magick

[siegfriedandroy]

god probably doesnt exist. its crazy to think there is some 'magick' being in the sky. no evidence. unicorn, etc.

personally, i believe God does exist. To me it's crazy and 'magickal' to believe that 'everything' exists despite there not being a 'deity', etc. it all came from nothing, no purpose, etc. that is magical to me. lestat's argument (and most all) of your arguments are just bad. that's why your ev (for the most part) is less than mine.

"most are not smart but fancy themselves so" in the words of prince 'bitches'

[Silent A]

Why does is seem more reasonable for a god to come "from nothing, for no purpose, etc." than the universe itself?

What makes god so special that it doesn't need an explanation?

[KeysrSoze]

Who spells "magic" with a k these days? Thats just stupid.

Crowley was a wanker then, and now that he's dead he still is.

[hmkpoker]

http://troll.freeservers.com/nnruss.jpg

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
that's why your ev (for the most part) is less than mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congrats.

http://www.geocities.com/kidluckee/misc/you_win_the_prize.jpg

[Lestat]

Your post points to the main difference in thinking between atheists (rational), and theists (irrational).

The theistic mind must plug in a deity to answer his unanswerable question: What does it all mean, and where did it come from?

An atheistic mind finds that inserting gods and deities doesn't resolve anything at all, but only adds to the complexity and creates more unanswerable questions.

<font color="blue">To me it's crazy and 'magickal' to believe that 'everything' exists despite there not being a 'deity', etc. it all came from nothing, no purpose, etc. that is magical to me. </font>

So if you don't know the answer to something, your solution is to just plug something in. If you didn't know why your car wouldn't start, would you assume it's a defective windshield wiper? If you didn't know why your computer froze up, will you run out and replace the hard drive?

If you don't approach real life enigmas this way, why treat metaphysical ones any different?

[Hopey]

I thought this was going to be a post about the card game. Instead it turned out to be a post from godBoy's retarded little brother.

The poker reference was a nice touch.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
it all came from nothing, no purpose, etc. that is magical to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

wouldn't this be the case with God as well?

[miketurner]

I got to come out of the audience a couple of years ago to be a part of the finale illusion at a David Copperfield show. It was very cool! I disappeared off the stage and reappeared at the back of the auditorium. No lie! It was magical! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

PS. I’m a theist, so I’m not cracking on you. It’s just that these kind of threads have been boring me lately...
Guy 1. “I believe in God.”
Guy 2. “I hate you, idiot.”
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Prodigy54321]

don't you think that it reasonable to question why he considers....

a universe appearing without a cause to be more magical than a God appearing without cause?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
don't you think that it reasonable to question why he considers....

a universe appearing without a cause to be more magical than a God appearing without cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's perfectably reasonable. It's just that this has been re-hashed to death on here and like Mike, I'm becoming bored with it. There's just not much left to say.

There are those who feel the existence of a god is the only rationale to a very unnerving question: "Where did we come from and what does it all mean?". Until science finds the definitive answer, they will not be dissuaded and will only derive comfort from holding god as responsible for all that is good. The end.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
don't you think that it reasonable to question why he considers....

a universe appearing without a cause to be more magical than a God appearing without cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's perfectably reasonable. It's just that this has been re-hashed to death on here and like Mike, I'm becoming bored with it. There's just not much left to say.

There are those who feel the existence of a god is the only rationale to a very unnerving question: "Where did we come from and what does it all mean?". Until science finds the definitive answer, they will not be dissuaded and will only derive comfort from holding god as responsible for all that is good. The end.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that this subject is not played out..I meant that this..

[ QUOTE ]
Guy 1. “I believe in God.”
Guy 2. “I hate you, idiot.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Is not quite how it goes

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
don't you think that it reasonable to question why he considers....

a universe appearing without a cause to be more magical than a God appearing without cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's perfectably reasonable. It's just that this has been re-hashed to death on here and like Mike, I'm becoming bored with it. There's just not much left to say.

There are those who feel the existence of a god is the only rationale to a very unnerving question: "Where did we come from and what does it all mean?". Until science finds the definitive answer, they will not be dissuaded and will only derive comfort from holding god as responsible for all that is good. The end.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that this subject is not played out..I meant that this..

[ QUOTE ]
Guy 1. “I believe in God.”
Guy 2. “I hate you, idiot.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Is not quite how it goes

[/ QUOTE ]

I cringe a little every time an atheist takes this line, because I think it gives us a bad name.

But I have to admit to getting a chuckle every time so-called Christians like siegfriedandroy resort to this. Ya just don't find that kind of irony every day. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that this subject is not played out..I meant that this..

Quote:
Guy 1. “I believe in God.”
Guy 2. “I hate you, idiot.”



Is not quite how it goes

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, it usually goes like this:

...

guy1: i believe in god for this reason
guy2: uh, that's not a raeson for it doesn't explain this or that (or it would also imply that god is bad, say)
guy1: why so much hate directed at christians?
guy2: no no hate at christians trying to reason here
guy1: if only you believed you would see the sense that iyt makes
guy2: ??? why would I?
guy1: because otherwise it is you rejecting the answer,.. your choice.. but you won't be saved!
guy2: but I can't just believe anything like this
guy1: once you blieve and accept you will feel so good... I know
guy2: but we were trying to discuss reason and you are condemning tp eternal hell
guy1: ah again, we know you hate christians
guy2: but I said nothing, I was trying to discuss your reasons...
guy1: everyone(sic) knows you as christian hater, I just won't answers your questions anymore.
....

ah well!

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that this subject is not played out..I meant that this..

Quote:
Guy 1. “I believe in God.”
Guy 2. “I hate you, idiot.”



Is not quite how it goes

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, it usually goes like this:

...

guy1: i believe in god for this reason
guy2: uh, that's not a raeson for it doesn't explain this or that (or it would also imply that god is bad, say)
guy1: why so much hate directed at christians?
guy2: no no hate at christians trying to reason here
guy1: if only you believed you would see the sense that iyt makes
guy2: ??? why would I?
guy1: because otherwise it is you rejecting the answer,.. your choice.. but you won't be saved!
guy2: but I can't just believe anything like this
guy1: once you blieve and accept you will feel so good... I know
guy2: but we were trying to discuss reason and you are condemning tp eternal hell
guy1: ah again, we know you hate christians
guy2: but I said nothing, I was trying to discuss your reasons...
guy1: everyone(sic) knows you as christian hater, I just won't answers your questions anymore.
....

ah well!

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

lol...some of you responses DO lean more towards..

[ QUOTE ]
Guy 1. “I believe in God.”
Guy 2. “I hate you, idiot.”

[/ QUOTE ]

though..at least when it comes to Godboy....maybe just frusteration /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Sharkey]

Life originating from lifeless matter is what’s “magic”.

It has never been observed to happen. Not once. The evidence is all against it.

That is the rational perspective.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Life originating from lifeless matter is what’s “magic”.

It has never been observed to happen. Not once. The evidence is all against it.

That is the rational perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

you say that as if - if it were true, then it would happen every day..you seem to want to be able to go outside..look into a pond of goo and see life forming.

and that not existing is by no means evidence AGAINST it...it is just a lack of evidence FOR it...

I guess it may be rational not to accept it as true given what you seem to think is inadequate evidence in favor of it, but assuming "God did it.", is by no means rational.

EDIT: oh and if you want to see life originate from lifeless matter over just a couple weeks or so (which you seem to be demanding as evidence)..then you're going to be out of luck.

the only way that you will get THAT evidence is if there is is indeed an endless afterlife in which you can observe the goings-on of the universe for billions of years...then you just may get your evidence.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
oh and if you want to see life originate from lifeless matter over just a couple weeks or so

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s you who seems to want it. In fact, your position requires it or the like.

[Prodigy54321]

once again..I do not hold that the current "understanding" of how this works, is indeed the way the it "actually" works...

that's why I said that it may be rational not to accept this as true given "inadequate evidence"...

but that THIS is less possible than God originating from nothing..and that God is the obvious answer to anything currently unexplained....is ridiculous

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
Life originating from lifeless matter is what’s “magic”.

It has never been observed to happen. Not once. The evidence is all against it.

That is the rational perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. Here is perhaps the most widelyy known of such experiments. Miller/Urey experiments (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html)

[miketurner]

I'm not saying that this subject is not played out..I meant that this..

[ QUOTE ]
Guy 1. “I believe in God.”
Guy 2. “I hate you, idiot.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Is not quite how it goes

[/ QUOTE ]

I did oversimplify a bit. I apologize. There are actually many of you here that I respect your opinions quite a bit and even though I believe differently, I find myself nodding my head &amp; thinking “yeah, I can see why someone might think that.”
It’s just that (and I know this goes both ways) when someone makes a reasonable objection, it doesn’t stick out like the guy who says something totally outlandish and insulting. I am making a conscience effort to not believe that you all (atheists) think like MidGe. I’m sure many of you are quite embarrassed for him in the same way that I’m embarrassed for the Christians who protest military funerals with signs that read “God hates [censored]” &amp; stuff like that.

Many of you do seem to think that theists are "idiots" though, you just leave out the "hate" part. That's fine, I guess *shrug* Am I wrong about this? I might be.

EDIT: Just so you know that I’m not blinded by my “side” of the argument...[ QUOTE ]
that's why your ev (for the most part) is less than mine.

"most are not smart but fancy themselves so" in the words of prince 'bitches'

[/ QUOTE ] I thought these lines served no purpose other than to be insulting. Maybe he “deserves(?)” a little lashing out.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Many of you do seem to think that theists are "idiots" though, you just leave out the "hate" part. That's fine, I guess *shrug* Am I wrong about this? I might be.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are very wrong and imputing thigs to me that are totally unwarranted and untrue. I respect anyone's beliefs as long as they don't force them on me, or use their personal beliefs in support of a discussion (that doesn't make any sense at all). More than anything, I try to keep a fairly interesting secular forum just that, by responding to a spoiling preaching the only way I know how to.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
oh and if you want to see life originate from lifeless matter over just a couple weeks or so

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s you who seems to want it. In fact, your position requires it or the like.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realise that following that logic, the religious perspective requires you to have seen god create life. Presumably a bolt of lightning and a puff of smoke clears to reveal a unicorn?

With the absence of either, an intelligent person will not make a wild guess and shoehorn a human personality onto the creation events without a good reason.

This is why atheism is the only reasonable stance, and I am not saying that there absolutely, certainly isn't a God that created the Earth. Just that if you brain functions well, you cannot genuinly believe that it is probably the case.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Life originating from lifeless matter is what’s “magic”.

It has never been observed to happen. Not once. The evidence is all against it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, and an all-powerful being creating life out of nothing makes so much more sense.

[ QUOTE ]

That is the rational perspective.


[/ QUOTE ]

Believing in magic is not "rational".

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
oh and if you want to see life originate from lifeless matter over just a couple weeks or so

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s you who seems to want it. In fact, your position requires it or the like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Replace "a couple of weeks" with "a billion years" and you'll be closer to the truth.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Believing in magic is not "rational".

[/ QUOTE ]

The essential “first cause” of your “science”, i.e. life originating from lifeless matter, has never been observed to exist.

Sounds more like a faith to me.

[KeysrSoze]

Please explain the physical laws that allow this God to exist and the methodology and processes he used to create life, Sharkey.

[Sharkey]

I make no such claims.

God allowed the physical laws to exist, not the other way around.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Please explain the physical laws that allow this God to exist and the methodology and processes he used to create life, Sharkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

He won't. It's enough for the creationists to cast doubt on the validity of the theory of evolution. They feel that as long as "our" theory isn't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (and it never will be in the creationists' eyes), then the only acceptable explanation for where we came from is the existence of a god.

This is much the same way that primitive societies explained away things that they didn't understand. That rumbling in the earth? That's God. Those lights in the night sky? Those are angels looking down on us. Who created the earth? Well, god did, of course!

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
It's enough for the creationists to cast doubt on the validity of the theory of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your “theory” can’t even make first base.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
The essential “first cause” of your “science”, i.e. life originating from lifeless matter, has never been observed to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor has some supreme non-physical being whipping a universe together out of nothing.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's enough for the creationists to cast doubt on the validity of the theory of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your “theory” can’t even make first base.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does yours?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The essential “first cause” of your “science”, i.e. life originating from lifeless matter, has never been observed to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor has some supreme non-physical being whipping a universe together out of nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith has no requirement of physical observation. Your supposed “science” does but is woefully lacking.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's enough for the creationists to cast doubt on the validity of the theory of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your “theory” can’t even make first base.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

By not being inconsistent with itself.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Many of you do seem to think that theists are "idiots" though, you just leave out the "hate" part. That's fine, I guess *shrug* Am I wrong about this? I might be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you are wrong about this...using the word "idiot" is harsh...but it does represent how many of us feel about theists..and I'm sure how many theists feel about atheists...

Anyone who sees evidence and does not come to the most reasonable conclusion....Is...well an idiot...the difference is that we see one conclusion as the most resonable..and theists see another as the most resonable.

We also sometimes feel that we are using our reasoning skills much better than theists...(which I'd hope you'll admit, require no reasonable evidence for belief)...but once again..the same can be said about how many theists fell about atheists..

--and this aslo comes out a little more when put in a group of people holding the same belief..and discuss other people's beliefs...like here /images/graemlins/grin.gif...this forum is somewhat one sided..so I think it's bound to head in such a direction with nearly any topic.

[KeysrSoze]

[ QUOTE ]


He won't. It's enough for the creationists to cast doubt on the validity of the theory of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that was the point I was going to make. He can tear other theories up with impunity but his theory is above reproach by its very nature. I don't know if him basically admitting it makes him more or less of a troll.

I still feel that he's elaborately trolling for his own amusement. Something just doesn't seem right about his posts. I have no proof of course, just a gut feeling. I guess I'm making a judgement based on "faith".

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The essential “first cause” of your “science”, i.e. life originating from lifeless matter, has never been observed to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor has some supreme non-physical being whipping a universe together out of nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith has no requirement of physical observation. Your supposed “science” does but is woefully lacking.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is convenient to espouse theories which explicitly require no proof, evidence, or common sense, and then smugly dismiss all other theories based on incomplete proof--isn't it?

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's enough for the creationists to cast doubt on the validity of the theory of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your “theory” can’t even make first base.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

By not being inconsistent with itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. Your theory is a bunch of made-up crap, and behold you make up a bunch of crap to support it. Consistent indeed.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's enough for the creationists to cast doubt on the validity of the theory of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your “theory” can’t even make first base.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

By not being inconsistent with itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. Your theory is a bunch of made-up crap, and behold you make up a bunch of crap to support it. Consistent indeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

There’s yet another instance in a long history of unsupported assertions.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
More than anything, I try to keep a fairly interesting secular forum just that, by responding to a spoiling preaching the only way I know how to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah? How’s that working out for ya? You are trying to keep religion out of the forum by making the majority of your posts about religion. Ironic. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[MidGe]

I am not trying to keep religion and debates on religion out of the forum. I am only pointing out when there is not debate but mere preaching,

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

There’s yet another instance in a long history of unsupported assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Long history"? You've been registered for less than a month, troll.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not trying to keep religion and debates on religion out of the forum. I am only pointing out when there is not debate but mere preaching,

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "preaching"

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There’s yet another instance in a long history of unsupported assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Long history"? You've been registered for less than a month, troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif Now that is funny

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not trying to keep religion and debates on religion out of the forum. I am only pointing out when there is not debate but mere preaching,

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "preaching"

[/ QUOTE ]

Preaching is when you say something is right because you believe it.

"I believe this is so because I believe it, or because it is in the bible and I believe that is the word of god."

Debating would be to say I believe something for this reason (not because I have another belief supporting it).

I am really amazed that the difference is not obvious. Well, maybe logical thinking is not a given after all.

Obviously if an assertion is based on a belief, then it is not open to debate. I am not denying the belief but the truthfulness or correctness of it, or, at the very least, I will point out that the assertion is based on a belief and therefore not debatable.

PS: I dislike intently the arrogance of preachers (Altough it probably does not occur to them that are arrogant. That's a by-product of a closed mind, of course).

[siegfriedandroy]

hello, ive returned to see my thread. that is my point, hopey. You could argue that it is 'magic' either way. It basically comes down to your presuppositions, and which are more rational:

A) Everything in existence in our universe was created by a Supreme Being we do not fully understand (and we either believe there is strong evidence to support His existence (not magic) or there is no evidence (magic); or

B) We believe it is more rational to believe there is no Supreme Being (and that believing in One would be belief in 'magic') and that all that exists simply popped into existence for reasons likely to be forever beyond our comprehension (or perhaps for no reason at all). To me this second theory is far more incredible (i.e. magical) than the first.

Perhaps someone can up with a third possibility, but these seem to be the two major ones. My point is that the second theory is just as 'magical' as the first, and in my view, infinitely more so.

[siegfriedandroy]

How is he a 'troll'? He simply disagrees with most of what you believe to be true. Also, 'long' is relative. One month is infinitely longer than a period of time 1/(1billionth to the billionth) of a month /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[siegfriedandroy]

i agree, if you are asserting that the period of time required for human life to arrive from (literally) nothing by purposeless forces (all of which we have no fuc*n clue for why they exist, and why the 'nothing (whatever that means)' existed and why it became 'something'- and likely you never will find such an explanation, at least nothing that in any way explains more than a billionth of the total picture) is infinitely greater than the actual time available in our universe's history...

dam, that is one of my longest sentences ever! pretty sure it is coherent, though, although you may have to read through it a couple times to interpret it correctly.

[Hopey]

If we do not understand why/how the universe was created (and we are coming closer and closer to understanding this question every day), why must the "most likely" answer therefore automatically involve a supreme being? It's a convenient answer in that it allows you to stop thinking about the question, but that's about it.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
hello, ive returned to see my thread. that is my point, hopey. You could argue that it is 'magic' either way. It basically comes down to your presuppositions, and which are more rational:

A) Everything in existence in our universe was created by a Supreme Being we do not fully understand (and we either believe there is strong evidence to support His existence (not magic) or there is no evidence (magic); or

B) We believe it is more rational to believe there is no Supreme Being (and that believing in One would be belief in 'magic') and that all that exists simply popped into existence for reasons likely to be forever beyond our comprehension (or perhaps for no reason at all). To me this second theory is far more incredible (i.e. magical) than the first.

Perhaps someone can up with a third possibility, but these seem to be the two major ones. My point is that the second theory is just as 'magical' as the first, and in my view, infinitely more so.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where you are mistaken, here are the correct objective A and B options:

A) The universe as we know it came into existence in some way which we don't yet understand. (Atheism)

B) The universe came into existence as a result of 'creation' by a specific supreme 'being'(the word 'being' obviously implying a lot of similarity to a human, but with additional powers)(Religion)

You should be able to see why option B is very unlikely and also incredibly egotistical

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why does is seem more reasonable for a god to come "from nothing, for no purpose, etc." than the universe itself?

What makes god so special that it doesn't need an explanation?


[/ QUOTE ]


On it's face there seems little difference between saying that an Absolute Person exists which I can't explain and the impersonal, meaningless universe which I can't explain.

Kant used this idea to attack the theistic proofs. There's no logical difference between saying there is an infinite regress of cause and effect and saying cause and effect stop at the boundaries of the universe.

But this overlooks the difference between the Absolute Personal and the Absolute Impersonal. I have no logical or moral obligation to the Impersonal and the Impersonal explains nothing. Logically, if the Impersonal is Absolute there can be no meaning or purpose. This defeats all lesser meaning and purpose.

I don't offer this as a proof that meaning exists. I've said many times I can't prove it does. But the consequences of a position can be shown. Absolute Impersonality destroys all possibility of meaning. It is self-contradictory.

If there is an ultimate explanation it would have to be God because anything less would destroy the possibility of explanation.

Science as defined today can never show that the universe has a meaning because science is defined to exclude anything outside the empirical. Ultimate explanation is impossible for science by its own definition.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Life originating from lifeless matter is what’s “magic”.

It has never been observed to happen. Not once. The evidence is all against it. </font>

Uh, what do you call you, me, and every other living thing on this planet? It HAS been observed to happen at least once! That you can't comprehend *how* it could've happened without a supreme being, is not evidenced against it having happened.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
How is he a 'troll'? He simply disagrees with most of what you believe to be true. Also, 'long' is relative. One month is infinitely longer than a period of time 1/(1billionth to the billionth) of a month /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

no its not

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, what do you call you, me, and every other living thing on this planet?

[/ QUOTE ]

All the people on this planet came from the (living) gametes of their parents. Equivalent situations for the other species. Life originating from lifeless matter is not an observed phenomenon, just more hocus-pocus.

[siegfriedandroy]

How is that 'stupid'? WTF does that mean? I didn't know Crowley spelled it that way. I was drunk and fooling around. Please elaborate on how that is 'stupid'.

[siegfriedandroy]

What makes you (and many here) SO incredibly confident that this is true? I imagine many of you are not truly expert in your field, but instead have probably taken several biology classes, etc. and are now absolutely convinced that you have all the answers. It is very difficult for me to comprehend how, even if you have read and studied evolutionary theory 12 hours a day for 20 years, anyone can be so boldly and arrogantly certain that their theories are true. I suspect most here do not have anywhere near as strong a grasp on all of the relevant (and often very complicated) material related to origins. I am fairly convinced (at least from all Ive read on here) that most of you have only a vague understanding (if that) of many of the serious (and i would argue, fatal) problems that surface upon deep consideration of all the philosophical and logical consequences of such a theory (and its associated world view).

[siegfriedandroy]

What do you personally believe about 'what the universe means and where it came from'? Are there any scientific theories available today that even come close to answering this question in a 'rational' way? Do you believe science is capable of ever answering such questions? From my experience, MANY atheists do not 'rationally' search for truth, but instead distort all of the available data to lend credence to their materialistic presuppositions (which many times they hold more vigorously (without any justified reason, in my view) than many theists). I do not buy this trite distinction between 'rational' atheists and bumpkin head theists. As for these questions having already been played out and forever 'solved', I strongly believe that this is so only in your own head, and that in objective reality the issues and questions are vastly more complex and esoteric than the simple atheist typically implies (or presumptuously proclaims).

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Uh, what do you call you, me, and every other living thing on this planet?

[/ QUOTE ]

All the people on this planet came from the (living) gametes of their parents. Equivalent situations for the other species. Life originating from lifeless matter is not an observed phenomenon, just more hocus-pocus.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? Even if there IS a God, at some point the universe/earth was lifeless. Right or wrong? Ergo, life MUST have emanated from lifeless matter.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I imagine many of you are not truly expert in your field, </font>

FYI- I am an expert in my field, but I'll quickly admit this isn't my field.



<font color="blue">It is very difficult for me to comprehend how, even if you have read and studied evolutionary theory 12 hours a day for 20 years, anyone can be so boldly and arrogantly certain that their theories are true. </font>

You are correct that most people (myself included) do not fully understand evolutionary theory. But we don't have to. That's what scientists are for. Here is where your big problem lies....



<font color="blue">most of you have only a vague understanding (if that) of many of the serious (and i would argue, fatal) problems that surface upon deep consideration of all the philosophical and logical consequences of such a theory (and its associated world view). </font>

The theory of evolution is more than a philosophy. It is a THEORY! What's definitely apparent from reading these forums is that most theists on here have no idea what a theory is or how strong it is. They think it's some kind of shot in the dark. A stab. A wild guess. It is nothing of the kind!

Evolutionary theory is NOT some wild guess put forth by a bunch of half-wits. It is logical conjecture by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community based on significant OBSERVABLE evidence! It is even more than this. Evolutionary theory has been rigorously tested and consistently produced reliable predictions. Until you understand this, it is futile to even broach the subject with you. When you guys dismiss it all as some wild guess, no better than astrology, you don't even realize the incredible fools you make of yourselves.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Uh, what do you call you, me, and every other living thing on this planet?

[/ QUOTE ]

All the people on this planet came from the (living) gametes of their parents. Equivalent situations for the other species. Life originating from lifeless matter is not an observed phenomenon, just more hocus-pocus.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? Even if there IS a God, at some point the universe/earth was lifeless. Right or wrong? Ergo, life MUST have emanated from lifeless matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn’t call it “originating from lifeless matter” when God is contributing to the process.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I wouldn’t call it “originating from lifeless matter” when God is contributing to the process. </font>

I see. So TWO un-observable things: 1. God, and 2. The process of God creating life, are more comforting and statistically probable according to you, than ONE un-observable thing: 1. Life emanating from lifeless matter.

A two un-observable event parlay seems more likely to you than one. Got it. Are you in the market for a bookie by any chance?

[Sharkey]

Right: both explanations are based on faith.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Right: both explanations are based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. So it's pointless to argue with you.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
I was drunk and fooling around. Please elaborate on how that is 'stupid'.

[/ QUOTE ]

You already did.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Uh, what do you call you, me, and every other living thing on this planet?

[/ QUOTE ]

All the people on this planet came from the (living) gametes of their parents. Equivalent situations for the other species. Life originating from lifeless matter is not an observed phenomenon, just more hocus-pocus.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? Even if there IS a God, at some point the universe/earth was lifeless. Right or wrong? Ergo, life MUST have emanated from lifeless matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn’t call it “originating from lifeless matter” when God is contributing to the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

how convenient.