Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

There Is No God


J.W.

Recommended Posts

OK, but um... Stupid question here... What is this thread? Practice for when a Fundie gives you hell for being an atheist?

 

Sorry, I know I haven't been much fun through this whole thread and maybe at times sound like the female version of the old men from The Muppet Show, but it does seem like batting practice to me. I haven't seen any Xians join this thread and throw any balls your way. Seems to me the OP, JW, is just wanting a little practice batting practice at debunking Xian statements. So what's the point? :shrug:

 

Here, for example, is what I love best to do when Xains start talking tripe on the bus: "Meh." then stick my iPod headphones on/in my ears and turn it up loud enough that I can't hear them. At best, I can read their lips, but they aren't bothering me with what they are saying, even if they are trying to preach to everyone on the bus. I don't have to join in on the conversation that arises. Then I get off the bus and do my thing, all by myself and return home in the same manner. No weirdo Xian bothers me then and I don't have to practice anything. I can go about business without talking to anyone except the bus driver, those at the destination, or maybe by chance someone I know.

 

It open to christians Mrian, but to answer your question I like practice as much as the real thing. If you go prepared you don't loose as much. I like the batting cages in real life for that reason as well.

 

Its open to a Christian, but I don't think they will take it.. A far as what you are insinuating-- why would any true Christian be in here unless 1. They are on their way leaving Christianity or 2. They want to battle to prove to themselves and the world that there is evidence for God or 3. They want to bring people back to God

 

If you removed the hypothetical I think a lot of the forum would go away but not every thread is for everybody. If its not worthy, and it may not be-- it will die

 

 

Whoa dude I resent this implication a bit. I am a so called christian and I come in here to enjoy the company of people and to read the posts and ocassionally write something. I don't come in here all aggressive like some others who dump their stuff and run. In fact I find those christians to be offensive. Sure, they want to debate, but do they actually know you guys and your lives and stories? Ive come to know lots of people's stories in here from reading the posts as people write a lot about themselves. I am tired of being accused of being some sort of soft sasquatch in here by some because Im not this gungho christian debating and carrying on.

 

In fact I highly doubt Jesus ranted and raved with foam at his mouth preaching to the types of people he hung out with. He just was, and was there with them. He had dinner with them, he sat around chatting with people. Sure there were lots of instances in the Bible where he preached, I don't deny that, but mostly we was just a humble people person. I do the same thing and I get accused of being lame and soft.

 

Tell me, after all the christians come trumping in here displaying their wares and debating skills, does it change any of your minds and go aha, I now believe in God! NO.

 

What sort of respect levels do you have for them? nada.

And yet apparently I am a soft lame christian because I dont do the same.

So my agenda is not to preach, not to carry on foaming at the mouth, it is to just be here listen and interact, with no hidden agenda of you guys going whoa God must be real cause look at her! That is not the case either. I do not come in here to enjoy being so called belittled and persecuted as some have accused me of doing. I come in here as a HUMAN being, that just happens to have a christian label. Sure this is an EX-christian site, but I personally love the gang in here that I have come to know and it would sadden me a lot to think that my label of christian would exclude and draw lines in the ground for friendship. I dont carry that label as some bashing tool or badge to shout about it every time I post or whatever. Yes there have been occasions I have posted in the christian capacity and failed miserably. So I rarely do it.

 

Sorry JW this rant isn't directed at you. Its at a lot of the foolish things that constantly get thrown at me on a daily basis in here by some. Sorry this post is so long too.

 

Cheers.

 

Im not targeting you Kathlene.

I have made it no secret to you that Im don't understand why you like to hang out in this sort of forum. You are welcome too and you are a nice person. I just don't understand the motivation being that the world is full of people. I think you are a cronic fence sitter, but I like you just the same. I also think you have a right to believe what you wish. I would however like to point to the sign "Lions Den". If you don't want to feel like you are being mauled this is not the forum for you babe.

 

If we followed the rules we would be more civil [i think we are] in other forums. You would probably feel just as violated as a liberal at a conservative rally or vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • J.W.

    55

  • Ouroboros

    34

  • Mriana

    29

  • LNC

    29

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

OK, but um... Stupid question here... What is this thread? Practice for when a Fundie gives you hell for being an atheist?

 

Sorry, I know I haven't been much fun through this whole thread and maybe at times sound like the female version of the old men from The Muppet Show, but it does seem like batting practice to me. I haven't seen any Xians join this thread and throw any balls your way. Seems to me the OP, JW, is just wanting a little practice batting practice at debunking Xian statements. So what's the point? :shrug:

 

Here, for example, is what I love best to do when Xains start talking tripe on the bus: "Meh." then stick my iPod headphones on/in my ears and turn it up loud enough that I can't hear them. At best, I can read their lips, but they aren't bothering me with what they are saying, even if they are trying to preach to everyone on the bus. I don't have to join in on the conversation that arises. Then I get off the bus and do my thing, all by myself and return home in the same manner. No weirdo Xian bothers me then and I don't have to practice anything. I can go about business without talking to anyone except the bus driver, those at the destination, or maybe by chance someone I know.

 

It open to christians Mrian, but to answer your question I like practice as much as the real thing. If you go prepared you don't loose as much. I like the batting cages in real life for that reason as well.

 

Its open to a Christian, but I don't think they will take it.. A far as what you are insinuating-- why would any true Christian be in here unless 1. They are on their way leaving Christianity or 2. They want to battle to prove to themselves and the world that there is evidence for God or 3. They want to bring people back to God

 

If you removed the hypothetical I think a lot of the forum would go away but not every thread is for everybody. If its not worthy, and it may not be-- it will die

 

 

Whoa dude I resent this implication a bit. I am a so called christian and I come in here to enjoy the company of people and to read the posts and ocassionally write something. I don't come in here all aggressive like some others who dump their stuff and run. In fact I find those christians to be offensive. Sure, they want to debate, but do they actually know you guys and your lives and stories? Ive come to know lots of people's stories in here from reading the posts as people write a lot about themselves. I am tired of being accused of being some sort of soft sasquatch in here by some because Im not this gungho christian debating and carrying on.

 

In fact I highly doubt Jesus ranted and raved with foam at his mouth preaching to the types of people he hung out with. He just was, and was there with them. He had dinner with them, he sat around chatting with people. Sure there were lots of instances in the Bible where he preached, I don't deny that, but mostly we was just a humble people person. I do the same thing and I get accused of being lame and soft.

 

Tell me, after all the christians come trumping in here displaying their wares and debating skills, does it change any of your minds and go aha, I now believe in God! NO.

 

What sort of respect levels do you have for them? nada.

And yet apparently I am a soft lame christian because I dont do the same.

So my agenda is not to preach, not to carry on foaming at the mouth, it is to just be here listen and interact, with no hidden agenda of you guys going whoa God must be real cause look at her! That is not the case either. I do not come in here to enjoy being so called belittled and persecuted as some have accused me of doing. I come in here as a HUMAN being, that just happens to have a christian label. Sure this is an EX-christian site, but I personally love the gang in here that I have come to know and it would sadden me a lot to think that my label of christian would exclude and draw lines in the ground for friendship. I dont carry that label as some bashing tool or badge to shout about it every time I post or whatever. Yes there have been occasions I have posted in the christian capacity and failed miserably. So I rarely do it.

 

Sorry JW this rant isn't directed at you. Its at a lot of the foolish things that constantly get thrown at me on a daily basis in here by some. Sorry this post is so long too.

 

Cheers.

 

Im not targeting you Kathlene.

I have made it no secret to you that Im don't understand why you like to hang out in this sort of forum. You are welcome too and you are a nice person. I just don't understand the motivation being that the world is full of people. I think you are a cronic fence sitter, but I like you just the same. I also think you have a right to believe what you wish. I would however like to point to the sign "Lions Den". If you don't want to feel like you are being mauled this is not the forum for you babe.

 

If we followed the rules we would be more civil [i think we are] in other forums. You would probably feel just as violated as a liberal at a conservative rally or vice versa.

 

 

Sorry JW, I was venting off some steam that I have built up in here from lots of people accusing me of one thing or another. I know this is the Lion's Den and I know you want to sharpen your debating skills with christians, and I am not one of those players. I guess I just resented the implication that you made that christians only come in here to chant about God and get you guys to see the light. I am not one of those and I get derided for it constantly by people. Then my argument was, well look at others who do it, do you like or respect them? its just not my way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, but um... Stupid question here... What is this thread? Practice for when a Fundie gives you hell for being an atheist?

 

Sorry, I know I haven't been much fun through this whole thread and maybe at times sound like the female version of the old men from The Muppet Show, but it does seem like batting practice to me. I haven't seen any Xians join this thread and throw any balls your way. Seems to me the OP, JW, is just wanting a little practice batting practice at debunking Xian statements. So what's the point? :shrug:

 

Here, for example, is what I love best to do when Xains start talking tripe on the bus: "Meh." then stick my iPod headphones on/in my ears and turn it up loud enough that I can't hear them. At best, I can read their lips, but they aren't bothering me with what they are saying, even if they are trying to preach to everyone on the bus. I don't have to join in on the conversation that arises. Then I get off the bus and do my thing, all by myself and return home in the same manner. No weirdo Xian bothers me then and I don't have to practice anything. I can go about business without talking to anyone except the bus driver, those at the destination, or maybe by chance someone I know.

 

It open to christians Mrian, but to answer your question I like practice as much as the real thing. If you go prepared you don't loose as much. I like the batting cages in real life for that reason as well.

 

Its open to a Christian, but I don't think they will take it.. A far as what you are insinuating-- why would any true Christian be in here unless 1. They are on their way leaving Christianity or 2. They want to battle to prove to themselves and the world that there is evidence for God or 3. They want to bring people back to God

 

If you removed the hypothetical I think a lot of the forum would go away but not every thread is for everybody. If its not worthy, and it may not be-- it will die

 

 

Whoa dude I resent this implication a bit. I am a so called christian and I come in here to enjoy the company of people and to read the posts and ocassionally write something. I don't come in here all aggressive like some others who dump their stuff and run. In fact I find those christians to be offensive. Sure, they want to debate, but do they actually know you guys and your lives and stories? Ive come to know lots of people's stories in here from reading the posts as people write a lot about themselves. I am tired of being accused of being some sort of soft sasquatch in here by some because Im not this gungho christian debating and carrying on.

 

In fact I highly doubt Jesus ranted and raved with foam at his mouth preaching to the types of people he hung out with. He just was, and was there with them. He had dinner with them, he sat around chatting with people. Sure there were lots of instances in the Bible where he preached, I don't deny that, but mostly we was just a humble people person. I do the same thing and I get accused of being lame and soft.

 

Tell me, after all the christians come trumping in here displaying their wares and debating skills, does it change any of your minds and go aha, I now believe in God! NO.

 

What sort of respect levels do you have for them? nada.

And yet apparently I am a soft lame christian because I dont do the same.

So my agenda is not to preach, not to carry on foaming at the mouth, it is to just be here listen and interact, with no hidden agenda of you guys going whoa God must be real cause look at her! That is not the case either. I do not come in here to enjoy being so called belittled and persecuted as some have accused me of doing. I come in here as a HUMAN being, that just happens to have a christian label. Sure this is an EX-christian site, but I personally love the gang in here that I have come to know and it would sadden me a lot to think that my label of christian would exclude and draw lines in the ground for friendship. I dont carry that label as some bashing tool or badge to shout about it every time I post or whatever. Yes there have been occasions I have posted in the christian capacity and failed miserably. So I rarely do it.

 

Sorry JW this rant isn't directed at you. Its at a lot of the foolish things that constantly get thrown at me on a daily basis in here by some. Sorry this post is so long too.

 

Cheers.

 

Im not targeting you Kathlene.

I have made it no secret to you that Im don't understand why you like to hang out in this sort of forum. You are welcome too and you are a nice person. I just don't understand the motivation being that the world is full of people. I think you are a cronic fence sitter, but I like you just the same. I also think you have a right to believe what you wish. I would however like to point to the sign "Lions Den". If you don't want to feel like you are being mauled this is not the forum for you babe.

 

If we followed the rules we would be more civil [i think we are] in other forums. You would probably feel just as violated as a liberal at a conservative rally or vice versa.

 

 

Sorry JW, I was venting off some steam that I have built up in here from lots of people accusing me of one thing or another. I know this is the Lion's Den and I know you want to sharpen your debating skills with christians, and I am not one of those players. I guess I just resented the implication that you made that christians only come in here to chant about God and get you guys to see the light. I am not one of those and I get derided for it constantly by people. Then my argument was, well look at others who do it, do you like or respect them? its just not my way.

 

No reason to be sorry Kath,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no God. Prove me wrong :mellow:

 

It seems that since you are making a positive assertion, it is up to you to defend it first.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no God. Prove me wrong :mellow:

 

It seems that since you are making a positive assertion, it is up to you to defend it first.

 

LNC

 

My proof is scientific evidence coupled with Occams Razor and a strong dose of logic. I was not a lightweight Christian so I won't mind banging heads-- I was a Ram.. not a lamb, and Im for sport :yellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa dude I resent this implication a bit. I am a so called christian and I come in here to enjoy the company of people and to read the posts and ocassionally write something. I don't come in here all aggressive like some others who dump their stuff and run. In fact I find those christians to be offensive. Sure, they want to debate, but do they actually know you guys and your lives and stories? Ive come to know lots of people's stories in here from reading the posts as people write a lot about themselves. I am tired of being accused of being some sort of soft sasquatch in here by some because Im not this gungho christian debating and carrying on.

 

In fact I highly doubt Jesus ranted and raved with foam at his mouth preaching to the types of people he hung out with. He just was, and was there with them. He had dinner with them, he sat around chatting with people. Sure there were lots of instances in the Bible where he preached, I don't deny that, but mostly we was just a humble people person. I do the same thing and I get accused of being lame and soft.

 

Tell me, after all the christians come trumping in here displaying their wares and debating skills, does it change any of your minds and go aha, I now believe in God! NO.

 

What sort of respect levels do you have for them? nada.

And yet apparently I am a soft lame christian because I dont do the same.

So my agenda is not to preach, not to carry on foaming at the mouth, it is to just be here listen and interact, with no hidden agenda of you guys going whoa God must be real cause look at her! That is not the case either. I do not come in here to enjoy being so called belittled and persecuted as some have accused me of doing. I come in here as a HUMAN being, that just happens to have a christian label. Sure this is an EX-christian site, but I personally love the gang in here that I have come to know and it would sadden me a lot to think that my label of christian would exclude and draw lines in the ground for friendship. I dont carry that label as some bashing tool or badge to shout about it every time I post or whatever. Yes there have been occasions I have posted in the christian capacity and failed miserably. So I rarely do it.

 

Sorry JW this rant isn't directed at you. Its at a lot of the foolish things that constantly get thrown at me on a daily basis in here by some. Sorry this post is so long too.

 

Cheers.

 

Hey, Kathlene, I'm not the one making any claims, just having difficulties playing along and play the Xian side. I don't really see much of a purpose in this game myself.

 

 

Nope I am saying there is no god, and that life springs from movement. Your heart beats and blood flows and when it does not you are dead. God is not a part of it. I am using one basic thing in common with religion though... they claim god has been around forever... I think the universe [matter and attraction] has been around forever and has always been moving and therefore has always been pushing torwards life.. it is a sort of life in its own way.. the sun is moving.. fire is moving and it breathes and it grows and it reproduces

 

The only way life springs from movement is if a man and a woman... you get the point. So, those little cells are alive and moving about, according to what you just said about movement. So we are back to life being God.

 

Let me restate that- the point of life actually begins when the baby takes it's first breath- nephesh: The breath of life, this is exactly what you are saying, only worded a bit differently and labeled with a different word.

 

Im not targeting you Kathlene.

I have made it no secret to you that Im don't understand why you like to hang out in this sort of forum. You are welcome too and you are a nice person. I just don't understand the motivation being that the world is full of people. I think you are a cronic fence sitter, but I like you just the same. I also think you have a right to believe what you wish. I would however like to point to the sign "Lions Den". If you don't want to feel like you are being mauled this is not the forum for you babe.

 

If we followed the rules we would be more civil [i think we are] in other forums. You would probably feel just as violated as a liberal at a conservative rally or vice versa.

 

I see nothing wrong with being a fence sitter, if that is what she wants to be. JW, might I remind you, that I came out of Xianity via the Episcopal Church. Can't be much more of a fence sitter than that.

 

Sorry JW, I was venting off some steam that I have built up in here from lots of people accusing me of one thing or another. I know this is the Lion's Den and I know you want to sharpen your debating skills with christians, and I am not one of those players. I guess I just resented the implication that you made that christians only come in here to chant about God and get you guys to see the light. I am not one of those and I get derided for it constantly by people. Then my argument was, well look at others who do it, do you like or respect them? its just not my way.

 

As you can see, I'm not much of a player either, Kathlene and even when I try, I do a pretty piss poor job of it, even when I attempt Spong's POV.

 

There is no God. Prove me wrong :mellow:

 

It seems that since you are making a positive assertion, it is up to you to defend it first.

 

LNC

 

LNC has a point too, JW. You did make a positive statement about God. Now if you said, "I don't believe there is a god. Show me that there is." Well, then, the shoe would fall on the other side, in which the person says there is a god. Might I suggest "The Atheist Experience", which is on podcast? Matt maybe able to give you some pointers, JW. For you to say there is no god, well... My first response for you was the correct one, just as LNC's is also correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because my cats told me there was. tinky has special gifts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because my cats told me there was. tinky has special gifts!

 

Yes, cats remember they once considered gods and they have never forgotten it. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way life springs from movement is if a man and a woman... you get the point. So, those little cells are alive and moving about, according to what you just said about movement. So we are back to life being God.

 

Let me restate that- the point of life actually begins when the baby takes it's first breath- nephesh: The breath of life, this is exactly what you are saying, only worded a bit differently and labeled with a different word.

 

I was talking about the creation of life-- not replication-- big difference

 

 

 

I see nothing wrong with being a fence sitter, if that is what she wants to be. JW, might I remind you, that I came out of Xianity via the Episcopal Church. Can't be much more of a fence sitter than that.

 

I was only pointing out that I consider her a hopeless case so I don't try to argue with her. Didn't say there was anything wrong with it.

 

 

 

LNC has a point too, JW. You did make a positive statement about God. Now if you said, "I don't believe there is a god. Show me that there is." Well, then, the shoe would fall on the other side, in which the person says there is a god. Might I suggest "The Atheist Experience", which is on podcast? Matt maybe able to give you some pointers, JW. For you to say there is no god, well... My first response for you was the correct one, just as LNC's is also correct.

 

I don't know. I have pages of comments and he has a couple of sentences. Sounds like a dodge-- and that is pretty much what I would expect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way life springs from movement is if a man and a woman... you get the point. So, those little cells are alive and moving about, according to what you just said about movement. So we are back to life being God.

 

Let me restate that- the point of life actually begins when the baby takes it's first breath- nephesh: The breath of life, this is exactly what you are saying, only worded a bit differently and labeled with a different word.

 

I was talking about the creation of life-- not replication-- big difference

 

I still don't see how you refuted what I said. I wasn't talking about the replication of life. In this case, life begins when a human takes their first breath and at this point, they breathe in nephesh/the breath of life. From that very first movement/action, they are alive. So, it fits very well with what you said. There is no replication there. If the baby does not make that first motion, then it does not take in "the breath of life" and therefore does not live. In such a view, life is God, esp if it breathes in the breath of life. Without it, it is dead and not living.

 

 

LNC has a point too, JW. You did make a positive statement about God. Now if you said, "I don't believe there is a god. Show me that there is." Well, then, the shoe would fall on the other side, in which the person says there is a god. Might I suggest "The Atheist Experience", which is on podcast? Matt maybe able to give you some pointers, JW. For you to say there is no god, well... My first response for you was the correct one, just as LNC's is also correct.

 

I don't know. I have pages of comments and he has a couple of sentences. Sounds like a dodge-- and that is pretty much what I would expect

 

Well, no. You do not have pages of comments per se. You only have comments from atheists making statements of what they have heard believers say and they may have used these very same statements when they were Xians. I really do not see how atheists pretending to be Xians as being valid. They are just going along with the game, just as I am, of which I am still waiting for a successful refutation of the Hebrew belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't see how you refuted what I said. I wasn't talking about the replication of life. In this case, life begins when a human takes their first breath and at this point, they breathe in nephesh/the breath of life. From that very first movement/action, they are alive. So, it fits very well with what you said. There is no replication there. If the baby does not make that first motion, then it does not take in "the breath of life" and therefore does not live. In such a view, life is God, esp if it breathes in the breath of life. Without it, it is dead and not living.

 

We didn't start off human Mriana. The creation of life only happened once and all life on earth sprang from that. A baby is not life creating; a baby is replicating/reproducing.

 

Well, no. You do not have pages of comments per se. You only have comments from atheists making statements of what they have heard believers say and they may have used these very same statements when they were Xians. I really do not see how atheists pretending to be Xians as being valid. They are just going along with the game, just as I am, of which I am still waiting for a successful refutation of the Hebrew belief.

 

I have several proposals-- he didn't have one except that I make proposals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't see how you refuted what I said. I wasn't talking about the replication of life. In this case, life begins when a human takes their first breath and at this point, they breathe in nephesh/the breath of life. From that very first movement/action, they are alive. So, it fits very well with what you said. There is no replication there. If the baby does not make that first motion, then it does not take in "the breath of life" and therefore does not live. In such a view, life is God, esp if it breathes in the breath of life. Without it, it is dead and not living.

 

We didn't start off human Mriana. The creation of life only happened once and all life on earth sprang from that. A baby is not life creating; a baby is replicating/reproducing.

 

You lost me there. I'm not sure if we are working on the same footing with this concept. In which case, you have not proven anything, just I have not proven anything.

 

Well, no. You do not have pages of comments per se. You only have comments from atheists making statements of what they have heard believers say and they may have used these very same statements when they were Xians. I really do not see how atheists pretending to be Xians as being valid. They are just going along with the game, just as I am, of which I am still waiting for a successful refutation of the Hebrew belief.

 

I have several proposals-- he didn't have one except that I make proposals

 

Well, in a sense, the way you stated it, it does fall on you to show the proof. Burden of proof falls on the person who is making the statement with certainty. What I threw out is a concept, not a proposal. In either case, given that one is not on the same footing, neither of us can prove or disprove said concept with certainty. This is not necessarily an agnostic statement, but a matter of fact when comes to statements concerning a deity with certainty. Not even science makes a flat out statement that there is absolutely no god. So, again, we are back to square one- you have not proven or disproven anything. All you have done is moved the bar as to what constitutes life. First, you have life start where there is movement and then when I point out there is movement, you move the bar further back. Either it starts at the beginning something moves or it does not. All you did was redefine first movement after I made a claim about first movement. Thus, when I think we are on the same footing, you move it back even further, thus changing the whole thing to something else than what it was to begin with. So either it starts when something first moves or it does not and starts when the earth became alive. In which case, the Hebrew view also has nephesh for that too. So, where do you want to start with life? When something first moves or when the universe first began? Either way, when all is said and done, you have to prove your statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't see how you refuted what I said. I wasn't talking about the replication of life. In this case, life begins when a human takes their first breath and at this point, they breathe in nephesh/the breath of life. From that very first movement/action, they are alive. So, it fits very well with what you said. There is no replication there. If the baby does not make that first motion, then it does not take in "the breath of life" and therefore does not live. In such a view, life is God, esp if it breathes in the breath of life. Without it, it is dead and not living.

 

We didn't start off human Mriana. The creation of life only happened once and all life on earth sprang from that. A baby is not life creating; a baby is replicating/reproducing.

 

You lost me there. I'm not sure if we are working on the same footing with this concept. In which case, you have not proven anything, just I have not proven anything.

 

Well, no. You do not have pages of comments per se. You only have comments from atheists making statements of what they have heard believers say and they may have used these very same statements when they were Xians. I really do not see how atheists pretending to be Xians as being valid. They are just going along with the game, just as I am, of which I am still waiting for a successful refutation of the Hebrew belief.

 

I have several proposals-- he didn't have one except that I make proposals

 

Well, in a sense, the way you stated it, it does fall on you to show the proof. Burden of proof falls on the person who is making the statement with certainty. What I threw out is a concept, not a proposal. In either case, given that one is not on the same footing, neither of us can prove or disprove said concept with certainty. This is not necessarily an agnostic statement, but a matter of fact when comes to statements concerning a deity with certainty. Not even science makes a flat out statement that there is absolutely no god. So, again, we are back to square one- you have not proven or disproven anything. All you have done is moved the bar as to what constitutes life. First, you have life start where there is movement and then when I point out there is movement, you move the bar further back. Either it starts at the beginning something moves or it does not. All you did was redefine first movement after I made a claim about first movement. Thus, when I think we are on the same footing, you move it back even further, thus changing the whole thing to something else than what it was to begin with. So either it starts when something first moves or it does not and starts when the earth became alive. In which case, the Hebrew view also has nephesh for that too. So, where do you want to start with life? When something first moves or when the universe first began? Either way, when all is said and done, you have to prove your statement.

 

What part of show me proof means I have to provide proof? I don't have to prove something doesn't exist. They have to prove something does :twitch:

 

Do I have to prove that Darth Vader isn't real? He could be in a different galaxy a long time ago. Nope, I don't need to prove a negative. :HaHa:

 

As far as life goes I have already explained

1. that the universe always existed and did not need a first cause because its always been moving during a Big Bang or Big Crunch

2. that things self assemble and given a long enough period of time life can self assemble

 

I must also point out that Science never states a negative because they are only concerned with what DOES exist. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of show me proof means I have to provide proof? I don't have to prove something doesn't exist. They have to prove something does :twitch:

 

Do I have to prove that Darth Vader isn't real? He could be in a different galaxy a long time ago. Nope, I don't need to prove a negative. :HaHa:

 

As far as life goes I have already explained

1. that the universe always existed and did not need a first cause because its always been moving during a Big Bang or Big Crunch

2. that things self assemble and given a long enough period of time life can self assemble

 

I must also point out that Science never states a negative because they are only concerned with what DOES exist. :grin:

 

I think you misunderstand and why I suggest you listen to "The Atheist Experience". As for the universe and stuff, I'll get back with you tomorrow on that. It's awfully late here and I'm about to fall asleep at the comp, so I don't think I could put together a comprehensible sentence right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I can get back to you about the universe and no, Study State is not the current view in science. Hasn't been since the '50s. The current thought is the Big Bang and string theory, in which the universe has not always existed. I can get you more info sometime tomorrow evening, if you like, but the idea that they universe has always existed is an obsolete theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I can get back to you about the universe and no, Study State is not the current view in science. Hasn't been since the '50s. The current thought is the Big Bang and string theory, in which the universe has not always existed. I can get you more info sometime tomorrow evening, if you like, but the idea that they universe has always existed is an obsolete theory.

 

The matter to our universe has always existed Mriana. When we go to Big Crunch it destroys "our universe" and when it goes to Big Bang it creates "a new universe" but out of the same stuff. The stuff that always existed-- the matter of our universe.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I have my five minutes back please?

:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no God. Prove me wrong :mellow:

 

It seems that since you are making a positive assertion, it is up to you to defend it first.

 

LNC

 

My proof is scientific evidence coupled with Occams Razor and a strong dose of logic. I was not a lightweight Christian so I won't mind banging heads-- I was a Ram.. not a lamb, and Im for sport

 

Please elaborate. What is your scientific proof and how does Occam's razor help you? I can't judge the weight of your argument until you actually make one. I will look forward to reading what you've got. BTW, I've read through the posts to-date and don't see positive evidence, just assertions on your part.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no God. Prove me wrong :mellow:

 

It seems that since you are making a positive assertion, it is up to you to defend it first.

 

LNC

 

My proof is scientific evidence coupled with Occams Razor and a strong dose of logic. I was not a lightweight Christian so I won't mind banging heads-- I was a Ram.. not a lamb, and Im for sport

 

Please elaborate. What is your scientific proof and how does Occam's razor help you? I can't judge the weight of your argument until you actually make one. I will look forward to reading what you've got. BTW, I've read through the posts to-date and don't see positive evidence, just assertions on your part.

 

LNC

 

Trade involves contributions between TWO people. Im not interested in entertaining you with mental gymnastics. I may be dumb but thats just a dumber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, there is a mexican standoff in here! Who is going to be the first to lay down their cards? The suspense is killing me.... :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, there is a mexican standoff in here! Who is going to be the first to lay down their cards? The suspense is killing me.... :HaHa:

 

He just didn't want the posts to stop at the perfect number 66.. thats all Kath ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All ethics are based in what promotes survival and society. People usually stick with one partner to insure they are raising their own kid. Murder is not allowed because that hinders survival and promotes fear. Vigilantism is not allowed because people have a tendency to overdo vengence so murder is increased.

 

In short if it is very disruptive to society or survival it is immoral. I would also like to use CS Lewis.. He argued that a common morality [banned murder ect] across the world is proof that it was caused by a creator, but I think just the opposite. Those countries without God show the same morality exists without religion.

 

In short, morality is about survival and society--- not God.

 

You are begging the question by assuming the end (survival and society) in your definition of morality. You need to do a little more work on this before jumping to that conclusion. You also seem to ignore the divorce statistics for our society as at least half of marriages end in divorce and the children are deprived of a two parent household in many of those situations. By that reasoning, it seems that the survival instinct is not as strong as the instinct to separate and break up families. Given the fact that 99% of species have gone extinct, why is ours any more special. Also, we can look at other species that don't have our moral structure that have survived without it, so it seems that having a moral code is not necessary for the survival of a species.

 

Those countries that have left religion still have the foundation that Christianity brought to them and grounded within them, so that is not a good comparison. Better would be to look at societies that never had a Christian influence and those cultures die off regularly are kill each other off. Look to countries like Papua New Guinea (the parts that have not yet had a Christian influence) or parts of the African continent for examples.

 

You are trying to derive an ought (how we should act), from an is (survival) and it cannot be done. Who says that the person who murders his neighbor to take his food and shelter for the survival of his family is wrong? You also have used an artificial term that only date back a few centuries (society) and who defines what is or isn't society. Couldn't the man call his family his society and murder his neighbor for the survival of his society? Another mistake that you make is to assume that certain specific actions are either advantageous or disadvantageous to survival. We don't know and cannot predict what actions today will be either helpful or harmful to the long-term survival of society. Just a few ideas to chew on.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Big Bang was preceded by the Big Crunch. The Big Bang repeats itself like a heartbeat. It has been doing this forever. It compresses until an explosion and finally slows down and gets attracted back to the center to begin the Big Crunch again. There is nothing but mass and attraction. It has always existed.

 

There are a few problems with this theory. First, the universe is expanding and an increasing rate which would work against a Big Crunch occurring. Second, the entropy problem would mean that there would not be enough usable energy in the universe to create a successive Big Bang. For these reasons, along with the fact that an oscillating universe theory would require a completely different set of physics, this theory is all but defunct.

 

Philosophically, there are also other logical problems with a past eternal universe. For example, it would require an infinite amount of time to arrive at today, but then, because time continues to move, we know that we have not experienced an infinite amount of time and today should not be here (it is a terminus). The idea of an actually existing infinite causes all sorts of logical problems that are unresolved. So, it takes a great amount of blind faith to hold such a position.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't randomly change the definition of God that is equivocation. You cant prove God was the initial cause, that is just one possibility, and an archaic one that is not supported by the scientific community.

 

You also fall into the trap of espousing a past infinite universe. That is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one and it is not even supportable by science as it would require a different set of physics in which the law of entropy would have had to change at some point. If entropy always existed as it is observed now, the universe would be in a state of heat death now and we wouldn't be having this conversation, but here we are.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self assembly does exist. For me proving it exists is as good as proving a life form self assembles, because when you prove self assembly happens all you need is a long enough period of time. I could swing more Darwinism but I will save that for the true Christians that want to throw down ;)

 

There is a big gap from showing self-assembly to the first protocell. Science still has to overcome many obstacles, including the development of simple proteins from the right types of amino acids, which means overcoming the chirality problem. Establishing that the right atmosphere was present. These are just two of the reasons the people like Francis Crick are looking for solutions beyond this planet rather than on this planet.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.