Winston Legthigh Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 uh oh. stand back everyone!my apologies to both Neon and The Maker for the quote above (mine, not kwall's). I had deleted it from my original post, but not before kwall had posted it. It was a condescending remark, and doesn't acknowledge that there are also great minds on the atheist side of the argument as well (of which Neon and The Maker might be, though the evidence is scant.) Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 So, if you drop a radio in water, radio signals cease to exist? The fail boat has arrived. Link to post Share on other sites
TheMaker Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Regardless, I just have this to say - the argument is out there that belief in a deity is a crutch of small minds. That's fine and might be true in certain situations. I don't think it's universally true. There are many great minds that are theists. Conversely, I offer that the need to have an absolute answer in an unprovable situation is in the same ballpark of the previoiusly mentioned small mind. Tons of great thinkers have self-identified as theists throughout history. My own argument has less to do with religion being used as a crutch and more to do with religion being a rather obvious lie. It can become a crutch as easily as it can become a tool of oppression or vengeance or any number of other things, up to and including kindness and generosity. Not all of religion's intellectual side effects are poisonous, but it does us no favours as a species to obfuscate the fact that religion itself is a terrible lie. We have seen great thinkers inspired by god, true, but we have just as frequently seen them curtailed by religiosity throughout history, and it is my strong belief that this unconscious oppression potentially amounts to a holocaust of human knowledge. It's happening but we hear about the successes, not the countless failures and problems and how a successful cloning is tantamount to a miracle. This statement applies to virtually every scientific pursuit apart from cloning, as well. Science is iterative, and its discoveries must stand up to the most rigorous peer review imaginable before they can be considered successful. The public generally doesn't give two shits about this process, and although I would argue that we actually hear a great deal about cloning in the media, I suspect it has found a kind of mainstream appeal mostly because of its pseudo-controversial aspects, which are mostly promoted by the cautious, if not downright fearful, faithful. That and the fact that cloning is just neat. Link to post Share on other sites
TheMaker Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 But you don't even know if I believe in God or not... (I don't). I didn't write that message assuming you do or don't believe in god. My logic isn't going to change based on whether you're a devout Christian or someone who simply enjoys playing the devil's advocate. Read it over again if you don't believe me. It certainly scans. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Proof of the existence of God... Link to post Share on other sites
M. (hristine Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 The fail boat has arrived.He thinks mind and brain function the same. I do not. Link to post Share on other sites
TheMaker Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 That's not proof of the existence of anything other than one hot piece of ass. Link to post Share on other sites
kwall Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Proof of the existence of God...a mere random collection of cells. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 So, if you drop a radio in water, radio signals cease to exist? Insofar as that radio is concerned, yes. The brain is the hardware, our minds, the software Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 my apologies to both Neon and The Maker for the quote above (mine, not kwall's). I had deleted it from my original post, but not before kwall had posted it. It was a condescending remark, and doesn't acknowledge that there are also great minds on the atheist side of the argument as well (of which Neon and The Maker might be, though the evidence is scant.) No offense over here Link to post Share on other sites
TheMaker Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I'd just like to point out that, as of page 35, the board's religious faithful has been putting virtually all of its energy into arguing that quite literally anything is theoretically possible. You might want to pick up the pace a bit, guys. I'm a graphic designer and artist by trade; if I make up bumper stickers that read "GOD - ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, SO WHY THE FUCK NOT?" can I count on you guys to buy two each? Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Christian, pagan, either way you are going against everything you espouse intellectually. Christmas -- to you -- lost its religosity whenever you lost it. Don't you, by suspending your pilgrimage against religion for the sake of gift-giving, destroy whatever impact you might have in your intellectual pursuit of debunking religion? It's like denouncing cannibalism and then dining on the occasional dwarf. You simultaneously claim Christianity is hypocrisy and then espouse it and promote it because it serves you. Now who is exploiting faith for your own purposes? Ok, so because we visit with family and exchange gifts on December 25th (sometimes on the 24th Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Ok, so because we visit with family and exchange gifts on December 25th (sometimes on the 24th Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I'd just like to point out that, as of page 35, the board's religious faithful has been putting virtually all of its energy into arguing that quite literally anything is theoretically possible. You might want to pick up the pace a bit, guys. I'm a graphic designer and artist by trade; if I make up bumper stickers that read "GOD - ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, SO WHY THE FUCK NOT?" can I count on you guys to buy two each?Sorry - didn't realize the positions of agnostic atheists or agnostic theists were below you. Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 If this hatred of Christmas had a musical counterpart it would be a pouty Conor Obrest sitting on stage. Me, I hate christmas so much I raped Rudolph. Link to post Share on other sites
TheMaker Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I don't think either position is "below me," Winston. I simply don't see how they represent anything other than philosophical dithering and halfhearted apologetics. The fact remains: there is no evidence pointing in the direction of the existence of any god that man has yet invented. If that weren't conclusive enough, we can analyze the shit out of religious texts and rather convincingly trace their origins to pagan rituals, wishful thinking, caste systems, and any number of other ancient, brutish substitutes for reason and intellect. I've torn scripture to shreds in several posts now; nobody has yet defended my claims that Jesus is a murderer according to scripture, that the bible makes physically impossible claims, et al. Rather telling, no? Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Tons of great thinkers have self-identified as theists throughout history. My own argument has less to do with religion being used as a crutch and more to do with religion being a rather obvious lie. It can become a crutch as easily as it can become a tool of oppression or vengeance or any number of other things, up to and including kindness and generosity. Not all of religion's intellectual side effects are poisonous, but it does us no favours as a species to obfuscate the fact that religion itself is a terrible lie. We have seen great thinkers inspired by god, true, but we have just as frequently seen them curtailed by religiosity throughout history, and it is my strong belief that this unconscious oppression potentially amounts to a holocaust of human knowledge. You say all religion = lie. You state it as scientific law, but your "proof" is always, "some do this", "some believe this", "all are this" (which consequently is proven wrong time and again by exception). But you can't prove religion = lie because you can't possible prove creation/creator does not exist. You cann't prove all exceptions of belief are wrong. You can't answer "why." Your very last sentence disproves your own statement.This statement applies to virtually every scientific pursuit apart from cloning, as well. Science is iterative, and its discoveries must stand up to the most rigorous peer review imaginable before they can be considered successful. The public generally doesn't give two shits about this process, and although I would argue that we actually hear a great deal about cloning in the media, I suspect it has found a kind of mainstream appeal mostly because of its pseudo-controversial aspects, which are mostly promoted by the cautious, if not downright fearful, faithful. That and the fact that cloning is just neat. You completely missed the whole point; you instead see "clone" and you chase some perceived point, or some exception of religion being anti-cloning. It had nothing to do with the point I made. It is cool. But my point is even though we can repeat the creation under laboratory conditions it doesn't prove the non-existence of a creator. It just shows we can repeat some of the actions; we can repeat the what. Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Ok, so because we visit with family and exchange gifts on December 25th (sometimes on the 24th Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 nobody has yet defended my claims that Jesus is a murderer according to scripture, that the bible makes physically impossible claims, et al. Rather telling, no?Yes, it IS rather telling that nobody is defending your claims. Link to post Share on other sites
kwall Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 The fact remains: there is no evidence pointing in the direction of the existence of any god that man has yet invented.our existence points in the direction of us having been brought into existence. Link to post Share on other sites
Josephine Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, God, Tooth Fairy..... I believe in them all. Oh darn, my walking stick just turned into a snake - I hate when that happens. Link to post Share on other sites
TheMaker Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 You say all religion = lie. You state it as scientific law I don't think I've ever positioned anything as "scientific law" in my life. Even gravity and evolution are "merely" accepted theories that have stood up to centuries of scrutiny and have managed to anticipate new scientific discoveries. Corroborating evidence is central to upholding such theories, which is why science has such a tremendous advantage over religion in the physical, or "real," world. That god does not exist is a scenario that is likely enough to be considered true by nearly every objective measure. That doesn't necessarily make it "scientific law," but it's certainly a fact insofar as anything can be said to be one. "Big Bird doesn't actually exist" isn't exactly a "scientific law," but we can safely position it as a fact. "Unicorns are not real." "I am not a two-headed space monster disguised as a man." "God does not exist." These are all like statements in that they cannot be categorically proven, and they are also similar in that we have many more reasons to believe they are true than false. We've been over this, and it's impossible to prove a negative. The best I can do is present a collection of evidence that all but disproves the god hypthesis. I have done this by poking holes in scripture and revealing its many contradictions. I have done this by illustrating the faulty logic behind the god hypothesis. I have done this by pointing out the likely literary sources of various religious texts. I have done this in many, many ways in dozens of messages spread across two different threads. but your "proof" is always, "some do this", "some believe this", "all are this" (which consequently is proven wrong time and again by exception) I actually have no idea what you're talking about. Your arguments have finally been eclipsed by the vagaries you've resorted to embracing in order to further them. Apparently I'm damned if I tar all religions with the same brush, and I'm damned if I take the time to address the nonsense of each religion separately... our existence points in the direction of us having been brought into existence. "Brought into?" Uh, no, nothing points in that direction. Maybe the bible. Sorry. Yes, it IS rather telling that nobody is defending your claims. Ha! Right, my bad. I meant "refuted my claims," obviously. Anyway. I included scriptures and verses. Specific lines in some cases. I rest my case. Link to post Share on other sites
kwall Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 "Brought into?" Uh, no, nothing points in that direction.i disagree. is it reasonable to conclude that, at some point in the past, life didn't yet exist? if so, then i think it's reasonable to conclude that some creative agent brought life into existence. perhaps you don't think so. perhaps, for you, randomness brought life into existence. then i would say randomness is your "god". that's a perfectly reasonable belief as far as i'm concerned. however, there's no proof of this. Link to post Share on other sites
TheMaker Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 In what way is "randomness" a "god?" Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Ha! Right, my bad. I meant "refuted my claims," obviously. Anyway. I included scriptures and verses. Specific lines in some cases. I rest my case.Then, it's telling that either people are ignoring you, or don't give a shit about your thesis? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts