# Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?



## Tym (Dec 12, 2010)

There seems to be a meme going around that there is proof and evidence of ID (intelligent design) or a creator. Usually if you can get them to admit it, it happens to be the god they believe in. The god in question almost always ends up being the christian god, and depending on who you talk to, the god with the same name is usually never the same god for any two believers.

In the hope that I can possibly reach some rational free thinking intelligent people, who have an interest in what is actually true, and what is rationally justified, I am posting this thread in which I will link to some of my fellow youtube atheists videos, and maybe even one or two of my own, I obviously won't tell you what ones are mine, but if you figure it out please, keep it to yourself. Thanks..

First Up, my good friend Thunderfoot, with his Why do people laugh at creationists? video series..

[video=youtube;BS5vid4GkEY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY[/video]


----------



## Tym (Dec 12, 2010)

[video=youtube;t1rURJX6vRI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1rURJX6vRI[/video]


----------



## Tym (Dec 12, 2010)

[video=youtube;JJxCFa8YmbQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJxCFa8YmbQ[/video]


----------



## skolar182 (Dec 12, 2010)

My biggest problem with creationists is that they ignore any and all scientific facts..


----------



## Tym (Dec 12, 2010)

I have two main problems with creationist. The one you stated, and the propensity to tell lies.


----------



## Japanfreak (Dec 12, 2010)

They don't really bother me because of this thing called progress.


----------



## beardo (Dec 12, 2010)

Athiests go to hell


----------



## Tym (Dec 13, 2010)

[video=youtube;TjxZ6MrBl9E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Tym (Dec 13, 2010)

[video=youtube;dK3O6KYPmEw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&NR=1[/video]


----------



## Rascality Afoot (Dec 13, 2010)

It's a tricky issue. I would hardly consider the judaeo-christian religions (thats including islam) to be realistic posibilities. We can trace their histories and observe the frequency with which the "holy" books were changed to meet political and social controllers needs. I do see a very real possibility that we have been created by something. Saying that anybody with our current perspective could conceive of how we came to be is just silly. Maybe in a thousand years we can be within sight of that knowledge, as long as the flying spaghetti monster and Cthulu don't harvest our proteins before then...


----------



## TaoWolf (Dec 13, 2010)

I'll bite, but this is a disingenuous one-sided topic...

There are stupid people. And there are intelligent people. But spirituality and belief systems have been a part of mankind throughout it's history and spiritual belief has never been a litmus test for being either stupid or intelligent. To be completely rational about the topic would be to recognize that a majority of the greatest and most influential people in history (even in the specific realms of philosophy, government, and science)... had spiritual beliefs - including Abrahamic-based beliefs. 

People like Ghandi, Einstein, Confucius, Carl Jung, Newton, Malcom X, Sitting Bull, etc. were neither stupid nor irrational in their thinking while being spiritual and even being driven by their spiritual belief in daily life. Society (and even peer-reviewed and honest scientific thought) wouldn't even exist with any depth or complexity if it weren't for societal bonds based in spirituality and philosophy that a majority of people share.



Carl Jung said:


> Were it not a fact of experience that supreme values reside in the soul, psychology would not interest me in the least, for the soul would then be nothing but a miserable vapor.


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.ascensiongateway.com/quotes/carl-jung/index.htm[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## Tym (Dec 13, 2010)

Rascality Afoot said:


> It's a tricky issue. I would hardly consider the judaeo-christian religions (thats including islam) to be realistic posibilities. We can trace their histories and observe the frequency with which the "holy" books were changed to meet political and social controllers needs. I do see a very real possibility that we have been created by something. Saying that anybody with our current perspective could conceive of how we came to be is just silly. Maybe in a thousand years we can be within sight of that knowledge, as long as the flying spaghetti monster and Cthulu don't harvest our proteins before then...


I freely admit that a creator is possible. But so is Russel's Teapot, the flying spaghetti monster and the magical pink unicorn.. Along with everything else anyone has ever made up.
But why bother trying to tout them as fact?


----------



## Tym (Dec 13, 2010)

TaoWolf said:


> I'll bite, but this is a disingenuous one-sided topic...
> 
> There are stupid people. And there are intelligent people. But spirituality and belief systems have been a part of mankind throughout it's history and spiritual belief has never been a litmus test for being either stupid or intelligent. To be completely rational about the topic would be to recognize that a majority of the greatest and most influential people in history (even in the specific realms of philosophy, government, and science)... had spiritual beliefs - including Abrahamic-based beliefs.
> 
> People like Ghandi, Einstein, Confucius, Carl Jung, Newton, Malcom X, Sitting Bull, etc. were neither stupid nor irrational in their thinking while being spiritual and even being driven by their spiritual belief in daily life. Society (and even peer-reviewed and honest scientific thought) wouldn't even exist with any depth or complexity if it weren't for societal bonds based in spirituality and philosophy that a majority of people share.


You are right, being religious in no way makes people stupid. What does make people stupid is making claims about reality as if they were proven fact, and refusing to even question the validity of the claims for themselves. When someone points out the glaring contradictions, lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary, the person refuses to even listen to reason, refuses to use the same logic they use every day to discern the difference between reality and fiction, and chooses to remain ignorant.

These days, the majority of great minds do not believe in those things. It was so prevalent back then cause you faced death to claim otherwise. Slavery also used to be prevalent back then, that doesn't make it right. I know you know that, but I just had to point that out for those who may have lots the point.

Cognitive dissonance is prevalent in the rest, they are intelligent, logical and rational, except when it comes to matters of religion or spirituality. This can be proven by the inability for them to provide evidence and logical, rational, intelligent justification for the matter in question. This is why most intelligent people with spiritual and religious beliefs do not argue them.


----------



## TaoWolf (Dec 13, 2010)

Tym said:


> What does make people stupid is making claims about reality as if they were proven fact, and refusing to even question the validity of the claims for themselves. When someone points out the glaring contradictions, lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary, the person refuses to even listen to reason, refuses to use the same logic they use every day to discern the difference between reality and fiction, and chooses to remain ignorant.


Sure, that's called being closed-minded. But being closed-minded is not unique to people who are spiritual. Claiming otherwise is nothing more than a shallow exercise in stereotyping people of any specific certain group. Martin Luther, Ghandi, and Jesus (the historical person) would be good historical examples of prominent religious people who put their lives on the line while questioning beliefs, governments, and institutions. Hardly closed-minded.



Tym said:


> These days, the majority of great minds do not believe in those things. It was so prevalent back then cause you faced death to claim otherwise. Slavery also used to be prevalent back then, that doesn't make it right. I know you know that, but I just had to point that out for those who may have lots the point.
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is prevalent in the rest, they are intelligent, logical and rational, except when it comes to matters of religion or spirituality. This can be proven by the inability for them to provide evidence and logical, rational, intelligent justification for the matter in question. This is why most intelligent people with spiritual and religious beliefs do not argue them.


You are making a circular argument because it *cannot* be proven that spirituality is always or mostly equivalent to cognitive dissonance. That's simply an opinion and not fact or being truly rational. =P Again, not everyone that is spiritual displays any more or any less cognitive dissonance than anyone else and it is easy to provide factual examples that show spirituality does not always equate to cognitive dissonance (like your term by the way). Science and other trappings of modern society are based in the philosophy, art, religion, ethics, and personal codes of behavior that come from spirituality. Claiming spirituality is a sign of cognitive dissonance that modern man has, or must, overcome through or by 'science' is about as futile and pointless as expressing the freedom of expression by burning a symbol of freedom of expression.


----------



## tardis (Dec 13, 2010)

Tym said:


> There seems to be a meme going around that there is proof and evidence of ID (intelligent design) or a creator. Usually if you can get them to admit it, it happens to be the god they believe in. The god in question almost always ends up being the christian god, and depending on who you talk to, the god with the same name is usually never the same god for any two believers.
> 
> In the hope that I can possibly reach some rational free thinking intelligent people, who have an interest in what is actually true, and what is rationally justified, I am posting this thread in which I will link to some of my fellow youtube atheists videos, and maybe even one or two of my own, I obviously won't tell you what ones are mine, but if you figure it out please, keep it to yourself. Thanks..
> 
> ...


OK, i'm going to throw this change in my pocket up in the air.


Ok it landed on the table, and the ones with heads are 3 quarters 2 nickles and 1 dime.

See because those three are head must mean that this was meant to be, i mean look at the facts in front of your eyes, the larger the size the more heads up there are, so that is a pattern which must mean there was a plan and it happens for a reason.


That is why we laugh at creationists....


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 13, 2010)

[video=youtube;KnJX68ELbAY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=&p=126AFB53A6F002CC&index=0&playnext=1[/video]


----------



## Tym (Dec 13, 2010)

TaoWolf said:


> Sure, that's called being closed-minded. But being closed-minded is not unique to people who are spiritual. Claiming otherwise is nothing more than a shallow exercise in stereotyping people of any specific certain group. Martin Luther, Ghandi, and Jesus (the historical person) would be good historical examples of prominent religious people who put their lives on the line while questioning beliefs, governments, and institutions. Hardly closed-minded.
> 
> 
> 
> You are making a circular argument because it *cannot* be proven that spirituality is always or mostly equivalent to cognitive dissonance. That's simply an opinion and not fact or being truly rational. =P Again, not everyone that is spiritual displays any more or any less cognitive dissonance than anyone else and it is easy to provide factual examples that show spirituality does not always equate to cognitive dissonance (like your term by the way). Science and other trappings of modern society are based in the philosophy, art, religion, ethics, and personal codes of behavior that come from spirituality. Claiming spirituality is a sign of cognitive dissonance that modern man has, or must, overcome through or by 'science' is about as futile and pointless as expressing the freedom of expression by burning a symbol of freedom of expression.


No, that's not being closed minded. That is being a fucking idiot. If you make a claim in a public forum, then refuse to defend it, provide evidence for it's validity and reject all criticism, you are being stupid.
I never said it was exclusive to religion did I? No stop trying to strawman me. I said no such thing. Please try to refute what I actually said. 

Again, where did I say that cognitive dissonance was exclusive to spirituality? Oh yeah that's right, I didn't. Again please do not strawman my argument, please address the things I actually said.
This is not a circular argument, the terminator is right about... oh yeah, here "This is why most intelligent people with spiritual and religious beliefs do not argue them." Oh and also here "Cognitive dissonance is prevalent in the rest". Prevalent, not all, just most.. 

*Circular reasoning* is a type of logical fallacy in which the "proof" of a statement ultimately depends on assuming the truth of the statement itself.
Where did my proof depend on assuming the truth of the statement?
They have an inability to provide evidence and a logical, rational, intelligent justification. Refute that, please.

You are making a claim that you cannot support. "Science and other trappings of modern society are based in the philosophy, art, religion, ethics, and personal codes of behavior that come from spirituality." How can you expect to defend that? What evidence do you have to support such a extraordinary claim?


----------



## TaoWolf (Dec 13, 2010)

Tym said:


> No, that's not being closed minded. That is being a fucking idiot.


Rebelling against a self-serving religious establishment is being a fucking idiot? Rebelling against foreign military occupation is being a fucking idiot? Or what specifically about those people do you consider being idiotic?



Tym said:


> If you make a claim in a public forum, then refuse to defend it, provide evidence for it's validity and reject all criticism, you are being stupid.


I don't know which claim you challenged me about and are referring to (I've only made two posts - only one in response to you directly).



Tym said:


> I never said it was exclusive to religion did I? No stop trying to strawman me. I said no such thing. Please try to refute what I actually said.


My apologies, I assumed you brought it up along the lines of the thread topic. No intent to strawman or personally attack you to the point of making you angry at all. 



Tym said:


> This is not a circular argument, the terminator is right about... oh yeah, here "This is why most intelligent people with spiritual and religious beliefs do not argue them." Oh and also here "Cognitive dissonance is prevalent in the rest". Prevalent, not all, just most..


I'd like to respond but since this is now clearly considered a strawman argument by _both of us_, let's just drop it at this point.



Tym said:


> *Circular reasoning* is a type of logical fallacy in which the "proof" of a statement ultimately depends on assuming the truth of the statement itself.
> Where did my proof depend on assuming the truth of the statement?
> They have an inability to provide evidence and a logical, rational, intelligent justification. Refute that, please.





Tym said:


> You are making a claim that you cannot support. "Science and other trappings of modern society are based in the philosophy, art, religion, ethics, and personal codes of behavior that come from spirituality." How can you expect to defend that? What evidence do you have to support such a extraordinary claim?


 On the contrary, it is an easy claim to support: The rise of civilizations which could eventually produce philosophies, arts, and different hard sciences all revolves around intertwining organizational governments, religions, shared morality, and preserved culture and knowledge among groups of people living in societies... well, ever since humanity began. Science itself came about from a combination of both art and philosophy and questioning the world around us: Leonardo di Vinci would be the poster-child of the roots of modern science by applying those concepts of questioning the world, using art and ideas and creating some amazingly practical new knowledge and ideas that were ahead of any other thought at the time - he's not the only example or an exception, just a good one. 

The at-one-time standard four-year degree at colleges and universities, a Bachelor of Arts, used to ensure that everyone receiving a complete higher education was aware of all those concepts that you find to be such an extraordinary claim. Obviously it's no longer the case as most people attending college do so to just get training for a career and B.A. degrees (or any humanities type degrees) are becoming rare... but the moral of the story is, take at least one general humanities or religious studies class sometime at least and you wouldn't be claiming it's such an outrageous concept.


----------



## Tym (Dec 13, 2010)

TaoWolf said:


> Rebelling against a self-serving religious establishment is being a fucking idiot? Rebelling against foreign military occupation is being a fucking idiot? Or what specifically about those people do you consider being idiotic?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, you are so lost it's not even funny... I have to go to work so this will be quick.
Read what I said again, you are way out of the loop. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about people who make claims then refuse to back them up with evidence. And people who refuse to listen to reason when valid counter evidence is presented. You really have to re read the conversation.. You are lost..

You may consider it a strawman on my part, but you would be wrong since I am not arguing a point you never made.. You were..

And finally your last statement, How does that prove anything spiritual? You say "Science and other trappings of modern society are based in the philosophy, art, religion, ethics, and personal codes of behavior that come from spirituality." How can you prove that? How can you prove we derive these things from anything spiritual? You would first have to show me that spirituality is something other than physical.. The colloquial definition of spiritual means something outside the physical realm.. Please show me how this is possible..


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 13, 2010)

For what it's worth. Some good discussion about religion, including some points on how religion has influenced culture, behavior, decisions, ect. These are audio podcasts.

*God's Brain*
Lionel Tiger, Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University, talks about how religion takes place in brains, and not just in churches, temples and mosques. He explains how the brain created religion, and how religion feeds the brain. He relates his own experiences of religion, as a skeptic. He contrasts his approach to the scientific study of religion with that of the New Atheists, such as Richard Dawkins. He describes how feelings of connection resulting from religion are a function of neurochemistry, and how churches are &#8220;serotonin factories.&#8221; He talks about why interest in human sexuality is so often intertwined with religious pursuits. And he explores why secular institutions may fail to inspire commitment as compared to religion.

*Supernormal Stimuli*
Deirdre Barrett talks about supernormal stimuli, which are exaggerated versions of natural stimuli to which there are existing instinctual responses. She discusses how our evolved instincts are overwhelmed by technological advances and other facets of modern society. She explores how pornography, unhealthy diets, and even the quest for nuclear energy as opposed to wind or solar energy are supernormal stimuli. And she explains how undue credulity in the supernatural and the paranormal may be a function of our natural instincts to believe becoming overrun by supernormal stimuli.

*Why Believe?*
Bruce M. Hood discusses why so many people believe in the supernatural despite the lack of evidence, explaining that it may have something to do with how our brains are wired. He draws a distinction between religious supernatural beliefs, which are culturally determined, and more universal secular supernatural beliefs such as mind-body dualism and causality. He explains how such magical thinking may be socially advantageous and how even skeptics engage in supersense thinking. He also warns against the unscrupulous individuals who take advantage of what is a natural disposition in the majority of people.


----------



## TaoWolf (Dec 13, 2010)

Tym said:


> Wow, you are so lost it's not even funny... I have to go to work so this will be quick.
> Read what I said again, you are way out of the loop. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about people who make claims then refuse to back them up with evidence. And people who refuse to listen to reason when valid counter evidence is presented. You really have to re read the conversation.. You are lost..
> 
> You may consider it a strawman on my part, but you would be wrong since I am not arguing a point you never made.. You were..
> ...


I have been trying to point out evidence about the spiritual and the real impact it has on mankind, society, and science specifically. Spirituality 'exists' even if you disagree with it or have an opinion about it in any form: 

Spirituality exist in individual thoughts that are translated into action or behavior. I can't physically prove anyone's thoughts as they aren't directly physically provable even though we know thoughts "exist" (or at least if you go for the _I think, therefor I am_ line of philosophy), so instead I'm providing examples of the behaviors and actions of people associated with spiritual thinking that existed... and how that has impacted the history of mankind into the present, that which is expressed in art by individuals, and what our current ideals of morality and ethics in society are as a result of spirituality (which comprises our modern concepts of law and justice in a functional legal system). It's along the same lines of symbols; symbols mean nothing without a shared sense of meaning inside of a culture.

People aren't born with any specific sense of morality or understanding of law and ethics and they didn't come to be by chance, it is learned through the culture (which is comprised of philosophy, art, religion, law, etc...) that people must exist within and have to function as a part of. At least according to scientists in the fields of sociology, psychology, and anthropology. Different people, different cultures, different governments, different laws and different senses of morality and ethics that are instilled within people. There are entire fields of science devoted to studying how and why it is not only possible but how important it has been and continues to be to mankind. Take it up with scientists in those fields if you are skeptical - there are years upon years of research and study available for you to delve into personally if you want. Otherwise we'll just dismiss 'spirituality' as unprovable, not real, and of no consequence and move on - I get what you are saying.

_Guns, Germs, and Steel by _Jared Diamond (physiology and geography professor @ UCLA) goes over the concept well in layman's terms and is a good read to get an idea of what has gone on over the past 13,000 years in the history of mankind that resulted in modern spirituality, art, science, and philosophy. 

In direct response to first having to "show you that spirituality is something other than physical"... that is the claim that spiritual people exercise whenever they think spiritual thoughts - however they personally define spiritual. And I'm not interested in arguing semantics over the world 'spiritual' because it varies from individual to individual and culture to culture. We can agree or disagree as you see about this as well. No offense meant.

But on the contrary, science does not exist only within the realm of provable physical laws and facts, and instead goes heavily into physically unprovable theories. So what's the point in discussing what is 'physical' or not? The most fascinating aspects of science (to me) lay in quantum mechanics where the physical laws we have defined and tried to prove as 'fact' simply do not apply and are currently inexplicable outside of new theories that are continuously proven wrong (like E=mc2). And according to even rational, scientific principles like Heisenberg's, we'll never likely be able to directly "see" or prove what reality truly is at the most basic levels of our existence where 'physical' or 'physical laws' have no meaning and everything we thought was proven 'fact' is wrong. 

A lot like any scientific theory stating that _time_ and _space_ began at a certain place at a certain time... _in 'time' and 'space'_. How can time even 'begin' at all? How can matter and a physical universe come from nothingness when matter cannot be created nor destroyed? Even die-hard atheist scientists, like Steven Hawking can admit to the glaring paradoxes scientific theories themselves create and appreciate the limits of scientific knowledge. Read _A Brief History of Time_ by Hawking if you ever get a chance and haven't already. It will blow your mind - presented in a way that doesn't require knowing a lot of mathematics to understand the principles of existence.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 13, 2010)

TaoWolf said:


> I have been trying to point out evidence about the spiritual and the real impact it has on mankind, society, and science specifically. Spirituality 'exists' even if you disagree with it or have an opinion about it in any form:


Yet you later state that spirituality cannot be conveniently defined ("And I'm not interested in arguing semantics over the world 'spiritual' because it varies from individual to individual and culture to culture. ") If that's true than the term is meaningless. 





> But on the contrary, science does not exist only within the realm of provable physical laws and facts, and instead goes heavily into physically unprovable theories. So what's the point in discussing what is 'physical' or not? The most fascinating aspects of science (to me) lay in quantum mechanics where the physical laws we have defined and tried to prove as 'fact' simply do not apply and are currently inexplicable outside of new theories that are continuously proven wrong (like E=mc2). And according to even rational, scientific principles like Heisenberg's, we'll never likely be able to directly "see" or prove what reality truly is at the most basic levels of our existence where 'physical' or 'physical laws' have no meaning and everything we thought was proven 'fact' is wrong.


 You have a severe misunderstanding of what science is. Science never attempts to prove anything. It can only disprove things. Yes it does only deal within the realm of the physical and observable. Science uses methodological materialism. We restrict ourselves to natural causes. The essence of science is testing our ideas against the natural world. If something cannot be tested, it is not science. The quantum world does follow certain laws of nature that are repeatable and testable because the quantum world exists within nature and has a measurable effect when we look. Everything is science is ultimately falsifiable, otherwise it wouldn't be science. 



> A lot like any scientific theory stating that _time_ and _space_ began at a certain place at a certain time... _in 'time' and 'space'_. How can time even 'begin' at all? How can matter and a physical universe come from nothingness when matter cannot be created nor destroyed? Even die-hard atheist scientists, like Steven Hawking can admit to the glaring paradoxes scientific theories themselves create and appreciate the limits of scientific knowledge. Read _A Brief History of Time_ by Hawking if you ever get a chance and haven't already. It will blow your mind - presented in a way that doesn't require knowing a lot of mathematics to understand the principles of existence


No one claims that time and space began at any one point. You again are misrepresenting what science claims. No one has claimed that everything came from nothing. The only thing that cosmologists say is that time and space are meaningless when all of spacetime is condensed into a hot, dense, singularity. The physical forces as we know today didn't even exist then and even attempting to say "how long" a singularity existed is meaningless when there is nothing available to usefully measure spacetime. It's like asking what is outside of the boundary of the universe? It is a meaningless question. Paradoxes do not make a theory invalid. Paradoxes only point out that certain areas we have a less than complete understanding.


----------



## DaLeftHandMan (Dec 13, 2010)

lol. wow. your full of yourself aye?

What if theres no such thing as a God? would it make you feel better to know that this is all there is to your pathetic existance?...70+ possible years of consciousness then nothingness..an endless void of...what? 

What would science prove, by disproving creationism? what can science prove that doesnt happen when you die? does your spirit NOT leave your body...? is your ethirial essence not displaced into a permiable layer of consciousness that allows for movement thru fields of electrical impulses and energy, much like the protoplasm found in the brain? oops..got scientific there for a sec. but your probably not familiar with the more rational free thinking intelligent scientists out there. lol

What if "GOD" was just another lie, told to the populous, to pacify and control? to generate more revenue and create a sub-structure of life that would facilitate and manipulate peoples faith and beliefs? could you (the OP) think that freely? or reply as rationally as your requiring others here? 

just some random processes i riffled off before i head to my buddies for a smoke session. 

so theres your free thinking (nothing free is rational)...your going to have to challenge me a little bit more to get to MY intellectual level.


----------



## Tym (Dec 13, 2010)

DaLeftHandMan said:


> lol. wow. your full of yourself aye?
> 
> What if theres no such thing as a God? would it make you feel better to know that this is all there is to your pathetic existance?...70+ possible years of consciousness then nothingness..an endless void of...what?
> 
> ...


I was going to reply to taowolf, but mindphuck did an excellent job as usual! So I'll reply to you DaLeftHandMan

How am I full of myself? Ad hominem attacks are the realm of the incompetent. If you have any valid grievances please state them.

What if there is no such thing as the flying spaghetti monster? Would it make you feel better to know that you don't get beer volcanoes and stripper factories after you die?
Yes, that is exactly it, nothing.. No endless void, nothing, non existence.. To quote the late and great Mark twain: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

Science is our best way (and only true way) to make sense of reality. If it is not testable, it is not provable. Why would you believe something that can't be proven? Until you can define and test ideas like "a soul" or "a spirit" it's not even worth trying to make sense of them.. It's just mental masturbation. You may want to spend your time and waste your intellect thinking about things that don't exist, but us "scientific" types think it's a waste of time. 

"is your ethirial essence not displaced into a permiable layer of consciousness that allows for movement thru fields of electrical impulses and energy, much like the protoplasm found in the brain? oops..got scientific there for a sec." Lol, this is what happens when you spend your time thinking about things that don't exist. It allows you to make ignorant statements like this one. Sorry dude, that is not scientific. Thanks though, cause I got a good laugh out of it..

What if god was a chunk of corn I just shat out in the toilet? I'm sorry I don't spend my time on what if's. I spend my time on things that manifest in the physical realm. Show me some evidence for something, point to something physical that I can test.

Wow, another inane statement, If I was ever at your "intellectual" level, I would lose my job. You can't spell worth a shit, you don't use proper sentence structure, and you display a horrible lack of knowledge of anything relevant to the subject. You have no understanding of science let alone the scientific method. You have poor standards of evidence, and you can't relay meaningful, intelligent, succinct ideas.
No sir, if I was at your "intellectual" level, I would keep my mouth shut.


----------



## Japanfreak (Dec 14, 2010)

Holy shit, like watching babies roll around in mudd with huge smiles on themselves.


----------



## Tym (Dec 14, 2010)

It sure is, when people have nothing to add to the conversation but they just have to come in and try to act like you're above it all..

Yeah, we get it. You're to good for such conversations. We are beneath you and your time is better spent somewhere else.. Thanks for your wise and insightful contribution.


----------



## Japanfreak (Dec 14, 2010)

Like you have anything to add. How the fuck old are you? Keep on linking other people's ideas and maybe one day you might have an original one.


----------



## Tym (Dec 14, 2010)

Japanfreak said:


> Like you have anything to add. How the fuck old are you? Keep on linking other people's ideas and maybe one day you might have an original one.


Again, thanks for the wise insightful comment. It's good to know you can read 2 pages of posts and deduce that I had not one original thought the entire time. I obviously went to another site where people used the exact same criticisms that I received here, copied the response of a better educated person word for word and pasted them here. Quite incredible how the exact same wording and argument has been used before, every time. Even this one is a copy and past of someones previous work.

The intelligence of a man such as yourself is surely just wasted here. Your ability to spew out rapid fire ad hominem attacks against strawmen all while not saying anything conducive to the conversation is unparalleled. The intelligence it must take to personally attack people without prior provocation and refusing to provide logical explanations for the childish claims you make all while saying nothing meaningful, is surely greater than anything we could ever accomplish here. 

We are humbled by your gracious insight, thank you for everything you contributed.


----------



## Japanfreak (Dec 14, 2010)

You're very welcome


----------



## Tym (Dec 14, 2010)

[video=youtube;JaXSp8fft1E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaXSp8fft1E[/video]


----------



## Tym (Dec 14, 2010)

[video=youtube;bDe0W_vJgDA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDe0W_vJgDA[/video]


----------



## Tym (Dec 14, 2010)

[video=youtube;qahB7mYhLxs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahB7mYhLxs[/video]


----------



## Brazko (Dec 14, 2010)

I laugh at creationist for the same reason I laugh at Atheist.. They always try to generalize then double talk their points even though it has nothing to do with what the other has stated. And that's not intelligent, thats fucking stoopid...that's why I laugh . Intelligence has nothing to do with how much information one contains, but their ability to understand and apply it.... 


*I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research. A Fearful Scientist*


----------



## guy incognito (Dec 14, 2010)

Brazko said:


> I laugh at creationist for the same reason I laugh at Atheist.. They always try to generalize then double talk their points even though it has nothing to do with what the other has stated. And that's not intelligent, thats fucking stoopid...that's why I laugh . Intelligence has nothing to do with how much information one contains, but their ability to understand and apply it....
> 
> 
> *I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research. A Fearful Scientist*


Creationist inherently have an inability to understand and apply intelligence. Otherwise they wouldn't be creationist. 

It what ways do atheists "always try to generalize then double talk their points"?


----------



## Brazko (Dec 14, 2010)

Like this....



guy incognito said:


> Creationist inherently have an inability to understand and apply intelligence. Otherwise they wouldn't be creationist."?


And more to the point the term creationist although defined, varies and is broaden to enclose a certain discription of a persons character of thought. And because of this I don't know what a creationist is only the person's train of thought and thinking of who I'm conversing with. So the people you may deem as creationist, does not apply to my opinion and judgement of them lacking the ability to understand and apply intelligence and in the same breath may not even be a creationist in my sight. 



guy incognito said:


> It what ways do atheists "always try to generalize then double talk their points"?


Although I could point out throughout this thread of double talk and generalization it's not my place to point out anothers debate of which I'm not apart of unless invited. But if you would like to invite me to point out some of yours, I'll try to give you an example.


----------



## guy incognito (Dec 14, 2010)

Brazko said:


> Like this....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not so sure your english is making sense. The definition of creationist varies? Are you saying I may judge someone to be a creationist where as you may not? That doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Brazko (Dec 14, 2010)

What part of my enlglish don't make sinse.... I clearly said it was defined but varies / broaden to interpretation....

You see....Double Talk

If you state to me this person's particular beliefs and they fall in the licit definition of creationist... I can say yes they are creationists. However, people broaden and vary the term to encompass all that they deem to be creationist methology thinking therefore deemed a creationist. And that still does not conform to the general concept you have chosen to give that they are inable to understand or apply intelligence.

But let me correct my enlish and place a comma behind defined if that helpls you to compute better..



guy incognito said:


> I'm not so sure your english is making sense. The definition of creationist varies? Are you saying I may judge someone to be a creationist where as you may not? That doesn't make any sense.


----------



## DaLeftHandMan (Dec 14, 2010)

Tym said:


> I was going to reply to taowolf, but mindphuck did an excellent job as usual! So I'll reply to you DaLeftHandMan
> 
> How am I full of myself? Ad hominem attacks are the realm of the incompetent. If you have any valid grievances please state them.
> 
> ...


lol..THIS is why your full of yourself. if you actually read your own words and understood how you used them, youd see what a fool you are. Your grasp of science is meager at best, an online thesaurus wont make you sound smart btw.  

show me something science has disproven? my request is simple for someone of your obvious magnitude in insight and scientific knowledge. science is whatever you find as fact, but whos science do you believe?! your own? some guys research you read? what if hes just as fractured, jaded and closed minded as you? history, is something we learn about, but thats only because we observe what others TOLD us was their experiences.does THAT make those experiences fact because we read them? no.

my words stay simple and poinient. i wont get pulled into an intellectual fight with someone who is CLEARLY..unarmed. 

peace brother.


----------



## Draco Malfoy (Dec 14, 2010)

beardo said:


> Athiests go to hell


Dumbest post ever.


----------



## Brazko (Dec 14, 2010)

my bad double post



Brazko said:


> I laugh at creationist for the same reason I laugh at Atheist.. They always try to generalize then double talk their points even though it has nothing to do with what the other has stated. And that's not intelligent, thats fucking stoopid...that's why I laugh . Intelligence has nothing to do with how much information one contains, but their ability to understand and apply it....
> 
> 
> *I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research. A Fearful Scientist*


----------



## Draco Malfoy (Dec 14, 2010)

Brazko said:


> What part of my enlglish don't make sinse....


That part, it is correct english grammer to use doesn't, instead of dont, in that sentence.

also sense is spelled as so, not sinse.


----------



## Brazko (Dec 14, 2010)

, I know you are being sincere...... but shhhhhhhhhh I know 





Draco Malfoy said:


> That part, it is correct english grammer to use doesn't, instead of dont, in that sentence.
> 
> also sense is spelled as so, not sinse.


----------



## Draco Malfoy (Dec 14, 2010)

Brazko said:


> , I know you are being sincere...... but shhhhhhhhhh I know


Ok, but mabey next time you post a question asking about how shitty your english is, you should make sure your english is completely correct.


----------



## Brazko (Dec 14, 2010)

I apologize for you not being able to understand and grasp with intellect the sarcasm... 

Get your swag up and stop fucking with broomsticks...



Draco Malfoy said:


> Ok, but mabey next time you post a question asking about how shitty your english is, you should make sure your english is completely correct.


----------



## Draco Malfoy (Dec 14, 2010)

Brazko said:


> I apologize for you not being able to understand and grasp with intellect the sarcasm...
> 
> Get your swag up and stop fucking with broomsticks...


I still dont understand you. (Put Your Helmet On) so im going to stop trying to.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Dec 14, 2010)

DaLeftHandMan said:


> show me something science has disproven?


Geocentrism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentrism

Demons/Evil Spirits cause disease - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease

The Earth is older than 6,000 years - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology

..there are three examples.



DaLeftHandMan said:


> science is whatever you find as fact, but whos science do you believe?! your own? some guys research you read? what if hes just as fractured, jaded and closed minded as you?


Hence the importance of the *scientific method*. It doesn't mater who does what, all that matters is that the scientific method is followed so that any other scientists hundreds or thousands of years later can recreate the exact same experiment and record the exact same measurements and come to the exact same conclusions. THAT is what makes science so useful. THAT is why in a million years, if humans are still around, they will still remember the name Isaac Newton. If some scientist has a bias working towards some preconceived conclusion, another scientist who comes along later and performs the same experiment will get different results. That is what makes real science so strong, the same experiments happen all the time with consistent results, reproducible results, predictable results.


----------



## guy incognito (Dec 14, 2010)

Brazko said:


> What part of my enlglish don't make sinse.... I clearly said it was defined but varies / broaden to interpretation....
> 
> You see....Double Talk
> 
> ...


You did not clearly say anything. You said "the term creationist although defined varies and is broaden to enclose a certain discription of a persons character of thought." I _think_ I know what you mean, but just to clarify, when I say creationist I mean a person who believes in a literal supernatural intervention that created life. More specifically in post #34 I mean a person who believes humans were created as is (rather than having evolved from the first organism ever) by god or some kind of designer. The only one who thinks someone with "creationist methodology" (whatever that means) will be defined as a creationist while simultaneously NOT believing in a literal creation is YOU.

Those people absolutely have "an inability to understand and apply intelligence". They do by the very definition (as provided above) of being a creationist. How they get to their conclusion without the slightest bit of evidence is beyond me.


----------



## TaoWolf (Dec 14, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> Yet you later state that spirituality cannot be conveniently defined ("And I'm not interested in arguing semantics over the world 'spiritual' because it varies from individual to individual and culture to culture. ") If that's true than the term is meaningless.


Your _opinion_ is it's meaningless. The fields of Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, and History all recognize it not only as existing but as being fundamentally important to mankind's history and society. Take it up with scientists in those fields if you want to argue your opinion with someone. Besides that, is it not meaningless to individuals as is evident in religion, art and architecture. You are using fuzzy logic to arrive at the conclusion that the term is meaningless.



mindphuk said:


> You have a severe misunderstanding of what science is. Science never attempts to prove anything. It can only disprove things. Yes it does only deal within the realm of the physical and observable. Science uses methodological materialism. We restrict ourselves to natural causes. The essence of science is testing our ideas against the natural world. If something cannot be tested, it is not science. The quantum world does follow certain laws of nature that are repeatable and testable because the quantum world exists within nature and has a measurable effect when we look. Everything is science is ultimately falsifiable, otherwise it wouldn't be science.


We are in agreement about science not being able to prove anything physically and beyond all doubt (we both disagree with what Tym stated). Hence why I stated 'science does not exist only within the realm of provable physical laws and facts, and instead goes heavily into physically unprovable theories.' As far as the rest of what you stated, put that into context of what Heisenberg and Planck claim in regards to the quantum universe and you'd better understand what the rest of my point is/was and that we are not in disagreement. Or include what Einstein put forth with theories of relativity. Science does not equal right/wrong, physical/non-physical, yes/no. Science even recognizes the limits of observing the universe around us, let alone our ability to test it or predict it accurately. Even according to Einstein's scientific theory of relativity (if you disagree with Heisenberg and Planck), the heart of everything we observe and measure is all subjective and limited in meaning to only that which the observer can observe. 



mindphuk said:


> No one claims that time and space began at any one point. You again are misrepresenting what science claims. No one has claimed that everything came from nothing. The only thing that cosmologists say is that time and space are meaningless when all of spacetime is condensed into a hot, dense, singularity. The physical forces as we know today didn't even exist then and even attempting to say "how long" a singularity existed is meaningless when there is nothing available to usefully measure spacetime. It's like asking what is outside of the boundary of the universe? It is a meaningless question. Paradoxes do not make a theory invalid. Paradoxes only point out that certain areas we have a less than complete understanding.


We are still in agreement. Especially in regards to relativity, I'm in complete agreement... Which is why I find topics pitting science against spiritualism in general, or creationism in particular, to be disingenuous and circular. And more often than not are just insincere exercises in stereotyping a group of people at an emotional level.


----------



## Brazko (Dec 14, 2010)

Ok, do you believe the term Atheist gets misrepresented although it is clearly defined? Well, believe it or not the term Creationist gets used the same way, sorry to break it to you but it does happen.... Please don't hide behind ignorance for the sake of arguement.. 

As you have defined it, I would say that person would be a creationist... 

And those people do have the ability to understand and apply intelligence. To sit and explain every predicament that person may have obstructing their growth is one thing, to say they are incable of understanding and intelligence is another.





guy incognito said:


> You did not clearly say anything. You said "the term creationist although defined varies and is broaden to enclose a certain discription of a persons character of thought." I _think_ I know what you mean, but just to clarify, when I say creationist I mean a person who believes in a literal supernatural intervention that created life. More specifically in post #34 I mean a person who believes humans were created as is (rather than having evolved from the first organism ever) by god or some kind of designer. The only one who thinks someone with "creationist methodology" (whatever that means) will be defined as a creationist while simultaneously NOT believing in a literal creation is YOU.
> 
> Those people absolutely have "an inability to understand and apply intelligence". They do by the very definition (as provided above) of being a creationist. How they get to their conclusion without the slightest bit of evidence is beyond me.


----------



## Tym (Dec 14, 2010)

DaLeftHandMan said:


> lol..THIS is why your full of yourself. if you actually read your own words and understood how you used them, youd see what a fool you are. Your grasp of science is meager at best, an online thesaurus wont make you sound smart btw.
> 
> show me something science has disproven? my request is simple for someone of your obvious magnitude in insight and scientific knowledge. science is whatever you find as fact, but whos science do you believe?! your own? some guys research you read? what if hes just as fractured, jaded and closed minded as you? history, is something we learn about, but thats only because we observe what others TOLD us was their experiences.does THAT make those experiences fact because we read them? no.
> 
> ...


ROTFLMAO dude. I don't need an online thesaurus, I have an education, I use this terminology in my career every day. In fact, I have to consciously "dumb down" (a term we jokingly use in the lab) my vocabulary when posting in forums and when dealing with the public. It would be impossible for me to communicate coherently any other way.

Where did I say science has disproved anything? Even if I had, it would be simple for me to do so.. The earth is round, not flat. The earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. These and MANY other claims have been disproved by science. You are correct, that question is simple, even for someone with little to no understanding of science. I can give you so many more examples, but I'm sure you can think of your own. It doesn't take a rocket scientist..

One thing I can tell you don't grasp about science is that it is based on repeatable, demonstrable, empirical evidence. That is what I accept. Belief has nothing to do with it. I don't "Believe" in things. I accept them, or reject them based on the evidence provided. A claim is nothing without evidence.

Simple? Yes. poinient?? LOL, I would love for you to define that word for me.. That would be a laugh..
Intellectual fight? Why would you consider this a fight? Can't two people have a discussion without getting hostile? Who needs to be armed? I'm not here to fight.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 14, 2010)

Actually, from the standpoint of general relativity, the sun does orbit the earth.


----------



## Tym (Dec 14, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> Actually, from the standpoint of general relativity, the sun does orbit the earth.


Lol.. I wonder how many people here are even able to understand that joke


----------



## Sure Shot (Dec 14, 2010)

Tym said:


> Lol.. I wonder how many people here are even able to understand that joke


I tried, but it goes right over my head.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 15, 2010)

Tym said:


> Lol.. I wonder how many people here are even able to understand that joke


 You misunderstand. No joke. From the perspective of an Earth-centered reference frame, the Sun does indeed orbit around the Earth. In GR, all reference frames are equally valid. There is nothing particularly special about inertial reference frames in GR.


----------



## TaoWolf (Dec 15, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> Actually, from the standpoint of general relativity, the sun does orbit the earth.


Actually, the earth is traveling in a straight line through space and time according to relativity *as well*. =P


----------



## Tym (Dec 15, 2010)

TaoWolf said:


> Actually, the earth is traveling in a straight line through space and time according to relativity *as well*. =P


Hehe.. Yeah, and it's also falling into the sun.. lol. It just keeps missing it


----------



## TaoWolf (Dec 15, 2010)

Tym said:


> Hehe.. Yeah, and it's also falling into the sun.. lol. It just keeps missing it


No, it's the exact same principle of drawing a straight line (the path) on clear saran-wrap (space/time)... and then wrapping the saran-wrap around a light pole (the sun). The line is still a straight line of the same length that is traveling in the original position across the clear sheet of plastic... But from a different perspective that includes the light pole - we would see a wobbly line that goes in circles around the light pole... Looking it at as still being a straight line is correct as is it also correct to see it as a wobbly line wrapped around a light pole. Want to say it's still a straight line? Go for it. Want to say it's a wobbly line encircling a light pole? Go for it. It's all relative.


----------



## Tym (Dec 15, 2010)

TaoWolf said:


> No, it's the exact same principle of drawing a straight line (the path) on clear saran-wrap (space/time)... and then wrapping the saran-wrap around a light pole (the sun). The line is still a straight line of the same length that is traveling in the original position across the clear sheet of plastic... But from a different perspective that includes the light pole - we would see a wobbly line that goes in circles around the light pole... Looking it at as still being a straight line is correct as is it also correct to see it as a wobbly line wrapped around a light pole. Want to say it's still a straight line? Go for it. Want to say it's a wobbly line encircling a light pole? Go for it. It's all relative.


I know, it was a joke


----------



## TaoWolf (Dec 15, 2010)

Right on - I'm not meaning to be overly anal about relativity... it's just one of those basic concepts that can defy logic and make you have to literally bend your mind around corners, while at the same time being so elegantly simple and straight-forward. It's a crazy universe we live in where straight lines can be crooked lines at the same time, defy letting us look at the paths of lines without altering that path and so not be able to ever truly determine the true path... and while the definition of straight is dependent not upon the line itself but also the line relative so something else... Blows my mind to think about.


----------



## Tym (Dec 15, 2010)

TaoWolf said:


> Right on - I'm not meaning to be overly anal about relativity... it's just one of those basic concepts that can defy logic and make you have to literally bend your mind around corners, while at the same time being so elegantly simple and straight-forward. It's a crazy universe we live in where straight lines can be crooked lines at the same time, defy letting us look at the paths of lines without altering that path and so not be able to ever truly determine the true path... and while the definition of straight is dependent not upon the line itself but also the line relative so something else... Blows my mind to think about.


Yeah, that's why I love physics  Our ability to make sense of non intuitive concepts, our ability to understand alternate dimensions, space and time, wave particle duality. While still offering promises of new discoveries and so many things still waiting for explanations. We are building machines like the LHC, and WMAP, we can contrive and execute complex projects and experiments such as the QDot (quantum dot). I would say we live in a particularly special time, but I know now that science has a firm foothold (unless we do manage to destroy ourselves), the discoveries and experiments in the distant future will be far beyond anything we will ever be a part of.

Life is a trip, Who needs spirituality and religion when you have reality? Lol.


----------



## Tym (Dec 15, 2010)

[video=youtube;ee_KVA9x-GM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee_KVA9x-GM[/video]


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Dec 15, 2010)

cdk is one of my favorite youtube people, QUALITY stuff, short and to the point.


----------



## Tym (Dec 19, 2010)

[video=youtube;jciDdmIJpoY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jciDdmIJpoY&feature=related[/video]


----------



## angrygranola (Dec 19, 2010)

seriously?


----------



## xKuroiTaimax (Dec 19, 2010)

Meh, I am not particularly spiritual or open to spiritual matters besides my christianity. I'm usually the first person to shove science down the throats of the ignorant, but on this one I'm happy to settle on a compromise of the big bang theory and creationism.


----------



## Tym (Dec 19, 2010)

How could they compromise? Let me guess, the big bang happened but that's just how god did it?
That's not compromise, that's accommodation. One less gap, so the creationist takes it one step back and says god created the big bang. Completely discrediting the book of genesis, a central tenant of the religion.

If you discard any part of the book of genesis, you might as well throw it all away. Cherry picking what you want to believe out of it and throwing out the rest leaves you in contradiction with your own religion.
If the creation of of the light, the heavens and the earth is wrong, then how can you claim the rest of it valid? Creation of Adam and eve, animals, plants etc..
Then you have to throw out original sin, then why jesus? Then why hell?

Doesn't it make more sense that it's just a myth? Just a story? And not a very good one, there are contradictions all over the place, and other places where it's just out right wrong.

Atheism as a default position is the only rational default position.


----------



## guy incognito (Dec 19, 2010)




----------



## Hayduke (Dec 20, 2010)

Tym said:


> To quote the late and great Mark twain: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."


Very nice!



Tym said:


> What if god was a chunk of corn I just shat out in the toilet?


;


----------



## xKuroiTaimax (Dec 21, 2010)

Tym said:


> How could they compromise? Let me guess, the big bang happened but that's just how god did it?
> That's not compromise, that's accommodation. One less gap, so the creationist takes it one step back and says god created the big bang. Completely discrediting the book of genesis, a central tenant of the religion.
> 
> If you discard any part of the book of genesis, you might as well throw it all away. Cherry picking what you want to believe out of it and throwing out the rest leaves you in contradiction with your own religion.
> ...


Who said the beginning of Genesis was entirely literal? After all, Jesus made a point of explaining things in a way people could understand and not be intimidated by (ie. parables) so I assume God would do he same for the poor human writing an account of the beginning of the universe. The big bang itself was meant to be a very sudden thing, right? That ties in fine with the idea of God speaking the beginning of the world into existence pretty much instantly. I don't think anyone would have a good time trying to read Genesis if 90% resembled a physics textbook.

I'm not here to argue, but just saying. Oh, your avatar is adorable btw.

I totally get what you mean about the cherrypicking. There is alot of hypocrisy, hatred, lying, greed and other forms of corruption within the 'church'. That's why I prefer it's just me and my bible, I stay away from all that denominations crap because they just like bickering with eachother for the sake of it and want money. It's kind of egotistical too, because they want to be recognized as a group that's individual seeing as the name of christ isn't 'good enough' for them. And catholics... Not even going there with their murky origins. And for crying out loud where did all those 'positions' and fancy vestments come from. Really? I'm not perfect, but hey.


----------



## guy incognito (Dec 21, 2010)

xKuroiTaimax said:


> Who said the beginning of Genesis was entirely literal? After all, Jesus made a point of explaining things in a way people could understand and not be intimidated by (ie. parables) so I assume God would do he same for the poor human writing an account of the beginning of the universe. The big bang itself was meant to be a very sudden thing, right? That ties in fine with the idea of God speaking the beginning of the world into existence pretty much instantly. I don't think anyone would have a good time trying to read Genesis if 90% resembled a physics textbook.
> 
> I'm not here to argue, but just saying. Oh, your avatar is adorable btw.
> 
> I totally get what you mean about the cherrypicking. There is alot of hypocrisy, hatred, lying, greed and other forms of corruption within the 'church'. That's why I prefer it's just me and my bible, I stay away from all that denominations crap because they just like bickering with eachother for the sake of it and want money. It's kind of egotistical too, because they want to be recognized as a group that's individual seeing as the name of christ isn't 'good enough' for them. And catholics... Not even going there with their murky origins. And for crying out loud where did all those 'positions' and fancy vestments come from. Really? I'm not perfect, but hey.


How do you differentiate what is and is not literal then?


----------



## Tym (Dec 21, 2010)

xKuroiTaimax said:


> Who said the beginning of Genesis was entirely literal? After all, Jesus made a point of explaining things in a way people could understand and not be intimidated by (ie. parables) so I assume God would do he same for the poor human writing an account of the beginning of the universe. The big bang itself was meant to be a very sudden thing, right? That ties in fine with the idea of God speaking the beginning of the world into existence pretty much instantly. I don't think anyone would have a good time trying to read Genesis if 90% resembled a physics textbook.
> 
> I'm not here to argue, but just saying. Oh, your avatar is adorable btw.
> 
> I totally get what you mean about the cherrypicking. There is alot of hypocrisy, hatred, lying, greed and other forms of corruption within the 'church'. That's why I prefer it's just me and my bible, I stay away from all that denominations crap because they just like bickering with eachother for the sake of it and want money. It's kind of egotistical too, because they want to be recognized as a group that's individual seeing as the name of christ isn't 'good enough' for them. And catholics... Not even going there with their murky origins. And for crying out loud where did all those 'positions' and fancy vestments come from. Really? I'm not perfect, but hey.


Guy incognito is correct in asking "How do you differentiate what is and is not literal then". Without evidence for any of it, you are just arbitrarily choosing what is real and what is fiction. Why accept any of it as fact? If you can throw out some of it based on what you can't believe,what makes you believe the rest of it? How do you know you're right? It's just you and your bible, but your bible has all this crap in it. You choose what you believe and what you don't, that is cherry picking. If you arbitrarily choose what to believe and what not to believe, you might as well toss the entire book away..

No genesis, no adam and eve, no eve, no original sin, no original sin, no jesus, no hell, no heaven, no religion. No God.

If people want to just believe whatever they want despite the lack of evidence and having no valid way to discern fact from fiction, that's fine with me. Just keep it out of our schools, keep it out of our government and keep it away from my kids. That's all I ask.


----------



## Tym (Dec 29, 2010)

[video=youtube;g3vQnsAGaWM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3vQnsAGaWM&feature=related[/video]


----------



## H2grOw (Jan 23, 2011)

I laugh at them because their argument is always the same.


----------



## Luger187 (Jan 27, 2011)

i simply dont like the fact that they are right, and i am wrong. no matter what happens, their god is the "one true god" and they "know" they are right. it amazes me that people waste their entire lives living the lie, and never figure it out


----------



## H2grOw (Jan 27, 2011)

I agree with you there. I mean why is it that, no matter what evil you do in this life, as long as you believe as you are told and repent before you die, you get to go to heaven. But someone who lives a good and honest life without harming another, and who's only "sin" is not believing in talking snakes, virgin births, and other such fairy tales, cannot enter.


----------



## Luger187 (Jan 27, 2011)

H2grOw said:


> I agree with you there. I mean why is it that, no matter what evil you do in this life, as long as you believe as you are told and repent before you die, you get to go to heaven. But someone who lives a good and honest life without harming another, and who's only "sin" is not believing in talking snakes, virgin births, and other such fairy tales, cannot enter.


or what if someone is a complete dirtbag their entire life? treating people like shit all the time. then the day comes where hes going to die, and he begins to really believe in god. not because hes dying, but because his death made him think about what he did. just because he repented means hes granted into heaven? what about all the people he hurt and things he did?


----------



## IXOYE (Jan 27, 2011)

You cannot prove a negative. Therefore no one can prove God doesn't exist. And it's a lot easier to find evidence in support of creationism. Versus what? Darwin? I mean, that old eugenics-fool never even knew what DNA was and I'm supposed to take his views seriously? Meanwhile Holy books declared scientific facts thousands of years before their "scientific discoveries." So, who cares who's laughing? People think they're so "different" to be anti-Creator and it's more pitiful than anything. When typically people don't talk on subjects they know nothing about politics and religion seem to be the exception. Tisk.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jan 27, 2011)

IXOYE said:


> You cannot prove a negative. Therefore no one can prove God doesn't exist. And it's a lot easier to find evidence in support of creationism. Versus what? Darwin? I mean, that old eugenics-fool never even knew what DNA was and I'm supposed to take his views seriously? Meanwhile Holy books declared scientific facts thousands of years before their "scientific discoveries." So, who cares who's laughing? People think they're so "different" to be anti-Creator and it's more pitiful than anything. When typically people don't talk on subjects they know nothing about politics and religion seem to be the exception. Tisk.


Where to start...

Evidence in support of creationism? 

Present something. Anything. From where I sit, there is absolutely nothing to support creationism.

Darwin and eugenics... right. What's next, Godwins law?... (even if the man supported eugenics, it wouldn't say anything about the validity of the theory of evolution)

What scientific facts did any holy book discover that wasn't known at the time?

Your last statement is full of irony. Here you are dismissing the theory of evolution, something I'm absolutely sure you know nothing about. How am I absolutely sure you know nothing about it? Because people who understand it know why it's true and don't refute the validity of it because they can't.


----------



## crackerboy (Jan 27, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Where to start...
> what scientific facts did any holy book discover that wasn't known at the time?


ISAIAH 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,

This statement was made 2800 years ago. Far before anyone ever made any such claims. The next closest in history is [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Eratosthenes.[/SIZE][/FONT]


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 27, 2011)

crackerboy said:


> ISAIAH 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
> 
> This statement was made 2800 years ago. Far before anyone ever made any such claims. The next closest in history is [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Eratosthenes.[/SIZE][/FONT]


 If something is _above _the circle, and "He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" then it stands to reason the author of that passage envisioned a circular earth like a flat disc with the sky as a tent. You cannot sit above a sphere as there is no direction that can be considered 'up.' A sphere would make the tent simile likewise meaningless. Too bad that you cannot just accept this for nice poetry rather than somehow evidence of scientific truths. 

Let me ask if this is so clear that the meaning was a sphere, why didn't Xians recognize this prior to Galileo? Just because something is consistent with observation doesn't make it evidence for an explanation. I could describe gravity as angels pushing down on everything at a constant force. That would make it consistent with the observations on gravity but that doesn't make it an accurate explanation. 

Also, why do other passages refer to the pillars of the earth?


----------



## Luger187 (Jan 29, 2011)

IXOYE said:


> You cannot prove a negative. Therefore no one can prove God doesn't exist. And it's a lot easier to find evidence in support of creationism. Versus what? Darwin? I mean, that old eugenics-fool never even knew what DNA was and I'm supposed to take his views seriously? Meanwhile Holy books declared scientific facts thousands of years before their "scientific discoveries." So, who cares who's laughing? People think they're so "different" to be anti-Creator and it's more pitiful than anything. When typically people don't talk on subjects they know nothing about politics and religion seem to be the exception. Tisk.


this made me lol
Darwin may not have known about DNA. but im sure if he did, it would cement his belief in evolution. i dont have to prove god doesnt exit... u must prove that he DOES. the only thing anyone has to 'prove' that god exists is the bible, which doesnt offer ANY proof at all


----------



## H2grOw (Jan 29, 2011)

crackerboy said:


> ISAIAH 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
> 
> This statement was made 2800 years ago. Far before anyone ever made any such claims. The next closest in history is [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Eratosthenes.[/SIZE][/FONT]


OK, so there is proof in the bible that the earth is a sphere, yet Galileo was charged with herasy and was sentenced to life in prison. Why do this if it was stated to be so in the bible? 

And as far as your quote goes, It could also apply to an astronaut. I guess I now have proof that Neil Armstrong is God. Anyone want in on my new church?


----------



## Tym (Jan 29, 2011)

crackerboy said:


> ISAIAH 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
> 
> This statement was made 2800 years ago. Far before anyone ever made any such claims. The next closest in history is [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Eratosthenes.[/SIZE][/FONT]


Even Isaiah contradicts your assertion.

Isaiah 11:12 
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.

A circle is not a sphere.. Why didn't he say "the earth is like an apple" or something more descriptive? Why does he talk about it having corners?
Other places it talks of the earth on pillars..

The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to ancient Greek philosophy from around the 6th century BC.

A spherical earth, not a circle... Big difference. Around the same time Isaiah made his claim of the earth like a circle. Other people were saying the earth is spherical. 

I would call your argument a fail.. That and even if he said "The earth is spherical, orbits the sun, and is suspended in the vacuum of space", how would that prove a god??


----------



## del66666 (Jan 29, 2011)

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, who laughs at creationists


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jan 29, 2011)

[youtube]xEWVt6xyjLU&feature=feedu[/youtube]


----------



## txhazard (Jan 30, 2011)

You worship your sky monster and i will worship mine.


----------



## dingleberrykush (Jan 30, 2011)

IXOYE said:


> You cannot prove a negative. Therefore no one can prove God doesn't exist. And it's a lot easier to find evidence in support of creationism. Versus what? Darwin? I mean, that old eugenics-fool never even knew what DNA was and I'm supposed to take his views seriously? Meanwhile Holy books declared scientific facts thousands of years before their "scientific discoveries." So, who cares who's laughing? People think they're so "different" to be anti-Creator and it's more pitiful than anything. When typically people don't talk on subjects they know nothing about politics and religion seem to be the exception. Tisk.


Darwin would have eventually found DNA. 
Francis Crik and James Watson were original founders.
Just saying.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 31, 2011)

dingleberrykush said:


> Darwin would have eventually found DNA.
> Francis Crik and James Watson were original founders.
> Just saying.


 Actually, Crick and Watson were the first to determine the structure of DNA, not the first to discover it. 
Just saying. 

Either way, his comment was complete stupidity especially since Darwin predicted there was something biological that led to inherited traits. In fact some of the early scientific criticism to _Origin of Species _was that Darwin did not provide a mode for this inheritance. Chromosomes and DNA fill this requirement making Darwin's theory complete. DNA could be seen as a prediction of the Darwinian theory.


----------



## by the dashboard light (Jan 31, 2011)

Tym said:


> Even Isaiah contradicts your assertion.
> 
> Isaiah 11:12
> 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.
> ...


N, S, E, W...4 corners.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jan 31, 2011)

by the dashboard light said:


> N, S, E, W...4 corners.


Spheres do not have "corners". That Biblical passage failed miserably.


----------



## Tym (Jan 31, 2011)

by the dashboard light said:


> N, S, E, W...4 corners.


Polar coordinates are not corners.

Where would these corners be on a sphere?

But please, answer my last question..
Even if the earth was flat and had 4 corners, or even if the bible said "The earth is a sphere and revolves around the sun".. How would that prove there is a god?


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 31, 2011)

People laugh at the idea of creation because it is absurd, plain and simple. The initial idea is absurd, and the arguments that follow are always absurd. The conclusions supporters come to are ALWAYS based on mistakes, and the logic with which they defend the idea is, to be redundant, absurd.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jan 31, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> People laugh at the idea of creation because it is absurd, plain and simple. The initial idea is absurd, and the arguments that follow are always absurd. The conclusions supporters come to are ALWAYS based on mistakes, and the logic with which they defend the idea is, to be redundant, absurd.


So creationism is absurd?


----------



## by the dashboard light (Feb 1, 2011)

I have a question...what kind of proof would be needed to change the mind of someone who does not believe God exists.

Personaly I believe 

something (God) created something (the world)

I do not believe

Nothing (nothing) created something (the world)


----------



## guy incognito (Feb 1, 2011)

by the dashboard light said:


> I have a question...what kind of proof would be needed to change the mind of someone who does not believe God exists.
> 
> Personaly I believe
> 
> ...


I know. The idea that the world was created by nothing at all is absolutely absurd. BTW where did god come from?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 1, 2011)

by the dashboard light said:


> I have a question...what kind of proof would be needed to change the mind of someone who does not believe God exists.
> 
> Personaly I believe
> 
> ...



A god would have to break the observable laws of reality for me to believe one exists. 

Raise Abe Lincoln from the grave, that'd probably do it too.

But then again, maybe not, why invoke a "supreme being" into the resurrection of Abe Lincoln? If somebody's rising from the dead, I can't logically connect that to a god existing... which is what a lot of you guys do ALL THE TIME. 

proposition A (something like the Earth exists) happens...

then without going through steps B, C, D, - Y, you jump ALL THE WAY TO Z (God dun it)...

then proclaim something genius like "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!". 


You guys have to understand, the idea of your god existing is simply illogical and irrational and makes no goddamn sense at all when analyzed. You would come to the exact same conclusion too with a little honest criticism... 


I have a question...what kind of proof would be needed to change the mind of someone who does not believe Zeus (Allah, Thor, etc.) exists.


----------



## by the dashboard light (Feb 1, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I know. The idea that the world was created by nothing at all is absolutely absurd. BTW where did god come from?


Well if we are created by God (infinite being, no begining no end) We, His creation (finite being, having a earthly beginning and end), would have no way of comprehending or understanding how He could always have existed. 
I would have to be God to be able to tell you where He came from and I am not, and even if I knew and could tell you you could not understand, but it is not necessary that I know where He came from just like you live on earth and it is not necessary that you know where it came from.


----------



## by the dashboard light (Feb 1, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> A god would have to break the observable laws of reality for me to believe one exists.
> 
> Raise Abe Lincoln from the grave, that'd probably do it too.
> 
> ...


What if Abe claimed to have the power of life over death and raised himself up from the dead, would that be enough?


----------



## guy incognito (Feb 1, 2011)

by the dashboard light said:


> Well if we are created by God (infinite being, no begining no end) We, His creation (finite being, having a earthly beginning and end), would have no way of comprehending or understanding how He could always have always existed.
> I would have to be God to be able to tell you where He came from and I am not, and even if I knew and could tell you you could not understand, but it is not necessary that I know where He came from just like you live on earth and it is not necessary that you know where it came from.


Oh that's convenient. Clearly the universe and humans must have had a beginning. More than just a beginning, it MUST have been created by god, because how else could you possibly explain it? Anything short of a magical being that always has and always will exist creating the universe out of nothing would be absurd, amirite? 

Also life isn't just a need to know basis. Whether I need to know it or not the earth was created at some time in the past. Same for the universe. Just because I don't need to know for survival doesn't mean it didn't happen or can't be explained.


----------



## guy incognito (Feb 1, 2011)

by the dashboard light said:


> What if Abe claimed to have the power of life over death and raised himself up from the dead, would that be enough?


I still think you are missing a step. All that would prove is that abe has the power of life over death. Or rather it would APPEAR that he does by virtue of him raising himself from the dead.


----------



## by the dashboard light (Feb 1, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I still think you are missing a step. All that would prove is that abe has the power of life over death. Or rather it would APPEAR that he does by virtue of him raising himself from the dead.


The only one to have power over life and death would be the creator of it...


----------



## by the dashboard light (Feb 1, 2011)

My definition of power over life and death is one who can start and stop life at any time they want for any reason they want.


----------



## I already Node (Feb 1, 2011)

Why don't monkey's still evolve? I'm just wondering...


----------



## robert 14617 (Feb 1, 2011)

[video=youtube;NQu_RRLbVDA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQu_RRLbVDA[/video]


----------



## fourtwentyish (Feb 1, 2011)

I have always gotten a bit of a chuckle from people who worship science to bash people who are spiritual. In my opinion it is a failure on the part of science to not be able test spiritual ideas more than a failure of the people who believe in the ideas themselves. And it is scientists who completely dismiss spirituality as hocus pocus who prevent the field from moving in the direction needed to actually be able to quantitatively test the theories. Instead of going through the effort of proving or disproving the theory themselves, which is what they should be doing as scientists, they instead try to put the responsibility of proving validity on the people who do not claim to be scientists.


----------



## robert 14617 (Feb 1, 2011)

you get all that from a monty python spoof , you are wound way too tight


----------



## fourtwentyish (Feb 1, 2011)

robert 14617 said:


> you get all that from a monty python spoof , you are wound way too tight


If that was directed at me, I have no idea what you are talking about. My post was directed at the thread in general, nothing to do with monty python. Also I am probably the exact opposite of being tightly wound. I frequently get asked why am I always so calm and laid back lol. If it wasn't directed at me, disregard this post.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Feb 1, 2011)

People want to believe they are special and that is why they believe in God. It is easier for people to think when they die they go to some special place where everything is rainbow's and butterflies rather than to concede to the idea that they will be recycled by the earth and conscious life just comes to an end. People are scared fragile creatures and need a crutch or else they would panic. Originally the idea of a god was a way to keep people in check by use of fear and that is why people laugh at creationist's. Also, it would be more probable that we were created by aliens rather than a mythical man in the sky because unlike god it is actually probable that they exist. That in no way means I think aliens created us it just means it's more probable in the event that we were created by something.


----------



## fourtwentyish (Feb 1, 2011)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> People want to believe they are special and that is why they believe in God. It is easier for people to think when they die they go to some special place where everything is rainbow's and butterflies rather than to concede to the idea that they will be recycled by the earth and conscious life just comes to an end. People are scared fragile creatures and need a crutch or else they would panic. Originally the idea of a god was a way to keep people in check by use of fear and that is why people laugh at creationist's. Also, it would be more probable that we were created by aliens rather than a mythical man in the sky because unlike god it is actually probable that they exist. That in no way means I think aliens created us it just means it's more probable in the event that we were created by something.


Would that not make those aliens equivalent to a god as most people see it? As far as your idea of what happens after death, I have seen no scientific proof to the conscious life coming to an end part. There are scientists who have spent many years studying what could be called reincarnation which may be argued could show proof to dispute your claim. I would direct you to Dr. Ian Stevenson's work if you are interested in seeing what he has discovered.


----------



## I already Node (Feb 1, 2011)

I think its hilarious, because i was raised by Jehovah Witnesses and my mom has always told me there is no heaven and I would die just like everybody else...lol she also told me when I was like 6 there was no such thing as santa claus....


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 1, 2011)

by the dashboard light said:


> What if Abe claimed to have the power of life over death and raised himself up from the dead, would that be enough?


No, because all that would mean is that Abe Lincoln can raise himself from the dead. What about all the other claims? How do I know Abe Lincoln created the universe? Am I just supposed to take his word for it because he can raise himself from the dead? Still, at that point I would require more evidence..

So I guess to answer your question... I'd have to see God create the universe. And to be honest, if there is a being capable of creating what we perceive to be the universe, I think it would be able to show me how it did it on a level I could comprehend. 



I already Node said:


> Why don't monkey's still evolve? I'm just wondering...


Monkeys _do still evolve_. Every living organism evolves. 



fourtwentyish said:


> I have always gotten a bit of a chuckle from people who worship science to bash people who are spiritual. In my opinion it is a failure on the part of science to not be able test spiritual ideas more than a failure of the people who believe in the ideas themselves. And it is scientists who completely dismiss spirituality as hocus pocus who prevent the field from moving in the direction needed to actually be able to quantitatively test the theories. Instead of going through the effort of proving or disproving the theory themselves, which is what they should be doing as scientists, they instead try to put the responsibility of proving validity on the people who do not claim to be scientists.


That's why I use the good ol' Shermer technique... Creationists bitch about "teaching the controversy" so much, you know what Michael Shermer does? He says "OK, go for it. You have the science class, what would you like to teach?"..."...uhh... ....umm... well..." CRICKETS!!! 

And that is the essence of creationism, and in fact everything you just referred to. Science is a tool. It only works when there is something to test. 

Souls, ghosts, spirits, demons, monsters,ghouls, goblins, unicorns, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, etc... all that shit is psuedoscience. It's psuedoscience because there's nothing to test.

They have NOTHING. It isn't the failure on the part of science. As soon as you guys come up with some shit for us scientists to test, we'll GLADLY do it. How bout the shroud of Turin? You guys brought that, we tested it, and it failed the "this is Jebus' death cloth!!" test. Dated hundreds of years after he supposidly lived... 

Shit like that happens constantly. 

There is nothing to support creationism, that's why people laugh at creationists, because you'd have to be an idiot to believe it.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Feb 1, 2011)

fourtwentyish said:


> Would that not make those aliens equivalent to a god as most people see it?


LOL, no. In fact if we ever find any form of intelligent life it will negate almost all religions.



> As far as your idea of what happens after death, I have seen no scientific proof to the conscious life coming to an end part. There are scientists who have spent many years studying what could be called reincarnation which may be argued could show proof to dispute your claim. I would direct you to Dr. Ian Stevenson's work if you are interested in seeing what he has discovered.


Energy transfers not consciousness and are you say you believe in reincarnation? There are scientists that tried for years to prove that smoking didn't cause cancer. It all depends on there bias and what they want to find. I guarantee you he has found no conclusive evidence of reincarnation.


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 1, 2011)

fourtwentyish said:


> I have always gotten a bit of a chuckle from people who worship science to bash people who are spiritual. In my opinion it is a failure on the part of science to not be able test spiritual ideas more than a failure of the people who believe in the ideas themselves.


 There are many, many scientists that are spiritual and religious. Science doesn't test spiritual ideas because it is a method that is limited to nature. You need other forms of philosophy to discuss these other aspects. Science is not the correct tool for that. 
However, that should never be interpreted as saying that scientists themselves disregard the spiritual, that would be a mistake.


----------



## Heisenberg (Feb 1, 2011)

I already Node said:


> Why don't monkey's still evolve? I'm just wondering...



Bill Maher asked Rep Jack Kingston last week if he believed in evolution. His response was, "I believe I came from God and not from a monkey". Bill just let it go, as if that was a coherent response. 

In reality he was not responding to evolution, since evolution does not say we came from monkeys. This is a person who was just talking about the 'science" of global warming and how it's important to interpret it correctly. Now, either he has a deep ignorance of the most elementary claims evolution makes, or he's given himself permission to be irrational on the subject of creationism. Either way, I find it so absurd that it makes me laugh.


----------



## I already Node (Feb 1, 2011)

"Monkeys do still evolve. Every living organism evolves."

I should have clarified, I don't mean adapt - why don't monkey's still evolve into humans, in front of us showing us that, that is where we came from?!


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Feb 1, 2011)

lol, do you really think evolution happens that fast? It's not something you can see happen, it takes thousand of years.


----------



## I already Node (Feb 1, 2011)

I think science and spiritual work together but some ass holes just want to prove their point. Yes, the function of living organisms can be explained scientifically but then theres the aspect of beauty, emotion that science disregards. Like a builder with a dream has to have the right elements to create his dream??? IDK I'm not taking sides just a thought... take it or leave it.


----------



## I already Node (Feb 1, 2011)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> lol, do you really think evolution happens that fast? It's not something you can see happen, it takes thousand of years.


DUDE - think about what you just said, if monkey's evolved then we would have half monkey's walking around us from periods when they started evolving (thousands of years ago) before the other monkey's who started evolving a little behind the other monkey's who started evolving ect.. ect.. ect... And we would have almost human monkey's that are real close to being a human. 

What your saying is we evolved from monkey's and then stopped evolving and now we have monkey's and humans and monkey's just don't evolve anymore!


----------



## by the dashboard light (Feb 1, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> So I guess to answer your question... I'd have to see God create the universe. And to be honest, if there is a being capable of creating what we perceive to be the universe, I think it would be able to show me how it did it on a level I could comprehend.


and where do you think you would be while the universe was being created...


----------



## I already Node (Feb 1, 2011)

stonedmetalhead1 said:


> lol, do you really think evolution happens that fast? It's not something you can see happen, it takes thousand of years.


So where are these guy's is all I'm asking? Where's the fourth and fifth one from the front?


----------



## RawBudzski (Feb 1, 2011)

Every god is the Same God. Its humans ignorance that separates them. NEALY 2 BILLION MUSLIMS ON THIS PLANET. 300 MILLION AMERICANS. I Dont think The FEWer americans had it 100% right. Seeing as the MAJORITY of the world does not Fallow the New Christian Religion


----------



## RawBudzski (Feb 1, 2011)

Praise allah !!! :d


----------



## I already Node (Feb 1, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Every god is the Same God. Its humans ignorance that separates them.  NEALY 2 BILLION MUSLIMS ON THIS PLANET. 300 MILLION AMERICANS. I Dont think The FEWer americans had it 100% right. Seeing as the MAJORITY of the world does not Fallow the New Christian Religion


Ya, but the ones who praise allah can't even help themselves... lol go slap your girl!


----------



## RawBudzski (Feb 1, 2011)

and christians cannot Fix anyone else, tho they try. Not all muslims slap women, as im sure not all christians abide by the good books rules. I go by numbers, I am no muslim i Live in cali. But IMHO Power doesnt make you right. Christianity is just as LOST and cruel as any other Religion.


----------



## RawBudzski (Feb 1, 2011)

And IMO the christian faith has more "Magic/Stories" in it than most other religions, some laugh at the fact muslims believe in virgins after death if dying for the cause. Christians beliefs are not too far off in my mind. I prefer Buddhism, If not for the Simple fact they seem to have the REALest grip on life. and not bother with fairy tales.


----------



## I already Node (Feb 1, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> and christians cannot Fix anyone else, tho they try. Not all muslims slap women, as im sure not all christians abide by the good books rules. I go by numbers, I am no muslim i Live in cali. But IMHO Power doesnt make you right. Christianity is just as LOST and cruel as any other Religion.


I dont disagree with you!


----------



## I already Node (Feb 1, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> And IMO the christian faith has more "Magic/Stories" in it than most other religions, some laugh at the fact muslims believe in virgins after death if dying for the cause. Christians beliefs are not too far off in my mind. I prefer Buddhism, If not for the Simple fact they seem to have the REALest grip on life. and not bother with fairy tales.


I don't disagree with you on that either.....


----------



## Fruitbat (Feb 1, 2011)

Why do people laugh at Creationists? 

Well...because they are superstitious natives.


----------



## ChubbySoap (Feb 1, 2011)

my water pitcher has answered more of my prayers than any random god or devil i ever thought cared to listen...

that's all i know for sure.


----------



## I already Node (Feb 1, 2011)

Is all good but still no one has given any answer on the monkey turns to human theory?
Not worth considering anyway.

I can't stop staring at that fruit bat.. lol


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 2, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Bill Maher asked Rep Jack Kingston last week if he believed in evolution. His response was, "I believe I came from God and not from a monkey". Bill just let it go, as if that was a coherent response.
> 
> In reality he was not responding to evolution, since evolution does not say we came from monkeys. This is a person who was just talking about the 'science" of global warming and how it's important to interpret it correctly. Now, either he has a deep ignorance of the most elementary claims evolution makes, or he's given himself permission to be irrational on the subject of creationism. Either way, I find it so absurd that it makes me laugh.


I saw that. One of the panel wanted to respond IIRC.

Actually, it might be correct to say we came from monkeys. The primate common ancestor of old world monkeys and apes could probably be legitimately called a monkey. 
http://news.discovery.com/human/monkey-ape-fossil.html

Of course _monkey _not a very good scientific descriptor.


----------



## RawBudzski (Feb 2, 2011)

EVOLUTION CAN Co-Exist with a GOD. I BELIEVE "a god" created US. I BELIEVE IN A Transient God that CREATED ALL and is not HANDS ON in our lives. I also BELIEVE HUMANS CAN AND WILL CREATE LIFE. But does that make us god? no. Life Can and Will Evolve, Life can and Will be created. Humans like it or not are a MIX of two or more species, not getting into it. "time" is the big issue ppl cannot wrap their minds around. Their are greater intelligences out their other than our own, believe it or not. Ignorance can be your bliss if you let it.


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 2, 2011)

I already Node said:


> DUDE - think about what you just said, if monkey's evolved then we would have half monkey's walking around us from periods when they started evolving (thousands of years ago) before the other monkey's who started evolving a little behind the other monkey's who started evolving ect.. ect.. ect... And we would have almost human monkey's that are real close to being a human.
> 
> What your saying is we evolved from monkey's and then stopped evolving and now we have monkey's and humans and monkey's just don't evolve anymore!


Humans and monkeys are still evolving but they are now on separate branches of the tree. Once a species diverges onto a new path, it will never again share traits of another branch. This is the principle of monophyly. 
The common ancestor of apes and monkeys was NOT the same as a modern monkey. The common ancestor of apes and humans was neither a modern ape or a modern human. Modern apes cannot go back (de-evolve) to the basal ape form any more than modern humans would evolve back to the basal form and beget more species of apes. 

This might be the simplest way to explain. Most Americans are descended from Europeans but there are still Europeans and they continued to 'evolve' along their distinct culture and language. Neither modern Americans or Europeans are the same in either language or culture as the Euro-Americans were in the 17th century.


----------



## Tym (Feb 2, 2011)

by the dashboard light said:


> I have a question...what kind of proof would be needed to change the mind of someone who does not believe God exists.
> 
> Personaly I believe
> 
> ...


First of all, we would have to define your god. Every theist has a different idea of what god is and can do.
Tell me what your god is.
Tell me what it can do.
Tell me why you believe it.
Tell me why I should believe it.

I am very open to the possibility of gods, just as I am very open to the possibility of unicorns existing. All I want is proof.
What kind of proof?
The empirical kind.


----------



## RawBudzski (Feb 2, 2011)

This is True. Humans can easily be a HYBRID of two species, yet have STILL EVOLVED over time to look different.


mindphuk said:


> Humans and monkeys are still evolving but they are now on separate branches of the tree. Once a species diverges onto a new path, it will never again share traits of another branch. This is the principle of monophyly.
> The common ancestor of apes and monkeys was NOT the same as a modern monkey. The common ancestor of apes and humans was neither a modern ape or a modern human. Modern apes cannot go back (de-evolve) to the basal ape form any more than modern humans would evolve back to the basal form and beget more species of apes.
> 
> This might be the simplest way to explain. Most Americans are descended from Europeans but there are still Europeans and they continued to 'evolve' along their distinct culture and language. Neither modern Americans or Europeans are the same in either language or culture as the Euro-Americans were in the 17th century.


----------



## destructo (Feb 2, 2011)

heres A LOT of good reasons why intelligent design/creationism is wrong

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/evolution_intelligent_design/

i'm not atheist.


----------



## RawBudzski (Feb 2, 2011)

Man kind is not far from CREATING life in some form itself. so Creationism is POSSIBLE IS TRUE. SO IS EVOLUTION this isnt some republican / democrat bs. both can co-exist. expand your mind, Time heals all & makes what you do not understand possible


----------



## destructo (Feb 2, 2011)

creationism makes some outlandish claims that greatly conflict with evolution. which is why there is a problem to begin with.


----------



## RawBudzski (Feb 2, 2011)

The claims can be wrong. but both are true. and both exist. Humans can have been a breed between two species thus created somehow.. and evolved from that species further into us. Most ppls minds cannot process enough to see the entire picture.. this is true. Not all humans are Equal, in the eyes of god yes...but on the Human standard NO. Some can understand some cannot. their is more to this world than we will ever know, and the few who do know, are not our equal for that reason.


----------



## destructo (Feb 2, 2011)

both cannot be true. both sides severely conflict with each other. there are numerous contradictions.

the universe can't be both 6,000 years old and at the same time be 13.75 billion years old.
complex organisms can not have popped into existence yet at the same time evolved from simple cells.


----------



## RawBudzski (Feb 2, 2011)

Get rid of a few things and both CAN EXIST. You can CREATE LIFE. and their can be a CREATOR. EVOLUTION CAN HAPPEN AFTER BEING CREATED.. screw the conflicts, Conflicts are just that. where the two cannot meet. and where the two are WRONG. Both exist, both Sides have some false statements.


----------



## RawBudzski (Feb 2, 2011)

Simply Put. an intrinsic being aka god could create all, universe worlds matter.. and life can evolve from that to a point where it too can create life forms. but that dose not make them the original creator. Human KIND CAN AND WILL create LIFEFORMS that do not exist yet on this planet. life forms that will be CREATED in the LAB and DIE in the LAB. .. Bacteria that has never lived on this planet before. I dont think humans are godly, but I know we have learned enough to alter/mimic/create life


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 2, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Man kind is not far from CREATING life in some form itself. so Creationism is POSSIBLE IS TRUE. SO IS EVOLUTION this isnt some republican / democrat bs. both can co-exist. expand your mind, Time heals all & makes what you do not understand possible


 Don't forget, an -ism is a doctrine. Saying that things are created does not equate to creationism, the religious doctrine of special creation which claims the origin of the universe and all life in it suddenly sprang into being by divine decree.


----------



## RawBudzski (Feb 2, 2011)

Taught me something new, I just believe both can exist. equally. I see no reason gods creations cannot evolve or create themselves.


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 2, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Taught me something new, I just believe both can exist. equally. I see no reason gods creations cannot evolve or create themselves.


 It's understandable. Many people have different ideas of what certain terms mean. However, generally when the word creationism is used, it is a shortened version of the more accurate biblical creationism, but can be also considered the basic premise -- an intervening deity or creator -- without the baggage of the rest of Genesis. Beliefs like Deism and theistic evolution are compatible with both a creator and evolution but aren't typically considered creationism (although most religionists will claim they are forms of creationism to boost their numbers).


----------



## by the dashboard light (Feb 2, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I still think you are missing a step. All that would prove is that abe has the power of life over death. Or rather it would APPEAR that he does by virtue of him raising himself from the dead.


What if Abe also could make someone blind since birth see, or someone who was unable to walk walk, or give life to another dead person. How about someone coming up behind him and touching him and being healed of a sickness they had had for decades. Would that be enough?


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 2, 2011)

by the dashboard light said:


> What if Abe also could make someone blind since birth see, or someone who was unable to walk walk, or give life to another dead person. How about someone coming up behind him and touching him and being healed of a sickness they had had for decades. Would that be enough?


 Most of those would be good if I could have a committee of competent medical professionals to investigate the illness/death, preferable both pre and post miracle. Let's not forget about modern day faith healers that have been found to cheat. However, if he could heal an amputee, THAT would be good.


----------



## by the dashboard light (Feb 2, 2011)

You mean if *every single person* that he tryed to heal, was healed, bar none, you would still need proof? Even people just touching him without him knowing it? And giving life to dead people other than him self?


----------



## KBRoaster (Feb 2, 2011)

How many jobs are there for creationists? Versus jobs for biologists?

You can't apply cosmology from a wandering tribe from three thousand years ago to the same framework we have in place today. And that is why people laugh at creationist: it's like using rock tools to build a skyscraper...ain't going to happen.

nuff said...sheeit.


----------



## I already Node (Feb 2, 2011)

So what about the indians beliefs in Gods? Or the ancient Celts, Or the Romans, Or the Chinese, ect. ect. why does all EVERY NATION believe there is a God of some kind?


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 2, 2011)

by the dashboard light said:


> You mean if *every single person* that he tryed to heal, was healed, bar none, you would still need proof? Even people just touching him without him knowing it? And giving life to dead people other than him self?


 No, I'm saying that I would want confirmation that people were actually healed. I fail to see how I was unclear. Anyone being truly resurrected would certainly make me at least consider the possibility that he was a god. Yet didn't the god of the Old Testament warn the Hebrews to beware of a false prophet displaying "signs and wonders?" (Deut 13)


----------



## fourtwentyish (Feb 2, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> That's why I use the good ol' Shermer technique... Creationists bitch about "teaching the controversy" so much, you know what Michael Shermer does? He says "OK, go for it. You have the science class, what would you like to teach?"..."...uhh... ....umm... well..." CRICKETS!!!
> 
> And that is the essence of creationism, and in fact everything you just referred to. Science is a tool. It only works when there is something to test.
> 
> ...





I think you are unfairly lumping christians and creationists together. There are plenty of people who believe in the possibility of creation who don't believe all of the stories in the bible. 

As far as all of that being psuedoscience, do you have any proof for that? Oh, because science hasn't proven that they exist yet? Right, people like you conveniently brush it off as if it can't exist because it can't be tested by current scientific methods. Just like when science hadn't figured out that the earth was round, or that earth wasn't the center of the universe. Thank you for proving my point.

Not believing in something because science hasn't proven/disproven it yet, doesn't make someone an idiot, it makes them someone who can think outside the box of what science has figured out and realize that there is plenty that science hasn't yet figured out.


----------



## fourtwentyish (Feb 2, 2011)

destructo said:


> both cannot be true. both sides severely conflict with each other. there are numerous contradictions.
> 
> the universe can't be both 6,000 years old and at the same time be 13.75 billion years old.
> complex organisms can not have popped into existence yet at the same time evolved from simple cells.



Not all who believe in creation believe in the bible's story of 6000 years.


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 2, 2011)

fourtwentyish said:


> I think you are unfairly lumping christians and creationists together. There are plenty of people who believe in the possibility of creation who don't believe all of the stories in the bible.
> 
> As far as all of that being psuedoscience, do you have any proof for that? Oh, because science hasn't proven that they exist yet? Right, people like you conveniently brush it off as if it can't exist because it can't be tested by current scientific methods. Just like when science hadn't figured out that the earth was round, or that earth wasn't the center of the universe. Thank you for proving my point.
> 
> Not believing in something because science hasn't proven/disproven it yet, doesn't make someone an idiot, it makes them someone who can think outside the box of what science has figured out and realize that there is plenty that science hasn't yet figured out.


 Read more, post less. Reposting idiotic claims about science won't win you any points here. No one said that one is an idiot for believing in something that science has proven. He said you're an idiot for belief in something for which there is no good empirical evidence. Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers. Science requires explanations for natural phenomena that can potentially be subjected to scientific falsification. Supernatural explanations are excluded, not for unfair ideological advantage, but because supernatural explanations, by their very nature, cannot be scientifically falsified. The supernatural (as the very word itself implies) is not constrained by nature, it must follow no immutable laws. We can&#8217;t test the supernatural. When you pretend to do science by using scientific jargon but claim to be testing the supernatural, you are not doing science you are doing pseudoscience.


----------



## Mua Dib (Feb 2, 2011)

hey guys just piping in, didn't read everyones thoughts. Though I would like to say as a christian scientist I experienced a lot of hate........just not from the scientific community, I'm very bothered that, the word science is almost always used to combat theology.

In 20 years I have never...and I mean never met an atheist scientist (not that they dont exist of course they do) I know none personally, also, what most of the people, with whom I have discussed theological matters with (or creationism even) and trust me its not a rare subject by any means in the fields I work (started out in botany/and organic chem, then got into quantum physics yes I know quite a jump LOL) almost universally (in my encounters) scientists believe in a creator.

I mean, guys, come on, you truly believe that life is an anomaly? from a scientific standpoint I don't believe thats possible, Im sorry to run on, I just cant read another creationists ignore science quote, its a lie, Im both, and so are so many many people, and Id be willing to say that not a single quantum physicist is atheist.

I mean do you guys think your just smarter than all the "religious nuts" and in that case, what kind of God would restrict himself to the smartest people? Often times in my field(s) we find the thing working against us most our minds.

How many of you know the theory of relativity proves that the universe had a begining? How many know Einstien believed in a creator? Does anyone know how much science is based off the theory of relativity? honestly I barely post here, but I cant not say my piece. peace brothers and I hope you find truth


----------



## by the dashboard light (Feb 2, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> No, I'm saying that I would want confirmation that people were actually healed. I fail to see how I was unclear. Anyone being truly resurrected would certainly make me at least consider the possibility that he was a god. Yet didn't the god of the Old Testament warn the Hebrews to beware of a false prophet displaying "signs and wonders?" (Deut 13)


Yes...if they are trying to entice you away from the True and Living God.


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 2, 2011)

by the dashboard light said:


> Yes...if they are trying to entice you away from the True and Living God.


Have you read those passages lately? 

God Himself says he would give this false prophet the power to perform miracles and reveal prophecy, but the false prophet would try to seduce the people away from God's Law and towards strange gods unknown to Judaism. The purpose would be to test whether we are truly committed to living under the Law, or whether we will be dazzled and fall for the temptation to join a false path to salvation (v. 3-6, 7-8, 11). In this Biblical passage, God repeatedly commands the Jews to kill this false prophet, lest the evil spread and destroy many souls.

To be accepted by the people, the false prophet would sometimes pretend to be a righteous Jew who fulfills the Law, but at key moments he would turn against certain details of the Law in order to make the breach (v. 6, 7). 

In Deuteronomy 17, this false prophet is also described as someone who would rebel against the authority of the judges of the Jewish people, and who should be put to death for his rebelliousness (v. 8-13, esp. v. 12). Who are the judges? The highest court in Israel was the Sanhedrin, which was established by Moses (Exodus 18:13-26; Numbers 11:16-29), and which lasted more than 15 centuries. The members of the Sanhedrin were the rabbis known as "Pharisees" (Pirushim, "those with the explanation"). God gave permanent authority to these judges to interpret the Law and God's Word, and it is a commandment to follow their decisions without turning even slightly to the right or the left (Deut. 17:11). But the false prophet would challenge the authority of the Sanhedrin, thus revealing himself to be an evil man.

This is all sounding awfully familiar. 

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus declared that he came to fulfill the Law, and in Matthew 23:1-3 he defended the authority of the rabbis. But the rest of the time, he rebelled against the Law&#8212;thus showing that his occasional words of piety were meant only to hide his agenda. The following 'sins' of Jesus are recorded:

1. Jesus repudiated the laws of kosher food (Mark 7:18-19). [Compare this to the prophet Daniel's strict adherence to kashrus, in Daniel chapter 1.]
2. He repudiated the laws of honoring one's parents, and called on his followers to hate their parents; he also dishonored his own mother (Matthew 10:34-36; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 14:26).
3. He violated the Sabbath by picking grain, and incited his disciples to do the same (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-26).
4. 4) He again violated the Sabbath by healing a man's arm, which was not a matter of saving a life, and he openly defied the rabbis in his total repudiation of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5). [Compare this to God's view of violating the Sabbath, in Numbers 15:32-36, Nehemiah 10:30-32, and dozens of other places throughout the Bible.]
5. Jesus brazenly defied and disobeyed the rabbis of the Sanhedrin, repudiating their authority (Do I really need to point out examples?)


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 2, 2011)

fourtwentyish said:


> I think you are unfairly lumping christians and creationists together. There are plenty of people who believe in the possibility of creation who don't believe all of the stories in the bible.
> 
> As far as all of that being psuedoscience, do you have any proof for that? Oh, because science hasn't proven that they exist yet? Right, people like you conveniently brush it off as if it can't exist because it can't be tested by current scientific methods. Just like when science hadn't figured out that the earth was round, or that earth wasn't the center of the universe. Thank you for proving my point.
> 
> Not believing in something because science hasn't proven/disproven it yet, doesn't make someone an idiot, it makes them someone who can think outside the box of what science has figured out and realize that there is plenty that science hasn't yet figured out.





mindphuk said:


> Read more, post less. Reposting idiotic claims about science won't win you any points here. No one said that one is an idiot for believing in something that science has proven. He said you're an idiot for belief in something for which there is no good empirical evidence. Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers. Science requires explanations for natural phenomena that can potentially be subjected to scientific falsification. Supernatural explanations are excluded, not for unfair ideological advantage, but because supernatural explanations, by their very nature, cannot be scientifically falsified. The supernatural (as the very word itself implies) is not constrained by nature, it must follow no immutable laws. We cant test the supernatural. When you pretend to do science by using scientific jargon but claim to be testing the supernatural, you are not doing science you are doing pseudoscience.


fourtwentyish.... ^^^^^ thiiiiiiiis.



Mua Dib said:


> In 20 years I have never...and I mean never met an atheist scientist (not that they dont exist of course they do) I know none personally, also, what most of the people, with whom I have discussed theological matters with (or creationism even) and trust me its not a rare subject by any means in the fields I work (started out in botany/and organic chem, then got into quantum physics yes I know quite a jump LOL) almost universally (in my encounters) scientists believe in a creator.


I find that pretty hard to believe..

A study has shown atheism in the west to be particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God" (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings)(keep that in mind, because it's very important and applies to the rest of your post). The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science



Mua Dib said:


> I mean, guys, come on, you truly believe that life is an anomaly?


False dichotomy. It isn't "God dun it" or "life is meaningless/pointless/"an anomaly"". 

I believe the processes that took place to get us here are completely explainable by natural means and I have evidence to back that up. 

There might be a god responsible for our existence, but if there is, there is nothing to support that theory.

I mean, Mua Dib, come on, what kind of _scientist_ jumps from theory with no evidence to full fledged belief?  



Mua Dib said:


> from a scientific standpoint I don't believe thats possible, Im sorry to run on, I just cant read another creationists ignore science quote, its a lie, Im both, and so are so many many people, and Id be willing to say that not a single quantum physicist is atheist.


You either don't believe in the creationism we're talking about, or don't understand how science works. 

The 6,000 year old Earth - that's wrong. As a _scientist_, you would know that. Dating methods date the Earth at 4.57 BILLION years old, MUCH older than Biblical creationism claims it is.

So, specifically, what kind of _creationism_ is it that you believe in, and what kind of evidence do you have to justify that belief?
 


Mua Dib said:


> I mean do you guys think your just smarter than all the "religious nuts" and in that case, what kind of God would restrict himself to the smartest people? Often times in my field(s) we find the thing working against us most our minds.


Are atheists smarter than creationists? Statistics show, on average, yes, they are. But what creationists lack that atheists have is the ability to look at something without a religious bias. There's nothing in the back of my mind telling me "there's no way this rock could be billions of years old because my Bible tells me the oldest it could possibly be is 6,000 years old". That's why you see such conflict between religion and science. Science looks at the evidence and formulates conclusions accordingly, religion is the complete opposite, it formulates the conclusion first, then picks and chooses the evidence to support it and dismisses anything that contradicts it. 



Mua Dib said:


> How many of you know the theory of relativity proves that the universe had a begining? How many know Einstien believed in a creator? Does anyone know how much science is based off the theory of relativity? honestly I barely post here, but I cant not say my piece. peace brothers and I hope you find truth


You can deduce from redshift that there was a beginning to the universe. That means God did it.... how? 

Argument from authority. Einsteins belief in a God (which is a creationist lie, Einstein believed in a non personal kind of force that didn't interfere with human affairs) would have absolutely no bearing on the question of if a god actually exists.


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 2, 2011)

Most of the other scientists I work with don't seem to have any particular beliefs about god. Some of them are Xian, Jewish and Hindi, but for a significant number of them, the idea of a god just isn't even considered. They don't believe in a god but don't even give it enough consideration to even be considered a 'practicing atheist.' 

Mua Dib, please read my posts wrt the difference between believing in a creator and a doctrine of creationism.


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 2, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You can deduce from redshift that there was a beginning to the universe. That means God did it.... how?
> 
> Argument from authority. Einsteins belief in a God (which is a creationist lie, Einstein believed in a non personal kind of force that didn't interfere with human affairs) would have absolutely no bearing on the question of if a god actually exists.


Actually, the universe did not necessarily have a beginning. The only thing the BB can show is that at one time the universe was much smaller, denser, and hotter than currently. The can say nothing about how long that singularity was present before it began expanding. There is no reason the universe could not be eternal.

Yep, Einstein believed Spinoza's God, which is just another way of saying he believed in an orderly universe where natures laws can be determined. This says NOTHING about a creator being that exists independent of time and space.


----------



## smokey2117 (Feb 2, 2011)

I don't see why one can't intertwine Religion and Science.. not that nobody does.. just the majority pick sides for whatever reason.. IMO God created everything but not in the way that creationists say.. God IS Creation.. Keep that in mind. Just because Science proves what really happened doesn't mean it wasn't by God's hand.. There's always room for mistakes though, but that is my humble opinion. I'm a Science nerd and I also have a personal relationship with the being that created us... whether it's the "God" that Christians worship or some other deity.. nonetheless I have a place in my heart that my Lord resides in.


----------



## Tym (Feb 2, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Get rid of a few things and both CAN EXIST. You can CREATE LIFE. and their can be a CREATOR. EVOLUTION CAN HAPPEN AFTER BEING CREATED.. screw the conflicts, Conflicts are just that. where the two cannot meet. and where the two are WRONG. Both exist, both Sides have some false statements.


The thing is, one is wrong and the other is correct by default.
But yes, I would have to agree with you, they can both exist.
But so can the FSM, IPU and the infamous Tea pot.
I am not interested in what can be, I am interested in what is..


----------



## destructo (Feb 3, 2011)

RawBudzski, what does creating life in a lab have to do with anything? We're talking about creationism in relation to god, and the theory of evolution. 

If creationism were true, it would be *turtles all the way down. *

the unmoved mover paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
infinite regress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress


----------



## destructo (Feb 3, 2011)

IXOYE said:


> You cannot prove a negative.


Everyone always seems so focused on "proving" things when they should also be trying to disprove them.



IXOYE said:


> And it's a lot easier to find evidence in support of creationism.


You are supposed to look for disconfirming evidence as well. If you don't, you will be lead to believe the wrong things. I'm not interested in doing what's "easier" i'm interested in finding the truth.



IXOYE said:


> Meanwhile Holy books declared scientific facts thousands of years before their "scientific discoveries."


Sure, why don't we go back to that technological age of wonder. Where the cure for everything is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting. i'm sure things will be so much better!



IXOYE said:


> When typically people don't talk on subjects they know nothing about politics and religion seem to be the exception.


Why would people talking about things they know be a bad thing? What makes you say that everyone who talks about politics or religion doesn't know anything? How does this help your argument? You have nothing better to say other than to acuse everyone that doesn't take your side of "not knowing anything".


----------



## Tym (Feb 3, 2011)

destructo said:


> Everyone always seems so focused on "proving" things when they should also be trying to disprove them.


That is insane, I don't even think you believe that. If you actually think of the implications, you would prefer to believe everything till someone could prove to you that it is false.
You automatically believe in big foot, santa, spider man, pixies, flying spaghetti monster, Invisible pick unicorn etc... Till you can disprove them, that is just insane.
This is why atheism is the default position. You reject extraordinary claims till they can be show valid.

As for actively disproving claims, many people do it. what's the claim?

Unmoved mover?
Infinite regress?

If nothing moves without a prior mover, then God must need a prior mover, as well. Otherwise God is nothing, which contradicts the conclusion. Thus, either the premise is untrue, in which case the argument is unsound, or the conclusion doesn't follow, in which case the argument is invalid. In fact, as stated, the argument is clearly self-contradictory.

Who created God?

Which god? The word "God" carries a lot of undesirable cultural baggage, denoting an intelligent being. If the ultimate cause of our universe turns out to be, say, a random quantum fluctuation, then that would be "God" by Aquinas's definition, but to call this phenomenon "God" would be very misleading.

Two bodies at rest will start to move towards each other due to gravity. They can be each other's first mover. Therefore, the prior mover requirement is unnecessary.

Pairs of virtual particles are created (and annihilated) all of the time, out of literally nothing. These particles affect each other's motion, thus disproving Aquinas's premise.

More exotically, if time were circular (i.e., if time repeated every so often, so that the year 1 were also the year ten trillion and one), then every motion could have a prior cause without infinite regress. This does not seem to be the case, though.

Even if there is an infinite regress of causes, so what? The human mind is uncomfortable with the concept of infinity, but reality has no obligation to make us comfortable. 

These are just a few of the standard refutations.

The thing is, we don't have to disprove anything. In order to disprove something, it must first be proven, by definition.
The rational default position is non belief.


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 3, 2011)

Tym said:


> That is insane, I don't even think you believe that. If you actually think of the implications, you would prefer to believe everything till someone could prove to you that it is false.
> You automatically believe in big foot, santa, spider man, pixies, flying spaghetti monster, Invisible pick unicorn etc... Till you can disprove them, that is just insane.
> This is why atheism is the default position. You reject extraordinary claims till they can be show valid.


I think you might have missed the point. I agree with destructo, rejecting the null hypothesis is the standard for whether or not to accept a claim. For any claim that I want to examine, I need to be looking at reasons to not accept, probably even more so than trying to confirm it.

You are both saying the same thing.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 3, 2011)

Trying, and failing to prove yourself wrong means you are probably right.


----------



## Heisenberg (Feb 4, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> I think you might have missed the point. I agree with destructo, rejecting the null hypothesis is the standard for whether or not to accept a claim. For any claim that I want to examine, I need to be looking at reasons to not accept, probably even more so than trying to confirm it.
> 
> You are both saying the same thing.


Agree. I took his comment as saying negative proof is as important as positive proof. After all, Science is systematic doubt. People who oppose science often don't understand what it is. Maybe if they did understand it they would still argue against it, but then I would at least be more inclined to listen. 

I took a critical thinking class a couple years ago as an elective. It was three months of doing brain teasers and watching detective shows. The final was an essay on a person you feel is a critical thinker. Not one excersise actually taught anyone how to think criticaly. There was no mention of logical fallacies, no lessons about deductive/inductive reasoning, no explanation of Ocam's Razor... Most of the people signed up for the class for easy credits, something to breeze through, including the instructor. One girl did her final paper on Nostradamus. After three months of a critical thinking class she felt Nostradamus was a great critical thinker.

This article outlines a study that says not only do many of today's students not know basic science facts, they also do not understand how to think in a scientific way. So with the nations apparent recent focus on science, how come we do not see an emphasis on skepticism? It does after all go hand in hand with science, and in my opinion offers a way for someone who isn't a well taught scientist a way to understand the methods and needs for science.


----------



## by the dashboard light (Feb 4, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Have you read those passages lately?
> 
> God Himself says he would give this false prophet the power to perform miracles and reveal prophecy, but the false prophet would try to seduce the people away from God's Law and towards strange gods unknown to Judaism. The purpose would be to test whether we are truly committed to living under the Law, or whether we will be dazzled and fall for the temptation to join a false path to salvation (v. 3-6, 7-8, 11). In this Biblical passage, God repeatedly commands the Jews to kill this false prophet, lest the evil spread and destroy many souls.
> 
> ...


If this is how you read and discern scripture I won't argue with you as we would only look like big wheels (going round and round) 

I will just say that I disagree with your understanding and conclusion of what you are reading. 

About 1 nano second after death everyone will know if they were right or wrong but then it will be to late to change anything and all that will be ahead of them is eternity and the fruit of their decission.


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 4, 2011)

by the dashboard light said:


> If this is how you read and discern scripture I won't argue with you as we would only look like big wheels (going round and round)
> 
> I will just say that I disagree with your understanding and conclusion of what you are reading.
> 
> About 1 nano second after death everyone will know if they were right or wrong but then it will be to late to change anything and all that will be ahead of them is eternity and the fruit of their decission.


I think you miss the point. My interpretation of scripture is just as valid as anyone else. The fact is that scripture can be used to defend many various POVs. If you come to the party already believing that Jesus was the promised Messiah of the Jewish people, you will have a hard time understanding why he was rejected by the vast majority of Jews. We all know the Gospels were written with this same bias, yet even in those stories it is clear that Jesus tried to change the law by claiming he fulfilled it.


----------



## by the dashboard light (Feb 4, 2011)

No...I got your point...it's like I said someone will be right and someone will be wrong in their understanding of scripture and and upon their death they will know the answer and their decission will follow them all through eternity.


----------



## robert 14617 (Feb 4, 2011)

by the dashboard light said:


> No...I got your point...it's like I said someone will be right and someone will be wrong in their understanding of scripture and and upon their death they will know the answer and their decission will follow them all through eternity.


 or not ..............


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Feb 4, 2011)

I already Node said:


> "Monkeys do still evolve. Every living organism evolves."
> 
> I should have clarified, I don't mean adapt - why don't monkey's still evolve into humans, in front of us showing us that, that is where we came from?!


lol, Here's some evolution you can see. If you don't think this is significant remember we are clasified as homoerectus do to our ability to walk upright. 


http://www.break.com/index/gorilla-walks-like-a-man-1994323



Just an Article I think you should read.

This is the first article in my series of 10 bad reasons to reject evolution, this post deals with the objection that "you can't see evolution happening".

Well this one is simply not true, evolution is a common occurrence, it happens all the time and affects our lives directly. The most prevalent example is that of microbes becoming resistant to drugs (for example malaria) and new types of bacteria and viruses emerging that thwart our best efforts at developing vaccines, for example the H1N1 strain of flu is a natural mutation of previously existing strains of flu.
What people often mistakenly mean by "evolution" in this context is not actually evolution in the wider sense it is a small component of it called "speciation", i.e. the changing of one species into another for example dinosaurs into birds or fish into reptiles; speciation of this kind occurs very slowly over hundreds of thousands if not millions of generations, because of this fact we will never actually witness it, so lets explore why.
Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it isn't true, in life we know this to be a generally accepted state of affairs, for example we can't see gravity or ultra violet rays, but if we fall off a building or lie in the sun too long then we can see and experience the after-effects of these things all too clearly. This is the same for evolution, after-effects like the fossil record, the distribution of animals and plants over the planet and the genetic record cannot be explained any other rational way than by accepting that evolution has happened, all of these separate things point overwhelmingly to the fact that speciation has occurred in the past and is still happening today. So how does speciation happen? In the summer of 1995, at least 15 iguanas survived Hurricane Marilyn on a raft of uprooted trees. They rode the high seas for a month before colonizing the Caribbean island, Anguilla. These few individuals were perhaps the first of their species, _Iguana iguana_, to reach the island. If there were other intrepid _Iguana iguana_ colonizers of Anguilla, they died out before humans could record their presence. As these 15 individuals reproduce and die they will gradually change, the mechanism that causes these changes is the same tiny genetic changes between generations that makes a new flu virus. Tiny changes in genes caused by mutation may lead to changes in bodies, for example a slightly longer jaw (this has actually been observed in another species of lizard that became isolated on a tropical island) or perhaps a slightly different colour, or shorter legs etc. Should any such change (say a bigger jaw) confer a survival advantage for the lizard then that individual will be more likely to pass on his genes to the next generation. Over hundreds of generations the frequency of the "bigger jaw" gene will gradually become greater in the whole population and you end up with an island full of large jawed lizards. Give this process enough time and eventually you end up with a population of lizards that are so different that a member of the remote population could no longer mate with a member of the original population of lizards, and then you have a brand new species.

This is called allotropic speciation, there are 3 other kinds.

Expecting to actually witness speciation would be like expecting to witness the precise moment that a child becomes an adult, it's not possible because it simply doesn't happen like that, there is no precise moment of change, the process is one of tiny increments (clearly for legal purposes we put an artificial "moment" in place which is normally on the 18th birthday) but we all know and accept that it is a gradual process. Speciation happens even slower than this, typically over a time scale that extends beyond many generations of human life and is therefore impossible to witness.

What is the key evidence for speciation?


-Animals marooned on tropical islands are often are very similar but not quite the same species as animals of the same kind on the mainland, the older the island the more differences there are. It's not just water that acts as a barrier between species, deserts, mountains and ice are all effective mechanisms for separating populations of animals.

-When we look at lineages of common fossils over many generations we see gradual changes, sometimes we find fossils that have characteristics of both their ancestors and what they will eventually become in the future, these special examples are called "transitional" fossils, although this is somewhat of a misnomer because every fossil is transitional, no two animals are ever identical.

-The distribution of animals over the world fits exactly with what you would expect if speciation occurred.

-The DNA in our cells contains the precise history of our species, it proves that we are related to every other living thing on the planet, the closer the animal the more similar the DNA is, for example human DNA is 98% the same as chimpanzees, even intuitively and from the fossil record we can see that we are closely related to the higher primate, the DNA confirms that we are in fact a branch of the ape family itself and that many millions of years ago there was a speciation event that separated us.

If you argue that speciation did NOT happen, then you are left with the daunting task of explaining how these things occur some other way.


----------



## robert 14617 (Feb 4, 2011)

SMH your trying to reason with someone who wants to act ignorant by claiming monkeys evolved ,not the great apes


----------



## Heisenberg (Feb 4, 2011)

If you think evolution claims we evolved from monkeys, then you do not understand evolution well enough to make any sort of informed opinion.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Feb 4, 2011)

Well in theory all animals on the planet are related through similarities in DNA.


----------



## Sure Shot (Feb 4, 2011)

*I laugh at creationist for statements like this;*

"The tide comes in, the tide goes out.
The sun comes up, the sun goes down.
No miscommunication about that."


[youtube]Q92duyCuZMM[/youtube]
*Where to begin with that statement?*


----------



## Heisenberg (Feb 5, 2011)

Sure Shot said:


> *I laugh at creationist for statements like this;*
> 
> "The tide comes in, the tide goes out.
> The sun comes up, the sun goes down.
> ...


Ha, I remember the first time I saw that one myself. I had a similar reaction. My brain didn't even know where to begin deconstructing that logic so I just dismissed it entirely for fear of going insane.


----------



## crackerboy (Feb 6, 2011)

Some one had posted this video on another thread and I thought it would fit perfect on this one.


[video=youtube;17zJhnWJOOU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17zJhnWJOOU&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## Sure Shot (Feb 6, 2011)

Wonderful science for 5 full minutes. Nice!
Too bad it fails mathematically for 3 reasons I can think of.
1. He accepts that his numbers are only close, and that's just because it's ancient text. (In other words, the almighty got it close enough)
2. The universe is not just expanding, it's gaining speed! This means his math has another set of time and space variables.
3. He shows all math, except his math...... EPIC FAIL!

The first five minutes was worth watching over and over again, thank you!


----------



## H2grOw (Feb 9, 2011)

In response th the original question, "why do people laugh at creationists?"...

I Laugh when a skateboarder grinds his junk instead of the board,
I laugh when someone gets an electrical shock because they didn't kill the power before doing electrical work,
I laugh when people get attacked when teasing an animal that weighs twice as much as they do.
I laugh when I see a riced out Honda or Kia.
In short, I always laugh when I see someone doing something stupid that could have been avoided if only they used their brain before they acted.


----------



## Tym (Feb 9, 2011)

[video=youtube;za6Ryf14nto]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za6Ryf14nto&feature=channel[/video]


----------



## Mike Young (Feb 9, 2011)

It's just sad to me that people are so easily influenced. Children more specifically. People with religious views pass them down to their children at a very young age. And it doesn't stop at their own kids. I remember being solicited by parents of my friends as a kid. And it doesn't stop at childhood either. I can maintain composure when being preached the good word. For about 5 minutes. Because it's always the same nonsense. "If you accept jesus christ as your lord and savior, you shall be-eth saaaaaaved!" I think it's downright sickening for anybody to suggest that if you don't believe in their god, that I will be cast into eternal fire. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. That's a fucked up belief system. I think mankind as a whole is good for the most part. You see rotten things in the news everyday, but that only makes up a small percentage of the population. Money & power make people do shitty things, but again. This is a few truly terrible people doing harm & influencing others to join them. People are sheep, that's obvious. Religion takes advantage of that. I don't see it stopping in my lifetime. But one can hope that one day in the not so distant future, people will develop the ability to realize that you don't need religion to be a decent human being. You can just be a decent human being.


----------



## Heisenberg (Feb 9, 2011)

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg


----------



## H2grOw (Feb 9, 2011)

"When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion." - Abraham Lincoln.... Enough said.


----------



## crackerboy (Feb 10, 2011)

[video=youtube;GJbm4cY_3sM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJbm4cY_3sM&NR=1[/video]


----------



## Heisenberg (Feb 10, 2011)

This is an old and tired argument that ultimately amounts to a strawman. It's easy to sound smart when you completely make up a position to argue against. Are you posting this as an example of why you laugh, or is this another demonstration of the deceitful tactics your mind is willing to believe rather than yield to the truth? Did you accept this argument without applying any critical thought, or are you offering us a reason to find creationists funny? It's seriously hard to tell.

*Here is a dissection of the video with the proper corrections.*

[video=youtube;CII-RMVIuuw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CII-RMVIuuw[/video]

This line of arguing is so embarrassing even most creationist condemn it, and creation.com includes these points in it's list of arguments NOT to use.


----------



## Tym (Feb 10, 2011)

H2grOw said:


> "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion." - Abraham Lincoln.... Enough said.


Dude, your sig is awesome..


----------



## H2grOw (Feb 11, 2011)

...As is your avatar.


----------



## D.tea (Feb 11, 2011)

I do plan on reading through the thread, but currently I can't watch the videos due to internet laggage, and I hope I'm not repeating a point or anything.

I personally find creationists funny because when you ask them what God has to say about dinosaurs they just go blank lol. I've asked more then 1 preacher of different sects of Christianity and such and they all get this dumbfounded look on there face before they try to save grace with a long winded explanation about nothing.


----------



## Tym (Feb 12, 2011)

I like to ask them what god is and can do, you get different and conflicting answers every time. It's quite funny.


----------



## Sure Shot (Feb 12, 2011)

*Fun Fact;*
Christians were once unified in belief for a whole 6 years. Untill Paul started preaching,
and Jesus's brother James, took what people he could away from that which he could not believe about his own brother.

*TODAY=*

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]There are tens of thousands of faith groups that consider themselves to be Christian. Many -- perhaps most -- believe that they, alone, are the "true" Christian Church.[/FONT]


----------



## Tym (Feb 12, 2011)

That ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of what we are dealing with..


----------



## Sure Shot (Feb 12, 2011)

[youtube]M6edqRgDYg0[/youtube]


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 13, 2011)

Brilliant! Thanks for sharing that SS.


----------



## iNVESTIGATE (Feb 13, 2011)

Cause they're fucking stupid w/ certainty.

Oh, and it's hindering human progress.


----------



## Louis541 (Feb 18, 2011)

I don't laugh at creationists. I do laugh at creationists who think god made adam out of sand and eve out of adam, and that we are the one civilization in the universe. That's just stupid.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 18, 2011)

I laugh at them because they have absolutely no concept of time spans. 

Haven't they ever seen that 24 hour analogy? That shit would probably blow a believers mind!


----------



## Sure Shot (Feb 19, 2011)

I believe both sides of this argument would enjoy the new movie, The Sunset Limited.
It stars Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson.
It's 90 minutes of two men sharing their opposing beliefs on religion.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 19, 2011)

Sure Shot said:


> I believe both sides of this argument would enjoy the new movie, The Sunset Limited.
> It stars Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson.
> It's 90 minutes of two men sharing their opposing beliefs on religion.


Did you download that or catch it on Netflix or what? Got a link?


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 19, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Did you download that or catch it on Netflix or what? Got a link?


 It's only on HBO. I checked netflix but found it On Demand.


----------



## Dr.Nick (Feb 20, 2011)

I don't laugh at creationists. If they were to give an argument with valid premises and a conclusion that follows said premises, I cannot prove them wrong given the limits of human intelligence and understanding. A lot of them don't argue this way, but if one did I'd stand by my previous statement. Does this mean that the world as we know it was created by an omnipotent creator? No. Likewise, there is not evidence to prove that our world was not created by some deity. Both arguments are fundamentally flawed. And here's why - both sides *base their attacks on one another* on the absence of definitive (not suggestive) evidence on the part of the opposing side. Logically, a true and valid conclusion cannot be drawn by exclusionary argument unless all the possible variables are known. Therefore, without possessing what is essentially an infinite amount of knowledge, we cannot say with certainty who is correct.


----------



## Bauks (Feb 20, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Did you download that or catch it on Netflix or what? Got a link?


I found it on my favorite Peer to Peer site..... It's out there .....


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 20, 2011)

Dr.Nick said:


> I don't laugh at creationists. If they were to give an argument with valid premises and a conclusion that follows said premises, I cannot prove them wrong given the limits of human intelligence and understanding. A lot of them don't argue this way, but if one did I'd stand by my previous statement. Does this mean that the world as we know it was created by an omnipotent creator? No. Likewise, there is not evidence to prove that our world was not created by some deity. Both arguments are fundamentally flawed. And here's why - both sides are trying to prove the validity of their conclusion via the absence of definitive (not suggestive) evidence on the part of the opposing side. Logically, a true and valid conclusion cannot be drawn by exclusionary argument unless all the possible variables are known. Therefore, without possessing what is essentially an infinite amount of knowledge, we cannot say with certainty who is correct.


 Actually, I believe this to be incorrect. One side does not attempt to demonstrate that the world was not created by some intelligent being. That side is busy defending against the attacks on science and trying to correct the misrepresentation of our position as anti-god. One side makes a claim about the existence of something. The contradiction of that is not another claim about the non-existence but a rejection of that claim. This is the true dichotomy, not the false one that you just described.


----------



## Dr.Nick (Feb 20, 2011)

I thought about going into the non-exclusivity of the current scientiffic model, however this is not usually the direction this argument turns. Typically, it breaks down into something of a philosophical (really more ideological) debate, in which there will be no winner. Neither side _can_ win, so the only thing left is to attack one another. With that said, I will rephrase "...*are trying to prove the validity of their conclusion..." to "...base their attacks on one another..." That seems to be more accuratte here.*


----------



## VER D (Feb 21, 2011)

god is everything n when i say everything i mean everything


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 21, 2011)

VER D said:


> god is everything n when i say everything i mean everything


That's just silly..


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 21, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> That's just silly..


and essentially meaningless.


----------



## VER D (Feb 21, 2011)

only to those who don't understand but god is everything


----------



## VER D (Feb 21, 2011)

from time to a simple voice in your head god is everything and is everywhere


----------



## Sure Shot (Feb 21, 2011)

VER D said:


> god is everything


My God, has your God, by the puppet strings!


----------



## VER D (Feb 21, 2011)

Sure Shot said:


> My God, has your God, by the puppet strings!


that cant be cuz god is the puppet and the puppet strings n is the one controlling the puppet


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 21, 2011)

[video=youtube;j5L1X3g4wRQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5L1X3g4wRQ[/video]


----------



## Sure Shot (Feb 21, 2011)

If you hear voices, you should seek psychiatric help!


----------



## VER D (Feb 21, 2011)

Sure Shot said:


> If you hear voices, you should seek psychiatric help!


 its called a conscious everyone has one


----------



## Sure Shot (Feb 21, 2011)

So now, God, *IS *your conscious?
So, if it's true, that God is everything, including the voice in my head.
Then, no man has ever born an original idea. No man can be held accountable for his actions. For his action are spawned from his ideas, that are God himself.
Not even the original sin, that was God's voice, telling Eve that Satan was right. 
Your God's voice is even in the Jihadist down the street, telling him that you are an infidel and disconnected forever from the one true God.
Your God, is writing this, not me. So please, do not reply,.............. cause I don't talk to God.


----------



## Sure Shot (Feb 21, 2011)

Your God use to instantly light Jews on fire, for simply murmuring negative remarks.
Those, were the days. 
(God Is Everything)


----------



## Louis541 (Feb 21, 2011)

VER D said:


> god is everything n when i say everything i mean everything


So then by your logic, god is satan?


----------



## Dr.Nick (Feb 22, 2011)

I'm gonna have to smoke another bowl before I get back into this one.


----------



## nonfakename (Feb 22, 2011)

Not to divert from the obvious seriousness of this discussion, but here's another video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHex9GDQ2S0 that can point out one or two of the off the bat reasons that creationism (a made up word btw) is laughable. Excuse the slightly bad sound quality, wasn't my upload.


----------



## Tenner (Feb 22, 2011)

Sure Shot said:


> So now, God, *IS *your conscious?
> So, if it's true, that God is everything, including the voice in my head.
> Then, no man has ever born an original idea. No man can be held accountable for his actions. For his action are spawned from his ideas, that are God himself.
> Not even the original sin, that was God's voice, telling Eve that Satan was right.
> ...


Sure shot you made me LOL! Plus what would be the point to create souls, bring them alive and send them to a world, watch them do good and bad and then punish or reward respectively...


I`m a person who was hit at school to learn muslim prayers and that was 7 years ago and oh, i know them by fucking heart! I don`t even like the word atheist but hey ho..

While reading about quantum physics and the uncertainty principle on wikipedia i realised that there HAS to be a point, where particles, matter all of the crap just DO things for no reason, just like that! We will eventually have to just accept whats around us as there will be no further explanation for the random events around us. A lot of people accept god and dont question any further because it stops our curious, out of hand mechanism of infinite questioning and just gives us a reason. I dont understand why people have to do this, cant you just accept whats around you and find your own reason rather than play mind games?

And creation? Who is to say there is ever nothing?


----------



## VER D (Feb 22, 2011)

god did make the devil but the devil is just a lil 2 timing bitch and religion was another thing invented by man to cause problems but really they are all the same in which the have good and evil and u dont have to believe in god but just know that there are things at work that we cant even begin to imagine we aren't shit compared to whats really out there


----------



## Tenner (Feb 22, 2011)

VER D said:


> just know that there are things at work that we cant even begin to imagine we aren't shit compared to whats really out there


I second that and sometimes wonder if we are even capable of understanding whats out there with our "operating systems"


----------



## iNVESTIGATE (Feb 23, 2011)

Check out the recently released movie *'The Sunset Limited'*. It was a play originally.. but Tommy lee Jones and Samuel L. jackson take it on... such good dialogue

http://www.moviewatch.in/watch-2472593-The-Sunset-Limited


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 23, 2011)

Tenner said:


> I second that and sometimes wonder if we are even capable of understanding whats out there with our "operating systems"


 
What makes people think this? Furthermore, what makes people think this is an acceptable answer to... anything?

"God did it, but he's too complicated for us humans to ever understand why or how..." - yep, I'm satisfied!

I'm really pretty sick of this cop out of an answer. Anyone that says something like what you just said is only substituting their own bullshit for something that is unknown. 

You DO NOT KNOW if ANYTHING is out there, whether it be something we can or cannot comprehend or understand.

I ask you, and ANYONE else who uses this bullshit cop out answer; What ELSE in all of human fucking history has EVER been "too complicated for humans to understand"? Give me one goddamn thing. 

That's right, there's NOTHING. ANYTHING humans can think up we can understand.. and where the fuck do you people think the god concept came from...

I'll give you a hint.... half of us on this thread use it, the other half flip the switch and proclaim "it's just too complicated!"..


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 23, 2011)

If "it's too complicated" or "our human minds just can't comprehend it.." then how can there be any kind of description of any gods traits or abilities or even message?

Yeah, the preachers and believers have all the fuckin' answers, up till you start asking real questions... then it becomes "It's too complicated, God works in mysterious ways..."...

There's a special corner in my brain I place people like that in..


----------



## VER D (Feb 23, 2011)

unknown unknowns


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 23, 2011)

VER D said:


> unknown unknowns


Dude, are you trying to rack up your post count or what...


----------



## Louis541 (Feb 23, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What makes people think this? Furthermore, what makes people think this is an acceptable answer to... anything?
> 
> "God did it, but he's too complicated for us humans to ever understand why or how..." - yep, I'm satisfied!
> 
> ...


Human DNA, the thought process of the human brain, so much to do with biology it's retarded. there's alot of stuff we don't know.


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 23, 2011)

Louis541 said:


> Human DNA, the thought process of the human brain, so much to do with biology it's retarded. there's alot of stuff we don't know.


 I'm pretty sure pad is talking about not unknowns but things that are unknowable. He has already admitted in other threads there are plenty of gaps in our knowledge. There are many things we don't know but no one can claim they are unknowable. We have made great progress in understanding human congnition -- enormous leaps in knowledge in only the last half dozen years or so -- and DNA holds very few secrets anymore.


----------



## sso (Feb 23, 2011)

as far as i can tell, god is about as relevant as mickey mouse.


----------



## Tenner (Feb 23, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What makes people think this? Furthermore, what makes people think this is an acceptable answer to... anything?
> 
> "God did it, but he's too complicated for us humans to ever understand why or how..." - yep, I'm satisfied!
> 
> ...


errmmm i was trying to say the same thing as you... The mystery of the universe is not something that can be solved by logic, that is my claim. We all know god is illogical as he has no creator. You didnt even read posts as you typed this shit up lol

And thats right, humans cant understand anything but they can understand to a degree to manipulate whats around them for their "benefit". Plus humans understanding is relevant to themselves. I dont think anything we know is true, but thats because truth itself doesnt exist. We do however have our own truth and own reality in our own small picture. We can only judge whats around us with our senses and thats just our senses, our feelings, our mind... on the grand scale we wont understand shit. 

So i agree with your thoughts.


----------



## destructo (Mar 1, 2011)

Tym said:


> That is insane, I don't even think you believe that. If you actually think of the implications, you would prefer to believe everything till someone could prove to you that it is false.
> 
> You automatically believe in big foot, santa, spider man, pixies, flying spaghetti monster, Invisible pick unicorn etc... Till you can disprove them, that is just insane.
> This is why atheism is the default position. You reject extraordinary claims till they can be show valid.
> ...


Like others said, you missed my point. I know the unmoved mover paradox is unsound because of modern science, but infinite regress is not. I did not imply that we should ONLY try to disprove things, merely that we should look for both confirming and disconfirming evidence. If we cherry pick the confirming evidence, we will miss the disconfirming which could lead one to believe false things.

read: http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html


The bare bone religious beliefs do not have empirical evidence. All you can do is try to logically contemplate the possibilities. There is no way to prove that god created the universe. There is also no way to prove that he did not create the universe. Atheists say "we do not know". Theists say "god did it".


----------



## Tenner (Mar 2, 2011)

Theists speak without knowing if what they beleive in exists or know what they are talking about. They are nothing but a cheap shot at a question which cant be answered due to the nature of logic. Logic can only compare what we see in a universe and make sense to manipulate objects and forces to our own benefits of survival. Its not capable understanding and I beleive it cannot be understood, not with logic anyway as that leads to infinate questioning...


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Aug 26, 2011)

[youtube]1PT90dAA49Q[/youtube]


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Aug 26, 2011)

why do people laugh at creationists ? ...................because its funny, i mean come on floods that wiped out the entire world , talking bushes , bright stars , its pretty fuckin hilarious .


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Aug 27, 2011)

People laugh at creationalists because of the seemingly naive structure of their arguments and reasoning in most or any debate u have with them.Just the words "intelligent design"being used to describe the culmination of our current form and functionality on this world is an understatement beyond reckoning but thats beside the point,they must use their own mundane sense of the world to attempt making sense of it.


----------

