Does God exist? (4 Viewers)

[Reyn Reyn]

That's pretty idiotic. Disbelieving in god because you hate religion is really not an argument at all.

agreed

 

[Reyn Reyn]

You will not find a single one that disagrees on any reason other than religious grounds.

Your point is moot and shows how incredibly juvenile you are.

well it's obvious that a person like you is against any sort of religion, but i really think that shouldn't have to affect you at all, nor should it give YOU the permission to go against it all.

what people believe is what they SHOULD believe, that is their choice.

and you shouldn't have to be a part of it

 

[scarybunny]

God I love you Mr Shroe.

 

[historykidd]

reverting to the gold standard and decreasing the size of government should fix the religion problem imo

 

[*TRUE*]

You're missing the point, dimwit. I have countered her on every argument she has made against secularism.

I have no issues with pluralism, and your arguments are completely valid, just not for that point. That point was countering her own one claiming that evolution is just a theory.

As a Catholic, I assume you're fully au fait with evolution and don't believe in the 'creation' nonsense. EmyTaylor here was putting forward Junk science and junk scientists as fact in order to further her own beliefs.

I fully believe she has every right to voice her opinions and concerns, but I have every right to call them bunkum and a joke when she makes ones that go clearly against reality.

I loathe religion because it's a fascist method of mind control, much like national socialism or communism, but I still fully believe people are allowed to support and believe in those ideologies.

I also happen to believe in freedom of association.

I was responding to being provoked by her idiocies and her complete lack of understanding of science and reality. This is the same for most people in the thread. The fundamentalists have come in, made grandiose idiotic proclamations and then call us close minded when we call them on their bullshit.

You made a sweeping statement based on a fraction of an argument and expect to be grudgingly given respect? Hardly.

Shroe , as a man with a profound respect for science , i am sure you understand the need for specificity.
Do not accuse all 'fundies" ( as you so charmingly dub me and others) as having said things they havent.
I have never called you close minded.
I wish you would stop aiming to reduce me to your idea of a stereotypical - ANYTHING.

 

[Slidey]

well it's obvious that a person like you is against any sort of religion, but i really think that shouldn't have to affect you at all, nor should it give YOU the permission to go against it all.

what people believe is what they SHOULD believe, that is their choice.

and you shouldn't have to be a part of it

I think you have to draw the line when you have doctors running around claiming evolution is a lie, really. I certainly wouldn't want such a person in charge of my physical health, and tbh I doubt such a person is truly fit to be in charge of anybody's.

P.S. any sane Catholic wouldn't be agreeing with emtaylor.

 

[*TRUE*]

Yeah okay, but that is because fire is hot, and if we want to we can sit here and dissect the components of fire to explain why you'd get burnt.

It doesn't translate across to what you're trying to explain to me. Putting your hand in a fire is cause and effect.

Disease was put upon man by God, and you can say that it's just a consequence of man disobeying God, but a consequence is a form of punishment.
How can a God who is not vengeful impose this punishment on all humans, even those that aren't born yet. What sin has a foetus committed? Surely newborns are the most innocent and free from sin, and yet they're often struck down with disease too.

Unless God has intended for all humans to be susceptible disease as a direct consequence of Adam and Eve's disobedience ... in which case I reaffirm my idea that God is vengeful. '





A consequence is not a form of punishment Boris. A punishment can be a consequence however.
A consequence is the effect , result or outcome of something that has occured earlier.
I was saying that it was due to spiritual laws ( similar in nature to physical laws) that disease etc came into the world.
Rebellion from God entered the world.
This rebellion is evident in all of the world ,including in perversions of the human body.
God created the Earth perfect. By his word....but his word was rebelled against....

 

[Ennaybur]

I want kfunk back in this thread

 

[Ennaybur]

MY HAIR IS A BIRD YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID.

Stop posting about Kfunk you fucking queer faggot! Post some arguments.

But I want him

















inside of me.

 

[KFunk]

Hmm, this thread seems to be dying a bit under the weight of trolling and personal attacks. Surely we can do better?

To Inasero and Kwayera: I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the 'what is a theory?' / 'what is a law?' issues (see my posts # 7342 & 7343).

 

[boris]

Peter: As we all know, Christmas is that mystical time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the grave to feast on the flesh of the living! So we all sing Christmas Carols to lull him back to sleep.
Bob: Outrageous, How dare he say such blasphemy. I've got to do something.
Man #1: Bob, there's nothing you can do.
Bob: Well, I guess I'll just have to develop a sense of humor.

 

[Kwayera]

Hmm, this thread seems to be dying a bit under the weight of trolling and personal attacks. Surely we can do better?

To Inasero and Kwayera: I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the 'what is a theory?' / 'what is a law?' issues (see my posts # 7342 & 7343).

Wow I missed a lot! I think I was trying to say what YOU elaborated on, just in a less-intelligent and more colloquial fashion. At least, I didn't disagree with your correction

But re: theories and laws and the differences between them, I think (I may be wrong) that laws are essentially theories that can be mathematically described. You can't really mathematically describe germ theory (or can you?), but you can mathematically describe gravity (such as it is). Does that make sense?


EDIT: What 3unitz said

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Anyone who calls themselves a science teacher who does not subscribe to evolution theory is not a science teacher.

haha i observed one teaching year 11 bio the other day who was like "i know all the evidence for evolution but personally I'm most comfortable with creationism"

bit of a "wtf" moment there

also, I love emy's explanation about how someone showed her the bible and she just 'decided' to become a christian, lol

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

haha i observed one teaching year 11 bio the other day who was like "i know all the evidence for evolution but personally I'm most comfortable with creationism"

bit of a "wtf" moment there

also, I love emy's explanation about how someone showed her the bible and she just 'decided' to become a christian, lol

Yeah I don't get it. How impressionable can you be... "oh hay this guy sez jeesus is good so like, i think i'm gonna b a fundie nao"

I mean I know she said she researched but...

 

[KFunk]

But re: theories and laws and the differences between them, I think (I may be wrong) that laws are essentially theories that can be mathematically described. You can't really mathematically describe germ theory (or can you?), but you can mathematically describe gravity (such as it is). Does that make sense?

Aye it does. Mind you, there have been curious attempts to formulate laws of biology - think statements like "all renates are caudates", or even "all biological diversity is generated by evolution" (they have the kind of brevity found in statements like E = mc²). Of course, the nature of the subject makes it hard to make rock-solid, universal generalisations. Things tend to become absurd when similar claims are made within the social sciences.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

it's a bit pointless to have laws outside of physics and principles of chemistry, since the behaviour of all matter/energy and therefore things like life should follow from them...

i.e. if you have a big enough computer, then Newton's laws & the laws of electromagnetism should explain life.

 

[BradCube]

im more or less debating the origins of morality, yes, however if morals can be explained by completely naturalistic processes, then a posited god who divinely inspired our morals is not needed. one could say god triggered the big bang which set of a chain of events, which eventually led to the completely naturalistic evolution of a moral system, which may have been part of gods "plan", however saying otherwise falls victim to ockhams razor (if it doesnt so already).
so in this way im not committing a genetic fallacy, as the origins impact the current meaning of the issue. in the same way one might change the view that the intricate structure of the human eye or the elegance of a flower implies a designer god, upon studying the theory of evolution.

ps: be more specific brad, i wont hurt u

Bolded section highlights where my thoughts were already going exactly. Genetic fallacy didn't seem all that appropriate because if evolution is the reason for morality, then it must have had an impact on the meaning and origins of such morality. The only way around this that I can see, is what you have already put forward - that God would have already created the world in such a way that evolution brought about His objective morality - or at least, some conception of it being laid on people's consciences. It also makes way for a good reason of why morality could differ between cultures and over time.

Are there any other possibilities apart from these that I am missing?

On a separate note - I'm a little disheartened with the recent discussion in this thread. So much name calling and unthoughtful conversation...such is life I suppose.

 

[inasero]

quote one theory that was widely accepted by the scientific community but was later completely disproven, please. I bet you have to google for that one you uneducated fuckhead.

stomach ulcers being caused by stress and spicy food for one...lawl

 

[inasero]

This is exactly my opinion of the Bible, but I still read it because I would like to have a clue what I'm arguing about in threads like these.

Stop thinking that just because it does not interest you that you shouldn't give it a go.

have you tried reading it for its own merit? i think you'll find it a whole heap more interesting than you realised

 

[inasero]

This is true. I just honestly have a hard time imagining a science teacher with religious views similar to yours. Kind of the same thing as inasero being a doctor when he seems to think disease is visited upon humans by God as a consequence of sin. Not all science teachers agree with evolution theory which is fine as long as they don't teach creationism like it's fact, imo.

no i never said that...see my reply to boris