something exists technically could mean that the eternal has to exist, which then proceeds into the concept that something can't come from nothing, but we don't know what nothing is and therefore can't draw a conclusion. Obviously I could go on forever creating several contradictions in the process.

To give an explanation of how this thought process is incredibly flawed lets look at a correlation applying this conceptual idea to other areas of thought. When these same individuals make scientific advancements in the area of medicine, be it a cure for an illness/disease etc, as an outsider who lacks the deep understanding which they posses, do you proceed to question the legitimacy of the discovery on the basis of a lack of respect for the intellectual ability of these individuals?

The answer to the rhetorical question is obvious, so I proceed, how do you then imply you have greater knowledge than those who specifically study our origin for a living?


No sensible person questions scientific advancements in practical fields like medicine or technology. Most people simply take them for granted and accept what comes and enjoy the end result if they benefit mankind or complain thoroughly about them if they do not.
The concepts that are under scrutiny are impractical theories about "origins" which no one can actually prove or disprove as being correct or incorrect like... Did the universe have a beginning point or has it always existed? Did life itself have a beginning point and all evolve from the same primordial cell or has life always existed in innumerable different forms like it does today and some forms simply become extinct as they are replaced by others in the process of life changing and recycling itself constantly ?

When it comes to origins there are the practical concepts of life coming from life which can be easily observed. Simple biogenesis and biology is taken for granted by most people. Then there are the impractical theories and speculations about life and the universe itself having some finite beginning point. Those kind of speculations result in sci fi theories and religious doctrines which are as bad as each other when it comes to trying to prove or disprove them. They need to be accepted by faith on both sides since there is absolutely no proof available for a finite beginning point of the universe or life in general and no man will ever find such evidence since the universe is in constant recycling mode and recycles itself till all evidence disappears as visible matter and returns to the state of invisible energy which cannot be created or destroyed.
IF the Law of Conservation of Energy is correct, then energy cannot increase or decrease and any perceived increase or decrease in visible matter is merely an illusion due to matter simply being a form of energy which the L.O.C.E. implies has always existed and has no beginning or end.

When it comes to origin theories, the implication that we were intentionally created is not out of the question (I believe it to be incredibly unlikely and don't believe it to be the case) and I'm not berating those who believe our creation was intentional, I am however implying that manmade religion is simple idiocy and entirely contradicts itself and any other knowledge we currently have as well as the fact it's claiming the existence of the supernatural.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 9:41:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 8:30:48 AM, Notamoron wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:49:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/26/2015 1:25:01 PM, Notamoron wrote:

I agree with that but there are also nonreligious people who are just as stubborn as the religious when it comes to being hell bent that they are right about something. Being stubborn and hell bent about being right seems to be part of human nature. It can be an asset or liability depending on how you wish to perceive it. It obviously has its positive aspects as well as its negative aspects.

I can agree with that, but the major difference between the two is that if either side was hypothetically proven to be 100% fact ("god" came to earth and proved his power, or science determined the origin of consciousness/created it from dead matter)...I'd bet my life on the fact that the vast majority would still continue to peddle the same principle of belief, whilst those who don't believe would adapt based on the new found evidence.

I doubt either side will ever be proven to be 100% fact when it comes to origins of something which presumably happened billions of years ago, since religion deals in doctrines and science deals in theories. Hypothesis and speculation play a large part in all that. Besides that, nature itself recycles everything and all evidence eventually disappears through that recycling process.

I agree that the vast majority on both sides will most likely cling to the same principles, beliefs or theories which they convinced themselves to be 100% fact. Very few question themselves and their own beliefs once they have concluded that something is a fact. They only question themselves when they are unsure of the end result.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 10:03:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 8:30:48 AM, Notamoron wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:49:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:

What makes you believe that scientists have the greatest understanding of our existence when it comes to origin theories?
I agree that when it comes down to understanding the reproduction cycles of nature and biology and other practical sciences that those who study those fields have a greater understanding than those who don't. BUT.. when it comes to theories about the origin of the universe and the speculation that once upon a time no life at all existed, I think the science field and the religious field are both speculating as much as each other. Believing that once upon a time no life at all existed has no practical value at all regardless of whether ones belief is based on a religious book or on scientific theories. Common sense and Biogenesis teach us that life must have always come from the life before it. That ultimately creates a paradox of infinite regress which both science and religion seem to deny or appear to ignore as they claim or suggest or imply there was a finite beginning point to the universe and all of life.
In that sense both sides are as ignorant as each other.

These people are specifically studying and developing theories regarding the issue, those who excel in the field also posses natural intellect far beyond that of the average human, to imply that an average Joe has an understanding equivalent to a physicist, cosmologist etc is just Dunning Kruger at it's finest. If you haven't heard of the Dunning Kruger principal, it revolves around the fact that unskilled/incompetent people nearly always fail to recognize their own ability/lack of understanding on the basis that they do not posses the intellectual ability to understand why they are wrong or what they don't know. I didn't explain this before but that is kind of the premise of everything being said, these people do not possess the ability to understand why they are wrong, and it's impossible to explain it to them so I propose they trust those who do. Obviously my analogy has flaws regarding the fact that I was comparing theoretical science to proven science, but the point still remains the same.

You could claim the same for the religious professionals when it comes to excelling in their fields and possessing a natural intellect or instinct or intuition far beyond the average human. When it comes to spiritual things, you could imply any scientist is incompetent and lacks the ability to understand spiritual things due to not being expert in the field.
That kind of claim on either side of the fence basically turns the so called "experts" in any field into gods who claim their theories or beliefs are impossible to explain to the incompetent due to those incompetent people lacking intelligence. It is arrogance at it best and basically implies that all the fools in the world ought to simply believe what the so called experts tell them due to those experts being smarter than they are.
Smart people have the ability to explain things in a simple way so any five year old can understand it and those smart people encourage and teach others to become just as smart as they are instead of just proposing that they trust and believe what they are told. Trusting and believing what we are told is a surefire way to be conned and deceived by the smart con artists of the world who manage to make others believe they are more intelligent than they really are.

The story of the Emperor and his new clothes is one example of the principle. It seems the immature fool who did not believe the smart guys was the one who saw the truth in reality and proved what con artists those smart guys really were.

I am cutting the post down due to character length. More to follow.....
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 10:59:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 8:30:48 AM, Notamoron wrote:

To give a more accurate comparison, you can look at cancer. Conspiracy theorists will create ideas that the cure for the disease is simplistic, and that the global medical industry is hiding the cure as a way of population control and financial gain. Obviously these fools have absolutely no scientific understanding of the issue. To those who actually have some kind of understanding (to give a very basic idea of why it's difficult) A cancer cell is a regenerative cell which exceeds the regenerative capabilities of most other cells in our body meaning that destroying the cells is incredibly difficult to do without either destroying other cells or killing the person entirely. chemotherapy is a perfect example. Kills the fast growing reproductive hair cells, causes chronic fatigue, illness etc in order to stop it from spreading.

Cancer is about biology and human health not about some abstract theories about the beginning of the universe and the beginnings of life in general. In my opinion the medical field do their best to find cures for various diseases. if they wanted to control the population by hiding cures, they might as well not bother trying to find cures in the first place and simply let people die of incurable diseases.

There will always be conspiracy theorist and paranoid people in the world. Variety is the spice of life and opposites will always exist.
Anyway, I admire and have a great respect for all medical professionals. Their work is very practical and useful to mankind.

I see absolutely no use at all for the information, belief, theories or implications that the universe once did not exist. That concept compels people to ask the question "where did it come from in the first place?"
If people believe it was deliberately created by some supernatural character, the question remains as to where the character came from.
If people believe it was some kind of fluke accident of nature and call it a "big bang", the question remains as to where all the elements and energy came from that caused that phenomenon in the first place.
Either way we end up with the paradox of infinite regress which implies there is no finite beginning and something must have always existed. This leads to the question... What is it that has always existed and cannot be created or destroyed?

So far we have only seen life come from life and don't have a lot of theory as to what causes consciousness. You're theory that consciousness is therefore eternal is interesting and I can't really combat it with proof. We don't know a lot about consciousness. The universe as we know it has not always existed, and that can be proven which questions the idea of eternity which is a necessity in this theory. The insinuation that life is eternal insinuates the existence of the eternal which is also something which we don't know. However, the fact that something exists technically could mean that the eternal has to exist, which then proceeds into the concept that something can't come from nothing, but we don't know what nothing is and therefore can't draw a conclusion. Obviously I could go on forever creating several contradictions in the process.

I never said consciousness is eternal. Are you interpreting life as consciousness? Individual consciousness in the sense of human and animal self awareness appears to be finite and seems to leave us on the day we die. Not all life forms appear to have it. I cannot imagine a plant having any self consciousness or self awareness for example. However I know some people like to believe plants have feelings so they talk to them and believe the plants thrive because of it. Each to his own I say. Tree huggers are welcome to hug trees. I prefer to hug people. I find that far more rewarding.

Anyway.....

You claim the universe has not always existed AS WE KNOW IT but you do not know that with 100% certainty. It might be true in the perspective of observing changes which are obviously happening all the time but it is not necessarily true in the perspective of the cycles as a whole. Do we really know all the cycles of the universe and how long each cycle takes to complete before it begins again? No we do not. Therefore we do not know the universe has not always existed as we know it since what we know about it is merely a drop in the ocean of infinite boundless space.
For all we know some cycles might take billions of years to go through a full cycle. Even though the various stages in the cycle change, the cycle itself could easily still be the same as it always was and be part of the infinite regress paradox.
If that is true then it is possible the universe has always been the same size as it still is with the "new" things we notice in the cycle replacing the old things which pass away. However for all we know those new things night not be new at all. They might simply be a repeat of old processes or phenomenon which have returned in time much like summer keeps returning regularly only imagine summer coming once every billion years instead of only once a year. In cycles that take billions of years, not one person on this planet would be able to observe their repetitive nature due to never living long enough.

I suspect the universe is not growing or expanding at all but it is simply human knowledge about it and the technical ability to see further into it which is expanding. Any expansion or contraction could also easily be an illusion or a type of mirage created by space/time and nature itself.
The possibility ought not be discarded. Nature has a way of fooling the best of us. Keep in mind that once upon a time the masses thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around Earth. They were wrong. In another few thousand years from today the people of the future might prove all todays origin theories totally wrong, see them as myths and come up with new theories to replace the old ones. Human knowledge is supposed to increase after all, not remain stagnant.

Anyway, the possibility of eternity exists and we can prove it mathematically with the concept of infinity being the ability to keep adding to the equation and the concept of space having no boundaries. If it did, we would need to ask what is beyond the boundaries and then what is beyond that etc etc. It always ends up in the paradox of infinite regress no matter what we do. Therefore I personally simply accept the paradox of infinite regress as part of the concept of eternal life which is not so ridiculous when you understand the law of conservation of energy. Life is after all just a manifestation of energy going through various cycles.