Tom's WHAT ARE YOU DOING starting a religion fight on a tech site. This is worse than a bunch of Apple and PC fanboys duking it out. I can't take it! Haha, just kidding but seriously do we need far out articles on internet porn and the Pope talking about technology?
- Status
jerreece
Distinguished
- Sep 7, 2006
- 400
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]blubbey[/nom]There's also no proof that he does exist. In fact, I am going to make my own religion and God right now. He says all others aren't real. Btw, can God make something so heavy he can't lift it? If he can't, then he isn't all powerful. If he can, he isn't all powerful. God loses.[/citation]
Such limited understanding. Your problem my friend, isn't a lack of logic, but the assumption that your logic is sufficient enough to explain existence itself. Can you explain existence? Not just why there is a universe, but where a universe even can exist? Can you explain how matter even became real? If by the Big Bang, who/what created the matter that exploded?
It cannot be done. The human mind is not sufficient enough to explain existence itself. Therefore, we drive ourselves in circles trying to prove or disprove whether God exists, because we seek to know and understand everything (this is our search to become gods ourselves). Belief in God, therefore, is an act of humility. We acknowledge that we do not and cannot know everything. However, our attempts to disprove God, are therefore acts of arrogance and pride because we think that we ourselves are sufficient.
Such limited understanding. Your problem my friend, isn't a lack of logic, but the assumption that your logic is sufficient enough to explain existence itself. Can you explain existence? Not just why there is a universe, but where a universe even can exist? Can you explain how matter even became real? If by the Big Bang, who/what created the matter that exploded?
It cannot be done. The human mind is not sufficient enough to explain existence itself. Therefore, we drive ourselves in circles trying to prove or disprove whether God exists, because we seek to know and understand everything (this is our search to become gods ourselves). Belief in God, therefore, is an act of humility. We acknowledge that we do not and cannot know everything. However, our attempts to disprove God, are therefore acts of arrogance and pride because we think that we ourselves are sufficient.
Faith is almost like "trusting" If all fall should I put my faith on this person knowing that he is going save me from falling?? difference between faith and trust is that faith is a "practice" that all believers must do everyday which is called a "prayer". You must abide by it ,must follow the "righteous path" or be condemmed .
[citation][nom]milan23[/nom]Wow, so much hate... there is no way to rationally prove or disprove the existence of God. The believer makes a fundamental assumption, namely that reality is not confined to human experience. The athiest also makes a fundamental assumption, that reality is defined by human experience, ie science and technology.Neither believer nor athiest can justify their fundamental assumption, so trying to rationally assert their position to the other simply fails.[/citation]
Not quite...
Human experience doesn't define science and technology. Scientific laws are independent of humanity. It's why bunnies don't float when hopping around and why the speed of light travels at the speed of light regardless of whether you're there to perceive it or not. The laws are universal and don't depend on humans in the least. Gravity wasn't invented by people, it was always there. Our efforts are only to uncover what's been there all along, like little archaeologists, rather than pulling the strings like puppet masters.
I don't like the term atheist, mainly because the definition of God that permeates our society (a christian one) is of something in our likeness, which is borderline insane. A quick glance in the mirror is enough to throw that idea down the toilet. In that sense your example would be perceived as being backwards: christianity believes man is made in the image of god, therefore depends on human perception (and thus not universal). But somehow a penguin-god seems a little far-fetched.
If god were to be defined as something which we can't put a finger on, whether a physical process or the first spark, then many of us would be in the same boat, atheists included. But the way god is defined across nearly all human cultures is very counterintuitive.
Which sort of makes sense, because no other creatures would believe that silly shit =P
Not quite...
Human experience doesn't define science and technology. Scientific laws are independent of humanity. It's why bunnies don't float when hopping around and why the speed of light travels at the speed of light regardless of whether you're there to perceive it or not. The laws are universal and don't depend on humans in the least. Gravity wasn't invented by people, it was always there. Our efforts are only to uncover what's been there all along, like little archaeologists, rather than pulling the strings like puppet masters.
I don't like the term atheist, mainly because the definition of God that permeates our society (a christian one) is of something in our likeness, which is borderline insane. A quick glance in the mirror is enough to throw that idea down the toilet. In that sense your example would be perceived as being backwards: christianity believes man is made in the image of god, therefore depends on human perception (and thus not universal). But somehow a penguin-god seems a little far-fetched.
If god were to be defined as something which we can't put a finger on, whether a physical process or the first spark, then many of us would be in the same boat, atheists included. But the way god is defined across nearly all human cultures is very counterintuitive.
Which sort of makes sense, because no other creatures would believe that silly shit =P
[citation][nom]11796pcs[/nom]Tom's WHAT ARE YOU DOING starting a religion fight on a tech site. This is worse than a bunch of Apple and PC fanboys duking it out. I can't take it! Haha, just kidding but seriously do we need far out articles on internet porn and the Pope talking about technology?[/citation]
hahah I know right. This is Much worst than Apple VS PC hahah
hahah I know right. This is Much worst than Apple VS PC hahah
sidran32
Distinguished
- Sep 29, 2009
- 72
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]pelov[/nom]Not quite...Human experience doesn't define science and technology. Scientific laws are independent of humanity. It's why bunnies don't float when hopping around and why the speed of light travels at the speed of light regardless of whether you're there to perceive it or not. The laws are universal and don't depend on humans in the least. Gravity wasn't invented by people, it was always there. Our efforts are only to uncover what's been there all along, like little archaeologists, rather than pulling the strings like puppet masters. I don't like the term atheist, mainly because the definition of God that permeates our society (a christian one) is of something in our likeness, which is borderline insane. A quick glance in the mirror is enough to throw that idea down the toilet. In that sense your example would be perceived as being backwards: christianity believes man is made in the image of god, therefore depends on human perception (and thus not universal). But somehow a penguin-god seems a little far-fetched. If god were to be defined as something which we can't put a finger on, whether a physical process or the first spark, then many of us would be in the same boat, atheists included. But the way god is defined across nearly all human cultures is very counterintuitive. Which sort of makes sense, because no other creatures would believe that silly shit =P[/citation]
A belief in God probably arises out of the ability to contemplate our own existence. I don't know if other animals do that too, we can't really ask them. So anything we say in that regard is just a guess. 😛
Science is within the realms of our experience. Of course, they are not created by people. These things are discoveries, not inventions. But like what he said, religion (or the spiritual) is partially within the realm of our experience but its nature is beyond that which we can perceive with our 5 senses (normally). It's why it is difficult to prove its existence, and disprove its existence. If either side had a good, logical argument, this would have been settled long ago.
The fact is that this lies beyond what can be discovered through pure logic and scientific inquiry. As I pointed out before, religion and spirituality (in my experience) isn't something that is testable according to the standards of science. It's not that we don't want to, it's just by its nature, not testable. You can try and test something that looks like religion or spirituality, but in the end you're testing psychology and social dynamics, not religion or spirituality itself.
So ya, we need to stop throwing the books at each other, collectively, and see that this is a more personal debate than can be done online.
A belief in God probably arises out of the ability to contemplate our own existence. I don't know if other animals do that too, we can't really ask them. So anything we say in that regard is just a guess. 😛
Science is within the realms of our experience. Of course, they are not created by people. These things are discoveries, not inventions. But like what he said, religion (or the spiritual) is partially within the realm of our experience but its nature is beyond that which we can perceive with our 5 senses (normally). It's why it is difficult to prove its existence, and disprove its existence. If either side had a good, logical argument, this would have been settled long ago.
The fact is that this lies beyond what can be discovered through pure logic and scientific inquiry. As I pointed out before, religion and spirituality (in my experience) isn't something that is testable according to the standards of science. It's not that we don't want to, it's just by its nature, not testable. You can try and test something that looks like religion or spirituality, but in the end you're testing psychology and social dynamics, not religion or spirituality itself.
So ya, we need to stop throwing the books at each other, collectively, and see that this is a more personal debate than can be done online.
Put aside the religious statements, It is true that technology advancement doesn't make human being any happier than they used to be, despite all the improvement of life quality and convenience. Certain things about human being would never change, greed, laziness, and lust. And technologies have allow those qualities to be amplified greater than ever. It only takes one drop of rat's dropping to ruin a whole pot of soup.
IndignantSkeptic
Distinguished
- Apr 19, 2011
- 120
- 0
- 18,630
the important question isn't "does God exist?"; it's "is God the creator or is it someone else?" like is Satan actually the creator. that would make more sense given the evidence i see. how do you explain all the innocent people that suffer terribly? oh they are not really innocent? how do you know that? maybe if you were one of them then you would know they are innocent.
[citation][nom]sidran32[/nom]A belief in God probably arises out of the ability to contemplate our own existence. I don't know if other animals do that too, we can't really ask them. So anything we say in that regard is just a guess. Science is within the realms of our experience. Of course, they are not created by people. These things are discoveries, not inventions. But like what he said, religion (or the spiritual) is partially within the realm of our experience but its nature is beyond that which we can perceive with our 5 senses (normally). It's why it is difficult to prove its existence, and disprove its existence. If either side had a good, logical argument, this would have been settled long ago.The fact is that this lies beyond what can be discovered through pure logic and scientific inquiry. As I pointed out before, religion and spirituality (in my experience) isn't something that is testable according to the standards of science. It's not that we don't want to, it's just by its nature, not testable. You can try and test something that looks like religion or spirituality, but in the end you're testing psychology and social dynamics, not religion or spirituality itself.So ya, we need to stop throwing the books at each other, collectively, and see that this is a more personal debate than can be done online.[/citation]
gotta say i disagree on one point there. Books are being thrown back n' forth rather relentlessly, but generally speaking they tend to do a good job in steering away from what would be perceived as not being in their realm of thought. But once in a while you get a Bible and some idiot tries to persuade you that what's in it is the word of God. The argument that there's things we can't explain is completely legitimate and a good middle ground that we can agree on until the side of faith treads on sensibility and scientific theory.
The difference between science and religion is that science ultimately attempts to explain it all and when it embraces its errors. The most glorious words to utter to a true unbiased scientist are "you were wrong", whereas stating the same to a religious theologian would only end in an argument. One side, by design, embraces improvement and understands that there's room for error whereas the other was founded upon the concept that there are no errors.
gotta say i disagree on one point there. Books are being thrown back n' forth rather relentlessly, but generally speaking they tend to do a good job in steering away from what would be perceived as not being in their realm of thought. But once in a while you get a Bible and some idiot tries to persuade you that what's in it is the word of God. The argument that there's things we can't explain is completely legitimate and a good middle ground that we can agree on until the side of faith treads on sensibility and scientific theory.
The difference between science and religion is that science ultimately attempts to explain it all and when it embraces its errors. The most glorious words to utter to a true unbiased scientist are "you were wrong", whereas stating the same to a religious theologian would only end in an argument. One side, by design, embraces improvement and understands that there's room for error whereas the other was founded upon the concept that there are no errors.
People need to realize that not all Christians are Catholics, we don't all think the Pope is awesome. In fact today the Catholic church is messed up because they don't read the Bible. If they read it they would realize that theistic evolution is NOT biblical and that faith does not come out of simply saying lines and memorizing verses but by truely believing Christ cam down to Earth as a man, was sinless and died for our sins. Also everyone here dissing Chrisitianity because it has no proof behind it needs to look at a few things in the universe and think about how old they could be. First think about comets. You know those things that orbit around the sun and have a long "tail" coming off of them. That tail is ice melting off of the back of the comet. So every time a comet goes around Earth it gets smaller right? Now, think logically if the Universe was 4 Billion years old would we have comets? No, they would have melted. Now, scientists have thought of this and BELIEVE a cloud that refreshes the comets exists called the Oort Cloud, problem is it has NEVER BEEN SEEN an there is absolutely no proof it exists. How about spiral galaxies? The reason they spin is because matter from the outside of the galaxy wants to get closer to the big star in the center. Tell me if the universe was 4 billion years old would spiral galaxies exist? I will even go as far as to use a SCIENTIFIC LAW the second law of thermodynamics says that over time things will become disorganized NOT more organized. And is that true in the real world? Yes. Just look at my room. Evolution says the opposite- that we got more organized over time. That's illogical. The first law of thermodynamics also disproves elvolution it says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The Bing Bang is creating energy out of nothing- and that doesn't work. None of us were there when the universe was created but to think that everything came from nowhere is insane and again illogical. I know some say "but where did God come from then". All I have to say is that there is a reason it's called faith and is my belief that God created everything any less logical than your "everything came from nothing". P.S. Where did the energy and the matter come from for the big bang? The Law of the Conservation of Energy states matter cannot be created or destroyed. It is only logical that an all powerful being able to break the laws of science could have made the universe. P.S.S. God gave us the choice of obeying him or doing what we wanted so anybody who asks "why does God let this happen" needs to realize that our selfishness is what brought about the bad things that happen in this world.
^^ like that, where someone who spews poorly understood scientific thought to disprove sound scientific thought. It's bound to happen. But what's even more entertaining is how he misunderstands the first rule of thermodynamics and just the magnitude of space (and comets) in our solar system.
Pelov ^^ you say I am spewing poorly understood scientific knowledge yet you do nothing to prove me wrong. Right on Wikipedia it says and I quote "The law expresses that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created nor destroyed." Is the creation of energy not one of the things the Big Bang creates?
Tomtompiper
Distinguished
- Jan 20, 2010
- 101
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]LordConrad[/nom]To be an Atheist means you do not believe in any god. Having a belief in one or more gods means you are not an atheist. The innocent start with a belief in a higher power, and it is up to us to reaffirm that belief. If you choose to strip away that belief instead of nurturing it, that is your business.[/citation]
Sorry you are dead wrong,
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
So mister Atheist, what do you have to say now? By the way if you were right which you aren't being at Theist would mean believing in every possible God.
Sorry you are dead wrong,
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
So mister Atheist, what do you have to say now? By the way if you were right which you aren't being at Theist would mean believing in every possible God.
ProDigit10
Distinguished
- Nov 19, 2010
- 202
- 1
- 18,830
Why state the obvious? Technology is technology, and God is God, an entirely different matter!
Is like saying that football can never replace a dinner out, or a car.
Is like saying that football can never replace a dinner out, or a car.
Tomtompiper
Distinguished
- Jan 20, 2010
- 101
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]MarioJP[/nom]Faith is almost like "trusting" If all fall should I put my faith on this person knowing that he is going save me from falling?? difference between faith and trust is that faith is a "practice" that all believers must do everyday which is called a "prayer". You must abide by it ,must follow the "righteous path" or be condemmed .[/citation]
The difference between Trust and Faith is that Trust is based on evidence, experience and expectations and is usually earned whereas Faith is a blind believe without a shred of evidence. Trust is normally a good thing to have, Faith not so much. And please less of the threats, believe whatever crazy shit you like, but refrain from threatening others.
The difference between Trust and Faith is that Trust is based on evidence, experience and expectations and is usually earned whereas Faith is a blind believe without a shred of evidence. Trust is normally a good thing to have, Faith not so much. And please less of the threats, believe whatever crazy shit you like, but refrain from threatening others.
maestintaolius
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 446
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]700_31337[/nom] *snip out lotta stuff about how complicated life is* And think, people today are so blind, they BELIEVE that the UNIVERSE, came about by blind "chance"?Tell me now, what takes more faith?[/citation]
I tend to put my chips on the random chance side than the "a wizard did it" side. Even if I were to buy the argument that complex systems necessitate a creator, it doesn't prove the existence of the Judeo-Christian god. Who's to say it wasn't the Jade Emperor, Gaia, Odin, Vishnu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
[citation][nom]awood28211[/nom]Oh, but if I say that I can fly, you'd make me prove it. Because proof is on the believer not on the disbeliever. I say "prove i can't fly.. go head, prove it." You can't therefore I stand behind my statement that I can fly... Those who do not believe do not have to prove that it doesn't, you see, it is up to those who do believe that prove that it does. The funny thing is those who don't believe could care less about proof but those who do believe want ot shove "proof" down the the non-believer throats. Proof is not "the bible". The bible is a book, written by a man. You'd say "it's the word of god written by men who were given that word..." and again, non-believers do not have to prove that it wasn't the word of god, believers have to prove that it was.Bottom line, the burden of proof is on the owner... period.[/citation]
Yep, this is pretty much Russell's Teapot. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
[citation][nom]jerreece[/nom]Such limited understanding. Your problem my friend, isn't a lack of logic, but the assumption that your logic is sufficient enough to explain existence itself. Can you explain existence? Not just why there is a universe, but where a universe even can exist? Can you explain how matter even became real? If by the Big Bang, who/what created the matter that exploded?It cannot be done. The human mind is not sufficient enough to explain existence itself. Therefore, we drive ourselves in circles trying to prove or disprove whether God exists, because we seek to know and understand everything (this is our search to become gods ourselves). Belief in God, therefore, is an act of humility. We acknowledge that we do not and cannot know everything. However, our attempts to disprove God, are therefore acts of arrogance and pride because we think that we ourselves are sufficient.[/citation]
Just because we can't explain something does not mean a supernatural force is behind it. I would argue it's more arrogant to say that you know and are certain that something we don't understand yet is "God's work". I would argue striving to understand the universe is more of an act of humility than just accepting that "a wizard did it" as the one and only truth. The more understanding I've gained as the result of my years of science and engineering work, the more I realize there is that I don't understand. Answering one question almost invariably leads to the creation of several more questions which is a far more humbling experience to me than just a blind faith acceptance that everything is controlled by some omnipotent being.
I tend to put my chips on the random chance side than the "a wizard did it" side. Even if I were to buy the argument that complex systems necessitate a creator, it doesn't prove the existence of the Judeo-Christian god. Who's to say it wasn't the Jade Emperor, Gaia, Odin, Vishnu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
[citation][nom]awood28211[/nom]Oh, but if I say that I can fly, you'd make me prove it. Because proof is on the believer not on the disbeliever. I say "prove i can't fly.. go head, prove it." You can't therefore I stand behind my statement that I can fly... Those who do not believe do not have to prove that it doesn't, you see, it is up to those who do believe that prove that it does. The funny thing is those who don't believe could care less about proof but those who do believe want ot shove "proof" down the the non-believer throats. Proof is not "the bible". The bible is a book, written by a man. You'd say "it's the word of god written by men who were given that word..." and again, non-believers do not have to prove that it wasn't the word of god, believers have to prove that it was.Bottom line, the burden of proof is on the owner... period.[/citation]
Yep, this is pretty much Russell's Teapot. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
[citation][nom]jerreece[/nom]Such limited understanding. Your problem my friend, isn't a lack of logic, but the assumption that your logic is sufficient enough to explain existence itself. Can you explain existence? Not just why there is a universe, but where a universe even can exist? Can you explain how matter even became real? If by the Big Bang, who/what created the matter that exploded?It cannot be done. The human mind is not sufficient enough to explain existence itself. Therefore, we drive ourselves in circles trying to prove or disprove whether God exists, because we seek to know and understand everything (this is our search to become gods ourselves). Belief in God, therefore, is an act of humility. We acknowledge that we do not and cannot know everything. However, our attempts to disprove God, are therefore acts of arrogance and pride because we think that we ourselves are sufficient.[/citation]
Just because we can't explain something does not mean a supernatural force is behind it. I would argue it's more arrogant to say that you know and are certain that something we don't understand yet is "God's work". I would argue striving to understand the universe is more of an act of humility than just accepting that "a wizard did it" as the one and only truth. The more understanding I've gained as the result of my years of science and engineering work, the more I realize there is that I don't understand. Answering one question almost invariably leads to the creation of several more questions which is a far more humbling experience to me than just a blind faith acceptance that everything is controlled by some omnipotent being.
- Status
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter