


	Articles \| Forums \| Polls \| Quotes \| Who's Online \| Store

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde

Latest:Dawn

Fears with Aging

Main -> Entertainment -> Movies / Clips | NewPosts

There is No God and You Know It

USER

THREAD

SITE ADMIN

2866 Posts / 94M

28yrs

Decius

So the amalgamation of all scientific theory, including analysis and observation, would lead (like on a graph with an asymptote) to a closer understanding of what it is that makes "God".

I don't see how that can be dissagreed with in any way shape or form, since it makes logical sense and is also probable.

It explains the needs for humans to advance, creates a closed system for humans cannot (in their current form) ever understand everything in the universe, and explains the emotional reaction that all humans experience when various different factions of science and/or observation coincide with other ones (and in most cases not only support, but are symbiotic).

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

1334 Posts / 44M

22yrs

summit

quote:
you don't believe in God and that belief in God you believe is stupid

quote:
You and your friend are wrong. I don't have to admit that I know that there is no God, because I don't know any such thing.

quote:
The best we can do is look at creation and see the artist in it, and that's the best we can do.

So Okcitykids main analogy is that of nature as a painting, and science's exploration of nature similar to studying the paints and canvas. This is straightforward enough (for, indeed, paints and canvas are a part of nature as well, so studying them IS studying nature). But Okcitykid then claims that "what we can do is look at creation and see the artist in it" for us to conclude that, just as a painting has a "creator" in the form of a painter, so nature must have some creator. Unfortunately, whether this is true or not, Okcitykids attempt is totally unjustified. To claim that one is wrong on no reasonable basis is ridiculous in a logical argument. But we have to recognise that the logic is only on one side of this discussion- Atheism. However, I am still left wondering, because the religious seem to pick and choose in what they do and do not believe in, whether you are fundamentalist in nature and therefore reject the idea of evolution, or you do not. So for the purpose of this post, I will assume you have fallen prey to the anti-scientific notion of a few thousand-year old Earth.

I have commented on various articles/posts written by evangelical and conservative Christians, and I can assure that you okcitykid have provided no more than paltry rebuttal. I will, after all, be commenting on material in your reply that was rather nonsensical. To start with, this is a thread about that there is no god and if you wish to make a statement against atheism, then your going to have to set it out in a logical manner. Secondly you asked, I, to provide a scientific explination on the basis that there is no god, for which you received a reply that you have foolishly ignored. Thirdly it therefore only highlights your severe inability to comment on this topic by ignoring and pretensiously making vague and misconstrued comments in the attempt to change the topic. And to only come up with "Einstein didn't agree" is simply a laughable matter. Clearly, you have misread my own writings - and my writings are intentionally set out on a logical framework so even a naive person should be able to grasp onto this. Curiously, this is exactly what we find in most religious replies...ignoring or pulling out of a logical arguement, and foolishly taking to the illogical conclusion that "oh god is the creator"...And it comes to no suprise at all. So what we have here is a couple of creationists who ignore, and dishonestly twist the minor disagreements into major ones in the hopes of misleading people who are unfamiliar with the debates. Quite the contrary, it is a poor attempt to support theology over Atheism without a logical arguement and evidential reasoning. So what we can see here is that a typical theologist will predominately use bad analogies, bad logic, and rhetorical appeals to emotions. Even a novice investigator could spot the deficiencies, to the extent that I wonder how theologists get by each day not being able to clearly see a logical viewpoint as more valid than a illogical approach taken by most Christians.

cturtle: Your post has unsupported assertions. I can't see any of your post that actually makes any sense at all. Are you actually trying to state something that is related to the context of this thread? If so, then comprehensively explain where the flaw in the statement is, and I may even consider responding to your reply. You choice of words is also disappointing. To state that matter is neither created nor destroyed as being invalid...how ignorant!

Decius:

quote:
So the amalgamation of all scientific theory, including analysis and observation, would lead (like on a graph with an asymptote) to a closer understanding of what it is that makes "God".

perhaps you could explain this a little more. I know that scientific theory doesn't aim to draw upon a closer understanding of the definition of "god". That is a role taken by most theology. Science makes no claims at all about the existence of a "God". There is no such thing as one definition of "god", because as all know, god is defined in a thousands ways. So therefore, appealing to a shared definition is obviously pointless because everyone upholds to a different opinion. I'm sure we would all agree on that note. But to provide our own definition of what we perceive as god to be can be constructive within a discussion like this. But it can only be constructive (and as you already alluded to) that a definition must be supported with reasoning and justification, and hopefully with the inclusion of logical reason.

"The summit is just a halfway point"

2203 Posts / 67M

49yrs

okcitykid

Summit I don't speak your language and it is obviouse you don't understand me when you claim that I know that there is no God and I should admit it. You obviously can't explain that any more than I can prove to you that there is a God - and I'm really not interested in proving to you that there is a God. But you must doubt your own belief as you keep seeking some kind of proof.

I believe in God and that's all you're going to get from me, that's all I can give you.

As far as the earth goes, that I know of, they have gone back 400 thousand years.

To me Genesis and all the other creation stories, are just that - stories, but they are important stories, because they tell us something about us. For instance: God breathed into us the breath of life and we became a living being. God didn't do that with any of the other creatures on this earth and clearly we are very different from all the other animals, I find things like that facinating, things you would miss, as you don't believe in God.

Why would you assume that I think the earth is a few thousand years old - assumtions are not logical or scientific, but prejudicial in nature. In the military they taught me to never assume anything, to assume makes an ass out of you and me.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

79 Posts / 37M

24yrs

KGB

The title of this thread is quite contradictory to the statements made in it. It�s quite laughable to make the statement that atheism is logical while theology is illogical. And before anyone comes in with questions I am not going to give proof that there is a God because we all know there is no such proof. No one can prove the existence of God. However, as far as science, logic, and reason are concerened, agnosticism is the most logical choice for a scientist as any real scientist would never say there is no God but would rather state that the information and knowledge we have at this time is inconclusive at best for now. Atheism is no more scientific an opinion than theology as far as logic is concerned. Just thought i would point that out.

"If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."

There is No God and You Know It


<<<	PAGE:	1 2	>>>
1ST <-15 <<>> +15> END

A1 F1 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16