I knew this would be an active thread, but I'm going to try to take a break for a while. Before I do, I want to make one last point about creation because I know it's important to people, and rightfully so.
I consider it plausible that the world/universe we know is the product of intentional/intelligent design. But if that is the case, it would have been some alien race who evolved on their own accord. They would not have simply appeared out of nothing as the biblical god is purported to have done. So the intelligent design theory doesn't help. It's an infinite regress of "who created the creator?"
I consider it plausible that the world/universe we know is the product of intentional/intelligent design. But if that is the case, it would have been some alien race who evolved on their own accord. They would not have simply appeared out of nothing as the biblical god is purported to have done. So the intelligent design theory doesn't help. It's an infinite regress of "who created the creator?"
hanoverphist
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2006
- 9,867
- 23
- 76
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
a dolt. of course you should care. if the religious merely left everyone alone perhaps you'd have a point. but clearly the religious are out f*cking up the world and trying to turn their superstitious nonsense into law oppressing everyone else. i mean seriously, nothing importants at stake here right? religious people are only letting superstition get in the way of things like medical research(stem cells) and such, what harm could that do
you act like the uncaring thing is that religion exists. i could care less what your beliefs are, or anyone elses for that matter. i dont know, dont really care or really even think about there being a supreme being somewhere playing rummy with your destiny. i dont subscribe to that newsletter. that said, im not on idiot where political issues are concerned, and just because i dont share someone elses beliefs about a supreme being doesnt make me blind to ridiculous politics based on superstition. somaybe youre the dolt for assuming too much (little?)
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
only religious wingnuts really take that crap literally though, so we can throw that out the window. i would HOPE that most of the sane people of faith would assume that most of the bible is metaphoric.
Which god are you referring to (if any) and how can you prove to me that his proof is not chalked up full of lies and illusions despite how real they may seem to our inexperienced eyes? The point is that it requires faith to believe in this "proof" that you speak of which technically means it is not proof at all. At best, this being will be able to convince the majority of the world that he is a god and actually did whatever he claims to have done in the past which no one was around to witness. No one will actually know for sure though. It will only strengthen their faith which more or less leaves us in the same position as we are now except that now we are no longer at the top of the food chain because there is this thing around which we know can wipe us all out in an instant.
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
hang around for a while, i'm sure one of these nerds is just chomping at the bit to pigeonhole you like everyone else.
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I haven't read through the whole thread, but what I did see had the definitions of atheist and agnostic all wrong. I'm not going to look up and post those definitions (you can do that yourself), but atheist is the opposite of theist. It means one who doesn't believe in god(s). Agnostic is the opposite of gnostic. It means one who does not believe in the supernatural (gnostic comes from the Greek gnosis which means to possess knowledge of the unknowable).
Agnostic doesn't mean being uncertain, it means someone who accepts knowledge only of that which can be observed, and rejects claims to know that which is unknowable. Hardly any kind of uncertain position. And should atheists ever be capable of proving their position that God doesn't exist, or theist theirs that God does exist, then agnostics might take sides. Until then, the whole argument looks a wee bit silly to us.
Agnostic doesn't mean being uncertain, it means someone who accepts knowledge only of that which can be observed, and rejects claims to know that which is unknowable. Hardly any kind of uncertain position. And should atheists ever be capable of proving their position that God doesn't exist, or theist theirs that God does exist, then agnostics might take sides. Until then, the whole argument looks a wee bit silly to us.
I think this response is crap. Telling me I (as well as many others) that we don't have courage? Laughable. I have the courage to say "I don't know." I have no problem admitting I don't know something with 100% certainty. Has it ever occurred to you that some people really don't care?
It's true I don't believe in the religious fairy tales that are all over the world today. However, I acknowledge the fact that science is always changing. Think back to what was though of as scientific fact back in the day when people didn't have the knowledge they do today. How about in another 2000 years when people look back at what we do today and laugh because we were so "stupid" for what we considered to be FACT.
That is such an ignorant & stupid word play. See bolded above. Do we know 100% where we come from? What was before Big Bang? What contained all the recipe for Big Bang prior to that than? How many times have we revised how we inetpret the world in the last decade?
Our science is JUST starting and it is very premature. It's like an ant trying to understand stock market. Just as I think Theists and their blind faith is stupid, exactly the same applies to the atheists who think we know everything.
We haven't even landed foot outside our own damn moon. How pathetic. All we draw are speculations from looking into the damn scope day and night.
At the end of the eon, one of you will be right. But it sure makes both of you look damn stupid for blind betting based on a 'hunch'.
That's right. With our current science, an athetistic 100% rule-out against a god is just as stupid as those who believe in one. Because we simply do not know.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
You can't prove a positive either. In science, all you can do is put forth a theory and hope it is not disproven; nothing is ever "proven" in the scientific world. Why do you think people keep running experiments on evolution? Every single one seems to reinforce the theory that evolution exists. But they keep doing it because all it takes is one experiment that disproves evolution and the theory is rendered incorrect (which means it must then be updated or scrapped). Science is all about disproving what is thought to be true without ever proving what is true. So by your logic, science is pointless too. That's silly.
That and your argument is coming out of left field, since agnostics are the ones claiming you can't prove or disprove God. This seems to be what you are arguing, and then you turn around and declare it pointless. I don't follow your logic here.
njdevilsfan87
Platinum Member
- Apr 19, 2007
- 2,341
- 264
- 126
99.99% sure? That's just ridiculous. The fact is, we don't know. Anyone putting any kind of percentage on the confidence of their belief without any basis is an idiot.
You either, think there is no God, or you think there is a God. There's really no putting a certainty on the belief unless you're hardcore about this stuff, in which case... I still think you're an idiot.
You either, think there is no God, or you think there is a God. There's really no putting a certainty on the belief unless you're hardcore about this stuff, in which case... I still think you're an idiot.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Actually, atheists like you make us all look silly by 1) being ignorant of his own position, and 2.) claiming to be waiting around for something that was impossible to begin with.
So you can't prove that gravity exists? You can't prove that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees? What is this you can't prove a positive nonsense?
My whole point about agnosticism being pointless is this: agnosticism states that you can neither prove nor disprove existence of god. However, you can inherently not disprove the existence of anything, which making a system of belief based around such an idea pointless.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter