I want someone to tear apart this website... (1 Viewer)

[stickers]

Hahaha Check ANd Mate.

 

[Fish Tank]

There will probably never be hard evidence for a god/gods. I can say that there is an invisible purple unicorn next to me. There is no way to know if the aforementioned invisible unicorn is real or not. But stating that it is real just because science can't disprove it is completely illogical and ridiculous.

I understand what you're saying, and if it helps I don't follow any religion. But our knowledge of science is flawed, in the sense that there are still unanswered questions. Who knows, maybe down the track there will be evidence for an invisible purple unicorn next to you. Point I'm making, all options need to be considered until there is an imperative answer, yes that does somewhat include silly options.

We do not need religion for moral guidance.
Our morality is derived from society and the relative values and ideal's that society upholds. Once again it is completely illogical and ridiculous to use 2000 year old 'values and teachings' in the current world we live in.
Just look at the islamic faith. They still stone people to death.

Not sure if you've noticed, but society has no morals.

When you say 'we', I'm assuming you mean 'you' and 'I' and the other people who form their morality based on their contemplation. Some people out there need initial instructions for what is right and wrong - is that not learning? I'll admit, some of the foundation of my ethical stance is from Catholicism, but nowadays I'm what they would call an 'apostate'. It's best for people to have a choice, and some choose to follow a faith. At the end of the day, I believe it's best if everyone knows right from wrong regardless of how they got there.

Using teachings and values already made up saves us making them up again. Yes, there are some outdated ones, but like our advancement in science we need to sift through everything and come up with a correct answer. Modern science and medicine was founded on previous research and testing which is outdated by today's standards. To somewhat compare with the stoning of women in Islam, science gave us modern tools of battle to allow for mass killing, notable nuclear weapons (my personal stance on that is irrelevant atm). I know they're not the same thing, but the point is both religion and science have their positives and their negatives.

 

[Scorch]

Oh boy ... here we go.

pls note I am actually studying physics and actually plenty of other people who support me in the odds business...it all comes down to the formation of protiens....something you prob don't understand at all given that your studying arts.....also to do with the relative strengths of the 4 fundamental forces as exerted by their corresponding gluons (assuming higgs boson actually exists)

I sincerely hope you're fucking kidding me.

essentially...it states that protiens etc are so unlikely to exist, god has a higher probability :.he exists

This absolutely shows that you have not a clue what you're talking about. This is the most logically false statement you can make. Were this evidence that you can't be bothered to find and present to us about proteins true, and that is shows that the chance of proteins developing was very slim, this scientifically and logically simply infers that it was an improbable (not unlikely, that would be a misnomer) event that happened. Improbable events happen all the time, improbability is, as much as probability, a natural course.

The fact that what actually happened is improbable does not suggest anything apart from that it was improbable and in no single way suggests that "god has a higher probability". The fact that an event was unlikely to occur but nonetheless did in no way is scientific evidence that a mystic sky-man was behind it.

I think you are discussing religion in the present day context, comparing their ideas of creation with current scientific views. You're comparing thousand-year old apples with constantly-updating oranges my friend. Religious explanations for creation, taken as literal explanations, are wrong today, but so was early science - Ptolemy's geocentric model, time as a constant etc. Looking at them both in a light that favours the oranges, no mystery which one's gonna win.

The difference that the mistakes science made were due to the fact that our ability to understand and analyse the evidence was, at that point, consistently growing. To compare the suppositions of Ptolemy, for example, motivated by a scientific discourse of investigation and transparency and a genuinely inquisitive nature towards the realities of the world around and the fact that superstitious Palestinian peasants wrote a logically inconsistent book that makes countless basic scientific errors and claimed it as the infallible word of God is absolutely absurd.

The only thing science doesn't really explain is whether there is a god/gods or not. By that I don't mean you think the idea of a god is stupid, I mean hard evidence.

As I have said, scientific logic dictates that if there is no evidence that something exists it is an entirely logical supposition that it does exist, especially if there are perfectly rational naturalistic explanation based on a genuine spirit of scientific inquiry and not on the preconception of the constantly incorrect and illogical writings of three thousand year old peasant farmers.

The idea of religion nowadays is not to explain the exact workings of the world, but to provide moral guidance using metaphors and stuff like that. Creation story for Christianity presents humans falling from grace, representing the evil present in everyone, NOT that a talking snake told humanity to eat an apple just to piss off a big fella in the sky.

Well if they feel like ignoring their Holy Book then that's fine; it just shows that, to be considered a rational religious person in the slightest, one must ignore the realities of one's Holy Book. While showing common sense it is still intellectually hypocritical.

If the Holy Book was truly inspired by a divine deity that knows literally everything to ever have happened and indeed created and engineered the entirety of the universe he would inspire it such that the people writing it fucked up the basics of the universe that even their contemporaries got right in their understanding of the world.

I understand what you're saying, and if it helps I don't follow any religion. But our knowledge of science is flawed, in the sense that there are still unanswered questions. Who knows, maybe down the track there will be evidence for an invisible purple unicorn next to you. Point I'm making, all options need to be considered until there is an imperative answer, yes that does somewhat include silly options.

Not at all. When science doesn't know something, it admits it. It will make supposition and postulate based on the evidence, how we should scientifically expect things to behave and what the observable universe and its quantifiable laws dictate things ought to behave. These ideas are then subject to peer review, revised consistently, understanding is further via scientific spirit and intellectual transparency.

It is these options that need to be considered and not the ones made without any consideration of the natural evidence or observable universe that, made out of thousand year old ignorance, claim that an invisible, unquantifiable sky-man made everything, constantly receding vaguely until the only things that God can lay claim to are vague ideas of the creation of the universe and none of the shit that the Bible says he does.

When you say 'we', I'm assuming you mean 'you' and 'I' and the other people who form their morality based on their contemplation. Some people out there need initial instructions for what is right and wrong - is that not learning? I'll admit, some of the foundation of my ethical stance is from Catholicism, but nowadays I'm what they would call an 'apostate'. It's best for people to have a choice, and some choose to follow a faith. At the end of the day, I believe it's best if everyone knows right from wrong regardless of how they got there.

Using teachings and values already made up saves us making them up again. Yes, there are some outdated ones, but like our advancement in science we need to sift through everything and come up with a correct answer. Modern science and medicine was founded on previous research and testing which is outdated by today's standards. To somewhat compare with the stoning of women in Islam, science gave us modern tools of battle to allow for mass killing, notable nuclear weapons (my personal stance on that is irrelevant atm). I know they're not the same thing, but the point is both religion and science have their positives and their negatives.

Morality does not come from religion in the slightest. Morality is entirely secular and rational in its operation and religion has simply been retreating since the day of its inception to the point that, to be a considered a reasonable Christian, one must ignore almost the entirety of the social ethos of the Bible.

The very fact that 'fundamentalist' is considered a term for a religious person that is crazy and unreasonable but literally means one that is committed to following the basic tenets of their religious book should tell you all you need to know. However the 'morals' present in religion are in no way original or beneficial; they are merely reflections of society's engagement with the biological and sociological realities with which humanity is confronted.

That is to say that society had already worked out that indiscriminate murder, theft and rape were bad things and, had it taken until God gave the ten commandments to Moses circa 2000BC for us to work it out, we would never have survived until such a time. Religion merely reflects these basic facts.

There is no statement considered moral that a religious person could make that I would not agree with, because religion merely reflects a secular conception of morality. However because this morality is constantly shifting through rational, public discourse and intellectual dialogue in an entirely secular manner, there are many statements that religious people have long since discarded from their ethos that are evident in the Bible (such as slavery, war crimes, oppression of women) that are looked down upon because of such a secular morality.

This is an interesting topic and it is on this topic that I think you have an actually respectable understanding of how things are, and I'm more than happy, and this is not offered sarcastically, to clarify or elaborate on anything that was particularly unclear.

I can prove there isn't an invisible purple unicorn beside you...two reasons...
1. it is physically impossible to be both purple and invisible, they are mutually exclusive.
2. It's not insubstantial so i should be able to touch it

Wow. If one subscribes to the idea that these are serious disproofs of the fact that there is an invisible purple unicorn beside him then on that same logic there are literally dozens of similar disproofs for God.




... cue shouts of I love you and marriage proposals.

 

[shuttle_bus5]

If god does exist then his name is Scorch.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

If god goes exist then his name is Scorch.

Correct.

 

[Lolsmith]

increasing the odds of getting a functional universe

- start with a big bang
- inject sum GOD
-???
-profit

hahahahaha. Champion South Park reference.

If god does exist then his name is Scorch.

I actually skipped over 80% of this thread. The only parts I stopped at was when Scorch was posting. I didn't even read the quotes he was disproving/owning/talking about. They didn't matter...

 

[shuttle_bus5]

hahahahaha. Champion South Park reference.


I actually skipped over 80% of this thread. The only parts I stopped at was when Scorch was posting. I didn't even read the quotes he was disproving/owning/talking about. They didn't matter...

Definitely

 

[runoutofsleep]

hahahaha cop this evolutionists

game over

[youtube]FZFG5PKw504[/youtube]

 

[thongetsu]

I BELIEVE IN THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER! google him!

 

[speak]

[youtube]Akc5w_ZqByY[/youtube]

 

[Ritard_]

If I had to sum up my own atheism, I think I would have to say that it amounts to this: I have no interest in the supernatural. I also have no interest in what others believe about the supernatural as long as their belief does not involve intolerance of those who disagree with them. Such people are a menace to society, a hindrance to social progress, and are unworthy of our respect. If we care about humanity, we have a duty to stand up to the intolerant of the world, no matter what god they claim commands them to behave inhumanely. We also have a duty to oppose those who claim immunity from the prohibition of abusing children because of their belief in some god. To claim that children should not be educated in science or in the religious beliefs of others—or that they should not receive proper medical care—because their parents believe God forbids it, is unacceptable.


quote from some guy

 

[Ritard_]

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." --Albert Einstein*

some guy

 

[Ritard_]

true-believer syndrome - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com


how the fucken shit can any sane person believe in god let alone a religion such as christianty islam or judaism

 

[Ritard_]

read this you spastics

naturalism - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

 

[Ritard_]

What's the harm? - Archives - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com


religion=occult, paranormal, pseudoscientific, and supernatural beliefs.

 

[Ritard_]

islam=cult

 

[supercalamari]

islam=cult

Actually if you analyse it using phenomenology it's a religion, it doesn't have the features of a cult.

*me being a SORII nerd*

 

[Ritard_]

religion=cult

 

[Karlmarx]

Oh boy ... here we go.



I sincerely hope you're fucking kidding me.



This absolutely shows that you have not a clue what you're talking about. This is the most logically false statement you can make. Were this evidence that you can't be bothered to find and present to us about proteins true, and that is shows that the chance of proteins developing was very slim, this scientifically and logically simply infers that it was an improbable (not unlikely, that would be a misnomer) event that happened. Improbable events happen all the time, improbability is, as much as probability, a natural course.

The fact that what actually happened is improbable does not suggest anything apart from that it was improbable and in no single way suggests that "god has a higher probability". The fact that an event was unlikely to occur but nonetheless did in no way is scientific evidence that a mystic sky-man was behind it.



The difference that the mistakes science made were due to the fact that our ability to understand and analyse the evidence was, at that point, consistently growing. To compare the suppositions of Ptolemy, for example, motivated by a scientific discourse of investigation and transparency and a genuinely inquisitive nature towards the realities of the world around and the fact that superstitious Palestinian peasants wrote a logically inconsistent book that makes countless basic scientific errors and claimed it as the infallible word of God is absolutely absurd.



As I have said, scientific logic dictates that if there is no evidence that something exists it is an entirely logical supposition that it does exist, especially if there are perfectly rational naturalistic explanation based on a genuine spirit of scientific inquiry and not on the preconception of the constantly incorrect and illogical writings of three thousand year old peasant farmers.



Well if they feel like ignoring their Holy Book then that's fine; it just shows that, to be considered a rational religious person in the slightest, one must ignore the realities of one's Holy Book. While showing common sense it is still intellectually hypocritical.

If the Holy Book was truly inspired by a divine deity that knows literally everything to ever have happened and indeed created and engineered the entirety of the universe he would inspire it such that the people writing it fucked up the basics of the universe that even their contemporaries got right in their understanding of the world.



Not at all. When science doesn't know something, it admits it. It will make supposition and postulate based on the evidence, how we should scientifically expect things to behave and what the observable universe and its quantifiable laws dictate things ought to behave. These ideas are then subject to peer review, revised consistently, understanding is further via scientific spirit and intellectual transparency.

It is these options that need to be considered and not the ones made without any consideration of the natural evidence or observable universe that, made out of thousand year old ignorance, claim that an invisible, unquantifiable sky-man made everything, constantly receding vaguely until the only things that God can lay claim to are vague ideas of the creation of the universe and none of the shit that the Bible says he does.



Morality does not come from religion in the slightest. Morality is entirely secular and rational in its operation and religion has simply been retreating since the day of its inception to the point that, to be a considered a reasonable Christian, one must ignore almost the entirety of the social ethos of the Bible.

The very fact that 'fundamentalist' is considered a term for a religious person that is crazy and unreasonable but literally means one that is committed to following the basic tenets of their religious book should tell you all you need to know. However the 'morals' present in religion are in no way original or beneficial; they are merely reflections of society's engagement with the biological and sociological realities with which humanity is confronted.

That is to say that society had already worked out that indiscriminate murder, theft and rape were bad things and, had it taken until God gave the ten commandments to Moses circa 2000BC for us to work it out, we would never have survived until such a time. Religion merely reflects these basic facts.

There is no statement considered moral that a religious person could make that I would not agree with, because religion merely reflects a secular conception of morality. However because this morality is constantly shifting through rational, public discourse and intellectual dialogue in an entirely secular manner, there are many statements that religious people have long since discarded from their ethos that are evident in the Bible (such as slavery, war crimes, oppression of women) that are looked down upon because of such a secular morality.

This is an interesting topic and it is on this topic that I think you have an actually respectable understanding of how things are, and I'm more than happy, and this is not offered sarcastically, to clarify or elaborate on anything that was particularly unclear.



Wow. If one subscribes to the idea that these are serious disproofs of the fact that there is an invisible purple unicorn beside him then on that same logic there are literally dozens of similar disproofs for God.




... cue shouts of I love you and marriage proposals.

I love you!!!

And thanks everyone, we showed that fucking website who was boss.

(And all those dumbass christians without a ounce of knowledge)

 

[3Gis2G]

I'm a Christian.

The Bible tells us what happened. It doesn't tend to tell us (with the creation story at least) how it happened. God could have used evolution.

The Bible says God created the universe in 6 days. In other places in the Bible it hints that God is outside out concept of time, and a blink of an eye to God is like 1,000 years. That is where some get the 6,000 year creation from, but I think that the Bible is trying to be more general. I think the creation time period is not specified, rather the six days represent six stages of creation. And science supports this.

God could have used a big bang to help create the unvierse, who knows?

Science doesn't necessarily get rid of God. It's just different, and is looking at the same problem at a different angle using different means.

This.

When translating the bible (or when the info was originally recorded), 1 day probably equates to 1 era, or millions of years.

Like obviously, if nobody was around there, how could this information have been recorded?