Liberals are...smarter!

[hakr100]

We might just be wrong.

About what? That there is no proof for the existence of a Supreme Creator?

There is no proof. There is belief, but belief is not proof. Belief is the mental action, condition, or habit, of trusting to or confiding in a person or thing; trust, dependence, reliance, confidence, faith.

Belief is not proof.

 

[Isthmus]

If you haven't done more than take evolution at face value, then you wouldn't recognize the giant gaps and leaps of "faith" that it requires to believe in evolutionary theory. In many instances, there is very little science present, hence the label "theory".

Creationism and/or certainly takes "faith" as well. I just don't have enough faith in what I have seen to be an atheist.

This is the typical nonsense argument that you hear from religious folks. they label something as a theory and therefore imply that it is made up and inaccurate. a theory means that the concept is incomplete, still being research, and not necessarily applicable under all conditions. It does not mean that the concept is wrong, made up or that your views are correct.

While what you are claiming might have been accurate during the days of empirical observation, completely unrelated fields, such as genetics, molecular biology, physics and geology have since provided tremendous background support to many of the early unproven assumptions of early proponents of evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory is supported by the combination of multiple scientific diciplines, all of which use the scientific method (testing by multiple different parties using the the proposed methods and independently verifying similar results) and peer review. Creationism is little more than willful thinking and has no science whatsoever to back it up.

Willful ignorance is not a virtue and sticking your head in the sand doesn't make your point correct.

 

[WAdude]

About what? That there is no proof for the existence of a Supreme Creator?

There is no proof. There is belief, but belief is not proof. Belief is the mental action, condition, or habit, of trusting to or confiding in a person or thing; trust, dependence, reliance, confidence, faith.

Belief is not proof.

Oh yeah, you totally know. You know everything. You know you are right. Right about no god, right about the existence of the known. Dude, you DON'T KNOW. I don't know. No one does. Proof, really. Is that what It takes for you to believe something, that's pathetic. I can actually see you theorizing the mathematical equation as to why I am saying what Im saying. Then putting It to the test by replying back.

 

[Isthmus]

global warming can also be contributed to the decline in pirates, looking at the numbers as pirates declined global temperatures went up.

Yes I am fully aware that that is stupid but thats the point. Anyone can throw some things together call it a scientific theory and tell someone try to disprove it. My point is just because your a liberal doenst make you smarter just because your religions doesnt make you stupid. Studies mean nothing to the individual.

True but that pirate study would require review and testing by multiple sources, not just one, and when it couldn't be correlated it would fall off as an innaccurate explanation. You are right that studies might not have much meaning to individuals, since individuals often defy the results found by studies. however, studies do tend to reflect representative samples and populations as a whole.

 

[Jammy]

Proof, really. Is that what It takes for you to believe something, that's pathetic.

You trollin'?

 

[Isthmus]

Oh yeah, you totally know. You know everything. You know you are right. Right about no god, right about the existence of the known. Dude, you DON'T KNOW. I don't know. No one does. Proof, really. Is that what It takes for you to believe something, that's pathetic. I can actually see you theorizing the mathematical equation as to why I am saying what Im saying. Then putting It to the test by replying back.

Dude, ease off the guy. To use the religious argument after eating from the tree of knowledge humans gained the capacity to learn. so if that is correct telling someone that they don't know (and implying that as a result they are wrong) would be incorrect. More accurate would be to say that while you don't know know, you definitely have the capacity to find out and learn the truth, whatever that may be.

The scientific method is simply an extremely powerful tool for that purpose.

 

[WAdude]

You trollin'?

Not really.

 

[WAdude]

Dude, ease off the guy. To use the religious argument after eating from the tree of knowledge humans gained the capacity to learn. so if that is correct telling someone that they don't know (and implying that as a result they are wrong) would be incorrect. More accurate would be to say that while you don't know know, you definitely have the capacity to find out and learn the truth, whatever that may be.

The scientific method is simply an extremely powerful tool for that purpose.

Your right It Is. But what I am trying to say Is that someones belief might also be their proof, and not to get to serious and to deep about the whole proving god the scientifical way. Anyways, he doesnt know If there might just be a god outside our knowing, yet he tries to seek proof on something that it might not just apply on.

 

[Jammy]

Your right It Is. But what I am trying to say Is that someones belief might also be their proof, and not to get to serious and to deep about the whole proving god the scientifical way. Anyways, he doesnt know If there might just be a god outside our knowing, yet he tries to seek proof on something that it might not just apply on.

proof |proōf|
noun
1 evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement : you will be asked to give proof of your identity | this is not a proof for the existence of God.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[WAdude]

Your nonsense is becoming more incoherent, possibly because you're getting agitated.

The bits I can make out from your post above aren't worth responding to, so I won't bother.

Your so arogant, dude, your the one saying 'WTF' and 'dear' and crap like that, then you say I am agitated, actually I'm having fun because I'm using my droid to respond to you, but anyways, yeah. What I just said.

 

[Isthmus]

Your right It Is. But what I am trying to say Is that someones belief might also be their proof, and not to get to serious and to deep about the whole proving god the scientifical way. Anyways, he doesnt know If there might just be a god outside our knowing, yet he tries to seek proof on something that it might not just apply on.

Yeah but I think that is a different argument. Someone's belief might be their own personal proof, or the only proof that person feels they need. That's perfectly acceptable. However, it doesn't necessarily make their personal truth correct for anyone else, or even correct at all.

This is not exclusive of religion versus science arguments BTW. You see this all the time in religion VS religion arguments as well. For example, to use your argument, just like you say "he doesnt know If there might just be a god outside our knowing", who's to say that there aren't many gods, or that any one religion is correct while others are wrong, or as many have already asked, how do we know there is even a god?

The problem is that belief doesn't attempt to verify its answers those questions. It simply gives answers and expects them to be taken at face value. While that might have been a perfect way to go through life a few hundred years ago, Science has since provided a formidable challenge to religion, by answering many of those questions for them and in many cases proving them wrong. I don't think science is anti-religion or mutually exclussive. Science is detached, cold and calculating (though quite fascinating). Religion just happened to try and address the same issues and in many ways has come up short. Oddly, many other practices (art & music being good examples) that have also butted up against science have felt it's effects and embraced it (either intentionally or grudgingly), have also been forced to reevaluate what works for them and adapt accordingly. I see no reason why religion can't do the same.

Isn't it funny that we are discussing the merits of religion in a technology forum. more specifically a technology that would have been considered evil joojoo by most religions not so long ago? Surely there is a moral in there somewhere. ;o)

 

[WAdude]

proof |proōf|
noun
1 evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement : you will be asked to give proof of your identity | this is not a proof for the existence of God.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[WAdude]

About what? That there is no proof for the existence of a Supreme Creator?

There is no proof. There is belief, but belief is not proof. Belief is the mental action, condition, or habit, of trusting to or confiding in a person or thing; trust, dependence, reliance, confidence, faith.

Belief is not proof.

That's the problem of you atheists logic has become your false god. Today, atheists have raised logic, evolution, facts, and materialism to completed and godless sciences. Thus, excluded middle opposites (e.g., cold and hot) rule all sciences. Yet the opposites, cold/hot, were transformed into a 'variable' when the thermometer was discovered. In my proof of God's existence, I identify three forms of opposites as follows: all opposites in God are one; all opposites in the Creatures are variables; and, all opposites, which connect God and the Creatures, coexist.

 

[Isthmus]

Wow all those opposites and variables were confusing. I'm feeling dizzy now.

So it seems like most of the replies here are toward one god. Do I have to have just one, I mean, If it's a choice then Thor seems like a pretty good one (the guy is pretty fair, though a bit of a hot heat, has a big hammer and generally kicks ass - plus an eternity in valhalla sounds like a good time). Kukulcan sounds a bit bloody, but with the whole feather boa thing, you have to admit he had style - that and his buildings have a flair for special effects. Greek gods are a bit too petty and randy for my taste, BUt if I had to choose, I would go with Hercules, for much the same reasons I chose Thor, Though hercules doesn't have a hammer and lion skins and golden fleeces are just a bit to "west village" for my taste.

 

[Rota]

That's the problem of you atheists logic has become your false god. Today, atheists have raised logic, evolution, facts, and materialism to completed and godless sciences. Thus, excluded middle opposites (e.g., cold and hot) rule all sciences. Yet the opposites, cold/hot, were transformed into a 'variable' when the thermometer was discovered. In my proof of God's existence, I identify three forms of opposites as follows: all opposites in God are one; all opposites in the Creatures are variables; and, all opposites, which connect God and the Creatures, coexist.

Quoted for lolz.

 

[WAdude]

That's the problem of you atheists logic has become your false god. Today, atheists have raised logic, evolution, facts, and materialism to completed and godless sciences. Thus, excluded middle opposites (e.g., cold and hot) rule all sciences. Yet the opposites, cold/hot, were transformed into a 'variable' when the thermometer was discovered. In my proof of God's existence, I identify three forms of opposites as follows: all opposites in God are one; all opposites in the Creatures are variables; and, all opposites, which connect God and the Creatures, coexist.

Wow all those opposites and variables were confusing. I'm feeling dizzy now.

So it seems like most of the replies here are toward one god. Do I have to have just one, I mean, If it's a choice then Thor seems like a pretty good one (the guy is pretty fair, though a bit of a hot heat, has a big hammer and generally kicks ass - plus an eternity in valhalla sounds like a good time). Kukulcan sounds a bit bloody, but with the whole feather boa thing, you have to admit he had style - that and his buildings have a flair for special effects. Greek gods are a bit too petty and randy for my taste, BUt if I had to choose, I would go with Hercules, for much the same reasons I chose Thor, Though hercules doesn't have a hammer and lion skins and golden fleeces are just a bit to "west village" for my taste.

I dont know, Hercules makes me look fat.

But seriously, the discussion isnt whether one certain god exists, its about whether or not there might just be a deity out there. Ofcourse yall deny that there is anything out there. But anyways, the whole hot and cold thing, cold is the absence of heat, so really, there is no cold, just hot. So you cannot have cold without hot, and this goes for everything out there, as newton says everything has and equal or OPPOSITE reaction, so everything has Its oppisite and Its in-between, God created the universe that created humans. I wouldn't know how to further explain It, I'm 14, don't blow my brains out people. And remember, science Is lame without religion and religion is blind without science, both are opposites but need each other. As with nature, you must always have a balance, so to you atheists, stop trying to make a perfect science. It's scientifically Impossible.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[WAdude]

I don't see any need whatsoever for religion, other than on a personal level for those that need the crutch.

Oops, I didn't literally mean that. I just wanted to better explain What I said above, you know the whole hot cold thing. My bad.

But you still need religion, you know. To believe in the deity that might be out there. I mean, I did scientifically explain what I said above. Or tried to scientifically explain.

 

[mpw]

...I just wanted to better explain What I said above, you know the whole hot cold thing...

You have a long way to go, 'cause the whole hot and cold thing is a mess, and isn't getting any clearer.

 

[WAdude]

You have a long way to go, 'cause the whole hot and cold thing is a mess, and isn't getting any clearer.

According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot.
Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's
lack of light.
Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man.

Because according to science, Middle sciences rule all sciences. You might not get it. But Its scientific stuff my friend.

 

[germ.e83]

Another believer here sticking his neck out to get blasted by the athiests. I just personally think it's funny that believers are seen as 'hateful' 'stupid' 'arrogant,' yet the thread was started by an athiest w/ a subject of how much more intelligent athiests are, who then proceeds to equate believers to stupid, adolescent children who have an imaginary friend. Why waste the time to start a thread about how much more intelligent & sophisticated you are than those who have a different viewpoint? It seems to me that a person as confident in your beliefs as you claim to be wouldn't feel the need to remind us believers how 'stupid' we are.

Honestly, I think of it this way; If an Athiest's viewpoint is correct (life is meaningless, immoral actions result in no consequences, & everything ends @ death) in the end, what do I lose by not having that viewpoint? Nothing. Life is over, who cares that I was not an Athiest?

If my viewpoint is correct, there's quite literally hell to pay for those who don't believe. I'm not telling anyone that they're going to hell (that's God's job). I just want to do what I can to avoid it.

I'm fully capable of having either viewpoint. However, as an Athiest, I'd have MUCH more to lose than as a Believer if I'm wrong.

-jeremy (believer, AND SCIENCE LOVER)

 

[WAdude]

Another believer here sticking his neck out to get blasted by the athiests. I just personally think it's funny that believers are seen as 'hateful' 'stupid' 'arrogant,' yet the thread was started by an athiest w/ a subject of how much more intelligent athiests are, who then proceeds to equate believers to stupid, adolescent children who have an imaginary friend. Why waste the time to start a thread about how much more intelligent & sophisticated you are than those who have a different viewpoint? It seems to me that a person as confident in your beliefs as you claim to be wouldn't feel the need to remind us believers how 'stupid' we are.

Honestly, I think of it this way; If an Athiest's viewpoint is correct (life is meaningless, immoral actions result in no consequences, & everything ends @ death) in the end, what do I lose by not having that viewpoint? Nothing. Life is over, who cares that I was not an Athiest?

If my viewpoint is correct, there's quite literally hell to pay for those who don't believe.

I'm fully capable of having either viewpoint. However, as an Athiest, I'd have MUCH more to lose than as a Believer if I'm wrong.

-jeremy (believer, AND SCIENCE LOVER)

That's what I tried to explain to them man. But they wanted a scientifical explanation to it. I gave it to them. They still dont want to accept It simply because they don't understand or don't want to understand what I have explained to them above, but who cares, not me.