Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

GG CNN on becoming Fox

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
Author
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 February 2007 at 2:10pm
Originally posted by MT. Vigilante MT. Vigilante wrote:

So as a result I took into consideration other factors, such as the fact that all of mankind everywhere has this basic set of rules that defines right and wrong. And that set of rules is the same everywhere, regardless of culture or tradition. For exaple, every nation and culture agrees that murder is wrong. Now you may be saying right now that that is not true, many cultures have traditions that say it is ok to murder. However, that is not quite true, none of them say it is ok to murder whenever you feel like it, but rather they have some complicated set of religious guidlines or tradition that says it is ok to murder under certain cercumstances, and they basically say that when those cercumstances apply then you are not breaking the basic codes of human behavior or whatever you want to call them.
Now taking into account that fact, I caim to the conclusion that since there is no evedence that this code of human behavior is genetic, (because there is no animals that seem to express a similar code,) then something must have put that code in us, namely God.


I'd suggest you read some more books on anthropology and evolutionary studies. Jared Diamond's 'The Third Chimpanzee' in particular is quite brilliant.

Most of those 'codes' that you mention are only about 50,000 years old, linked to the start of culturalization and socialization that occurred with humanity's 'great leap forward' about that time. They're generally believed to be linked to the development of language, something which some animals are showing a very primitive capacity for, and which is being proven more and more as different species (particularly primates) are studied.

This code of behaviour is not necessarily genetic- it is adaptive. It is merely an extension of the individual survival instinct into a situation where promoting the welfare of the group serves to promote one's own survival and interests. Basic mathematical game theory has shown this to be true. These codes are no more than a logical growth and adaptation of individual survival behaviour to a social dynamic where one's success as an individual has a strong link to the welfare of one's entire group- be it family, tribe, or community.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
BARREL BREAK View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Prettiest Princess in all the lands

Joined: 08 September 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BARREL BREAK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2007 at 2:56am
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2007 at 1:01pm
Short and neutered indeed.  Still nifty.
Back to Top
Da Hui View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Guested, 9/13 Inappropiate post content

Joined: 06 August 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8442
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Da Hui Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2007 at 1:16pm
Christianity > Atheism
Back to Top
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10299
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gatyr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2007 at 1:32pm
Originally posted by Da Hui Da Hui wrote:

Christianity > Atheism


Well I'm convinced.

Tea anyone?
Back to Top
MT. Vigilante View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Captain America

Joined: 01 February 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1454
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MT. Vigilante Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2007 at 2:10pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by MT. Vigilante MT. Vigilante wrote:

You forget Clark that the whole point of Jesus' resurrection is that it's immpossible according to the laws of physics. That is the whole point, God was demonstrating that he can do anything, even if it is against the Laws of Physics, because he wrote them. So by you saying that it is immpossible for Jesus to be resurected based on what science tells us, you are agreeing with us.

That's why I picked resurrection, instead of something more pedestrian, like walking on water, or toast shaped like Mary...   :)

I do believe we are agreeing with each other - sort of.  My point is that all available scientific evidence points towards no god, or at least towards no resurrection, no walking on water, Thor doesn't cause thunder, rain isn't really god's tears, there is no pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow, etc. 

Based purely on obervable, measurable information, there is no contest.  ALL of the evidence for god/leprechauns is subjective, inconsistent, sparse, and as fuzzy as pictures of Nessie.  The evidence against the existence of god/leprechauns is never conclusive (such is the nature of science), but objective, measurable, repeatable, absolutely overwhelming in volume, and crystal clear.

Therefore, the rational conclusion, based on available evidence, HAS to be that there is no god and no leprechauns.

HOWEVER - faith is not based on reason or evidence.  Faith is outside of reason, and evidence is rather irrelevant.

Compare the following analyses of the resurrection:

Reason

p1 - The Bible claims Jesus was resurrected.

p2 - Medical science, and all of recorded human history, says that resurrections do not happen.

Conclusion:  The Bible is incorrect, and the resurrection did not happen.

Faith

p1 - The Bible claims Jesus was resurrected.

p2 - Medical science, and all of recorded human history, says that resurrections do not happen.

p3 - The Bible is true and correct, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion:  The Bible is correct AND medical science is correct, and the resurrection is therefore proof of god's existence.

 

Given the premises, both reason and faith arrive at logical conclusions.  The difference is in the third premise of the faith-based analysis.  Faith exempts the Bible (or other applicable holy text/belief) from critical analysis, and establishes that as the "teacher's edition".  The bible is always correct; anything that contradicts the bible is wrong.  And that premise has ZERO foundation in reason, and is entirely based in irrational faith.

And that's fine - I have no problem with irrational faith.  We all have our little irrational tics.  Being a little irrational isn't necessarily a bad thing.  What bugs me is when people try to pretend that faith is NOT irrational, and that it is somehow not ascientific.

The scientific evidence is clear:  The existence of god is about as likely as the existence of the FSM.  That is to say, not likely at all.  Any belief to the contrary is fundamentally irrational.



You are still basing your arguement on the fact that the miricles in the Bible are immpossible according to science. But as I said before, we Christians completely agree with that fact and always have, afterall, what good whould it do if somone comes along saying he is God in the flesh and does things we know already occur naturally. It whould prove nothing, that is why the miracles in the Bible are immpossible according to science, that's the whole point of them, otherwise they whouldn't be miracles. 

Also, in saying that science proves that there is no God, you are taking the stance that science can and does already explain everything in the universe ( I know you will swear up and down that this is not the case but you logic shows it). But that is very far from the truth, science is constantly changing. Scientists will say one thing is true and the next day prove it false. And as of yet science has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist. All the evedence so far has been vague and completely open to interpretation, which is the core of why we disagree. Christians see one result in the evedence and athiests see another, because the evidence is truly inconclusive. 

But we do not totally disagree, athough I do not beleive scientists will ever find evedence to disprove the existance of God, I also do not beleive they will ever find evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does exist. The reason for this is simple; untill the end of this world, God will never reveal himself so completely, that whould get rid of the faith aspect. Think about it, God wants all of us to come to him by faith in order for us to acknowlege that we do not know everything, in order for us to humble ourselves, and in order for us to completely rely on him. Otherwise he whould just appear to everyone and say "Here I am." And God has shown that he does not work that way.

Join the XP Re-Revolution!
Back to Top
Hysteria View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 2 - Language, 9/25

Joined: 02 February 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4364
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hysteria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2007 at 2:46pm
Originally posted by MT. Vigilante MT. Vigilante wrote:

But we do not totally disagree, athough I do not beleive scientists will ever find evedence to disprove the existance of God


Because that is quite literally impossible.  Just as impossible as disproving the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn or Russell's Teapot.

But we can disprove much of the Bible (which we have), thus making it a book comprised of a bunch of lies.  No one capable of rational thought should base their entire life on 2000 year old lies.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2007 at 2:49pm

Originally posted by MT. Vigilante MT. Vigilante wrote:


You are still basing your arguement on the fact that the miricles in the Bible are immpossible according to science. But as I said before, we Christians completely agree with that fact and always have, afterall, what good whould it do if somone comes along saying he is God in the flesh and does things we know already occur naturally. It whould prove nothing, that is why the miracles in the Bible are immpossible according to science, that's the whole point of them, otherwise they whouldn't be miracles. 

I thought that was what I was saying as well.  Hence my three premises of the faith-based analysis.  Can you provide alternate premises to explain how I am missing your point?

Quote Also, in saying that science proves that there is no God, you are taking the stance that science can and does already explain everything in the universe ( I know you will swear up and down that this is not the case but you logic shows it). 

I will in fact swear up and down that this is not the case, because I am NOT saying that science proves that there is no god.  I am saying that the sum of scientific knowledge and evidence to date provides overwhelming evidence that there is no god (at least not as described in the Bible).  New knowledge and evidence could come to light that would change that conclusion.  Science is fluid by nature.

Quote Scientists will say one thing is true and the next day prove it false.

Although I take your point, this is a tad exaggerated, if not outright false.

Quote And as of yet science has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist.

And never will, much like science has never proved anything else beyond a shadow of a doubt either.

Quote All the evedence so far has been vague and completely open to interpretation

!!!!!!

What is this vague evidence of which you speak? 

I am not sure you really understand how science works...   I encourage you to spend some time in a research lab - of any kind - and you will see how science is simply a method, a process.  It does not "prove" or "disprove" anything in an absolute sense, it merely adds incremental bits of information and data, and organizes that data so that we can reach tentative but rational conclusions.  The data remains - but as new data is added, conclusions may be revised.  It is exceedingly rare for a conclusion to be completely scrapped or reversed, since the underlying data remains, and has been incorporated into the new conclusion.

Science isn't about "yes" or "no" - it's about gradual, incremental, increase in overall knowledge and understanding.

Back to Top
MT. Vigilante View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Captain America

Joined: 01 February 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1454
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MT. Vigilante Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2007 at 5:12pm

Well I'm not going to quote as much as you Clark.

As for your first question, my point is this; that you can not use the fact that miracles are immpossible according to science as a means of disproving Gods existance since we Christians completely agree.

As for your other points; you seem to be contradicting yourself, one moment you say that science is fluid, and that nothing can be proven by science beyond a shadow of a doubt. The next you speak of science as if it were rock hard and undenyable by saying that the evidence disproving God's existance is overwhelming and thus we must conclude that God does not exist, yes you never said those exact words, but you did say something to that effect, I quote;
"The evidence against the existence of god/leprechauns is never conclusive (such is the nature of science), but objective, measurable, repeatable, absolutely overwhelming in volume, and crystal clear.

Therefore, the rational conclusion, based on available evidence, HAS to be that there is no god and no leprechauns."

But if science is never conclusive, then how can we reach a conclusion about God's existance using science? I will say there are things which we can come to a conclusion with using science, but God's existance is not one of them. The vast evidence against his existance which you have mentioned several times (and have yet to present by the way) is just not conclusive, which you yourself have said. So if the evidence is not conclusive then why should I doubt God's existance? 

Join the XP Re-Revolution!
Back to Top
ANARCHY_SCOUT View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
strike 1 1/24 rudeness to newer members

Joined: 07 August 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4439
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ANARCHY_SCOUT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2007 at 6:54pm
Jimmy cracked corn and I dont care
Jimmy cracked corn and  I dont care.
who the hell is jimmy?
Gamertag: Kataklysm999
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2007 at 6:57pm

Other than the fact that some old books say so, what evidence do you have to support the existence of God? Why in the world is the burden of proof on the guys who don't believe in it? The idea that god exists until proven otherwise seems to prevail.

 Can you disprove anybody else's gods? Christians in general believe in one God, but if the arguments against that one are invalid, as many would claim, are their arguments against other gods any better? With the evidence you have in support of your god, you have to conceed the probability of yours being the correct answer is small compared to equally valid beliefs of others. FSM is just as likely.

If you're going to run on the assumption that there is a being not bound by the physical laws of nature as we understand them, who can make anything and do anything, god might have created the universe out of bellybutton lint ten minutes ago and created the world as is, with fossiles, already living people, and memories and false histories fr them.

I still want to know if he can microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2007 at 7:12pm
Originally posted by MT. Vigilante MT. Vigilante wrote:

Therefore, the rational conclusion, based on available evidence, HAS to be that there is no god and no leprechauns."

But if science is never conclusive, then how can we reach a conclusion about God's existance using science? ...So if the evidence is not conclusive then why should I doubt God's existance? 

All scientific conclusions are "based on available evidence" and subject to change - ALL scientific conclusions, not just with regard to god.  Disease, medicine, cars, rockets, TV - it's all "based on available evidence".  All of it.

And if you are to apply the same standard of evidence across the board, you should be as critical of god as everything else, like Leprechauns.  And since all of the evidence against leprechauns also applies to god, it is fundamentally irrational to accept god but not leprechauns.

As to the evidence?  It starts with Genesis 1:1, and goes on from there.  But more importantly, as you said yourself, we agree that almost everything about god is scientifically "impossible" - that is the evidence.

Just ask yourself what the evidence is against leprechauns, and then ask yourself if the same evidence doesn't also apply against god.

Back to Top
Hades View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2003
Location: Virgin Islands
Status: Offline
Points: 12983
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hades Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 February 2007 at 7:15pm
God exists because I want him to and that makes it a fact.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.187 seconds.