Kids and politics

[Inv3rted]

I'll concede to that. However, he treats me like an inferior so I'm going to do the same.

So taking the stance that you're wrong automatically makes me attack you as inferior? k

You can't measure superiority the way you are. You simply can't. I thought perhaps in the 13 years you've had on the planet longer than I, you would know that. You're defeating yourself in several ways here.

"I never said he was. I conceded that he makes many good points on other threads which I agree with. My argument in this thread is that he feels morally superior to Christians simply because they believe in a God he tries to find as many faults in as possible and that as a result the very moral fabric of our society is on a plummeting decline to mass hysteria. A good argument stems from having supporting content for both sides, not just one. A biased argument isn't an argument at all. Technically this whole argument of God vs Science is fought by biased people and therefore nothing should be taken as complete fact. There is way too many variables to prove both sides wrong, yet no one on either opposing side is providing any evidence of right from the other side. Save for my little blurb now and then over the forums of how I think Science is God's way of allowing us to understand how he works."

What the forget? You're saying that because I'm the only one with supporting evidence that this argument is invalid? My point should be ignored? Or are you saying that people shouldn't be biased towards their own point of view when arguing about said point of view?

And how is science "God's way?" We invented the concept. And if you say that God made us invent it, I will have to say then we have no free will whatsoever.

[Ad Bot]

[Bisjac]

if we are free to science thx to god.
then i demand more abortions and stem cells.

[Rughugger]

So taking the stance that you're wrong automatically makes me attack you as inferior? k

You can't measure superiority the way you are. You simply can't. I thought perhaps in the 13 years you've had on the planet longer than I, you would know that. You're defeating yourself in several ways here.

"I never said he was. I conceded that he makes many good points on other threads which I agree with. My argument in this thread is that he feels morally superior to Christians simply because they believe in a God he tries to find as many faults in as possible and that as a result the very moral fabric of our society is on a plummeting decline to mass hysteria. A good argument stems from having supporting content for both sides, not just one. A biased argument isn't an argument at all. Technically this whole argument of God vs Science is fought by biased people and therefore nothing should be taken as complete fact. There is way too many variables to prove both sides wrong, yet no one on either opposing side is providing any evidence of right from the other side. Save for my little blurb now and then over the forums of how I think Science is God's way of allowing us to understand how he works."

What the forget? You're saying that because I'm the only one with supporting evidence that this argument is invalid? My point should be ignored? Or are you saying that people shouldn't be biased towards their own point of view when arguing about said point of view?

And how is science "God's way?" We invented the concept. And if you say that God made us invent it, I will have to say then we have no free will whatsoever.

No. You attack me on a religious or mental basis whether I agree with you or not.

No, I'm saying that a decent argument comes from someone who isn't completely biased to one side of a subject. That's the point of philosophical debate is to welcome counter arguments in order to expand one's knowledge, not flat out ridicule and bash it because it doesn't fit with your beliefs.

We didn't invent anything that some other civilization hasn't before. Just because we can't congruently prove there is other life out there doesn't make mathematics, theory, science, culture and religion tangibly ours. It's human arrogance that dictates everything else has to go by our definition of something. Which is one main reason people find so many faults in the Bible. They assume God works on our rules, he doesn't. They assume all of his wrath was unjustified slaughter of millions of innocents, it wasn't. They like to think that he somehow forces people of their own free will to go and bomb abortion clinics in his name. He doesn't. That is all humanity and their gross misinterpretation of his rules.

And before you go on about those old "Judeo-Christian" excuses, that's from the Jewish bible which was written by man over a thousand years ago, which makes it easy to redefine God's will by a couple of extra scribbles and words. It is perfectly known humans have re-translated and manipulated the teachings in the Bible to coincide with the times. Modern evidence shows that there was more than one Magdaline. One of them, most possibly was a 13th descipel and more or less wife to Jesus. I can accept this apparent blasphemy because I wasn't there when that stuff went down but I can keep my mind open to the new evidence coming through. I realize that the times back then were heavily prejudiced against women. Hell the fork was considered a satanic object until the 15th century. I know religion is full of faults, but that's not God's fault. That's all on Humanity because humanity is not perfect itself with or without religion.

[Otis Da HousKat]

if we are free to science thx to god.
then i demand more abortions and stem cells.

God bless America!

[Atomshock]

obama is a bad president thats all i know

this.

[Inv3rted]

No. You attack me on a religious or mental basis whether I agree with you or not.

No, I don't. Why would I argue with someone who agrees with me? Fix your logic.

No, I'm saying that a decent argument comes from someone who isn't completely biased to one side of a subject. That's the point of philosophical debate is to welcome counter arguments in order to expand one's knowledge, not flat out ridicule and bash it because it doesn't fit with your beliefs.

What a load of stuff. First of all, I have made many, many points over many threads as to why I have overwhelming evidence showing that God's existence is highly unlikely. All you do is brush them aside. You don't even pay attention to them. You don't even refute them. Then, when I keep pressing them, you say "oh look at this insecure kid who doesn't know how to debate."

We didn't invent anything that some other civilization hasn't before. Just because we can't congruently prove there is other life out there doesn't make mathematics, theory, science, culture and religion tangibly ours. It's human arrogance that dictates everything else has to go by our definition of something. Which is one main reason people find so many faults in the Bible. They assume God works on our rules, he doesn't. They assume all of his wrath was unjustified slaughter of millions of innocents, it wasn't. They like to think that he somehow forces people of their own free will to go and bomb abortion clinics in his name. He doesn't. That is all humanity and their gross misinterpretation of his rules.

No, it's human arrogance that makes people think there is a God that loves them. It's like "I exist and I want to be loved and so I make up something to love me." That's the problem with God. Show how unlikely he is scientifically and you simply say he exists out of science. By other civilizations I believe you are referring to other intelligent creatures in the universe. Because we have never come in contact with such beings, and indeed don't even know if they exist, we can say we invented the scientific method. If they did too completely independently we both did. Simple as that. You are attempting to call false Christians and nonbelievers arrogant when you yourself believe that there is a magical man in the sky who loves you and grants your petty prayers and other assorted foolishness.

And before you go on about those old "Judeo-Christian" excuses, that's from the Jewish bible which was written by man over a thousand years ago, which makes it easy to redefine God's will by a couple of extra scribbles and words.

Indeed it is, so how do we know the part that says "God exists" wasn't just added in? Or how about the words "this is a work of fiction, and not to be taken literally" taken out?

It is perfectly known humans have re-translated and manipulated the teachings in the Bible to coincide with the times. Modern evidence shows that there was more than one Magdaline. One of them, most possibly was a 13th descipel and more or less wife to Jesus.

Actually, if you were REALLY a philosophical debater as you say, you would understand that there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary of the entire Jesus story. You would open your mind to it, and then realize that Jesus was not what the Bible says he was, if he even ever was.

I can accept this apparent blasphemy because I wasn't there when that stuff went down but I can keep my mind open to the new evidence coming through.

Except you don't accept enough blasphemy that has loads of evidence behind it to even nudge your faith. That's why faith is like a disease. It creates a mindset where it's okay to accept things without any rational reasoning.

I realize that the times back then were heavily prejudiced against women. Hell the fork was considered a satanic object until the 15th century. I know religion is full of faults, but that's not God's fault. That's all on Humanity because humanity is not perfect itself with or without religion.

Humanity is imperfect indeed, but why would God, with his omnipotence and omniscience, not make sure the Bible was correct? He allows the deceit of his creations and then punishes them for it.

this.

Hey guys, it's another one who doesn't pay attention to any politics and only believes what his hick relatives / friends tell him.

[Snackbar]

Snackbar, how can you lecture on history when you say that nobody has ever believed the earth is flat?  Try reading the entire Wikipedia article.

Try reading the entire Wikipedia article as well. Point out where exactly in that article I can find information that refutes my claim. Naturally, I can't prove my claim to be true, but I can find that you can't refute it based on a certain set of date (reference to the scientific method, in case you didn't notice, Inverted). Just to refresh your memory, my claim is that Since the 4th Century BCE, none of the Abrahamic religions have believed in a flat Earth.

God is not an explanation. It is a sky hook concept. You cannot use God as an explanation for how or why things are the way they are. It simply brings up more questions than it answers, and leads to the anti scientific method. A creator is different from an explanation. Very different. The Grand Unified Theory has been hypothesized to be beyond human intellect, but for other reasons. Quantum Theory has shown itself to be incredibly difficult to comprehend due to the sheer randomness. The Grand Unified Theory did not create everything, and therefore does not have to be more complex than everything. It is simply an explanation. An explanation does not require a creator, another thing that Darwin's theory has shown.

Dawkins proof is based solely on the fact that God is complex, and therefore improbable. He's simply asking the simplistic argument "If God created everything, who created God?" Anyway, I've never stated that God is an explanation; Dawkins did. After all, isn't that what skyhooks and cranes are? They're "explanations for design complexities" according to Daniel Dennet. Based on that, if we can say that God is improbable because he is a complex explanation, then so is the GUT (which is very much more complex than what's it's seeking to explain, and don't even try to say otherwise.).

Furthermore, if God is not an explanation, and theories supported by experiments are, then why bother comparing the two? That would be like (See the use of like? That's what's called a simile, Inverted. It's an brown townogy as well.) trying to argue which is better fruit, apples or cauliflower.

Another problem with JudeoChristian philosophy is that it makes people believe they are significant. You are not. You are simply the end result of many cases of mutation and selection.

You can say that with a straight face? If there is anything that history and politics has taught me, it's that everyone is incredibly significant. Every choice you make changes the world, changes the course of history. Perhaps on the grand scale of things, we're fairly insignificant, but the choices I make today can be significant to everything that matters to me. I could care less if my accomplishments and choices will never affect the universe as a whole; I can only hope that it affects humanity.

[Inv3rted]

Try reading the entire Wikipedia article as well. Point out where exactly in that article I can find information that refutes my claim. Naturally, I can't prove my claim to be true, but I can find that you can't refute it based on a certain set of date (reference to the scientific method, in case you didn't notice, Inverted). Just to refresh your memory, my claim is that Since the 4th Century BCE, none of the Abrahamic religions have believed in a flat Earth.

derp

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch2.html

However, there is some persistence of flat earth thinking during the pre-medieval times and beyond.  Examples include:  Lucretius (99-55 BCE); the Bible; Lactantius (245-325 CE); St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 CE); St. John Chrysostom (344-408 CE); Severian, Bishop of Gabala (408 CE); Orosius (385-420 CE); Diodorus of Tarsus (394 CE); and Cosmas Indicopleustes (547 CE).

Dawkins proof is based solely on the fact that God is complex, and therefore improbable. He's simply asking the simplistic argument "If God created everything, who created God?" Anyway, I've never stated that God is an explanation; Dawkins did. After all, isn't that what skyhooks and cranes are? They're "explanations for design complexities" according to Daniel Dennet. Based on that, if we can say that God is improbable because he is a complex explanation, then so is the GUT (which is very much more complex than what's it's seeking to explain, and don't even try to say otherwise.).

You're still being a loving idiot. You are dismissing the "who created God" argument as simplistic without even bothering to answer it. God created everything, according to the Bible. Everything. God is too improbable to have spontaneously appeared. Therefore God did not create everything. Therefore the Bible is wrong, and therefore you're wrong. Who says the GUT has to be more complex than what it explains? Where is the logic behind that? Is the equation E=MC^2 more complex than the multitude of formations of atoms that make up, say, an asteroid? They factor into a simple equation. Your logic is skewed and your knowledge is questionable.

Furthermore, if God is not an explanation, and theories supported by experiments are, then why bother comparing the two? That would be like (See the use of like? That's what's called a simile, Inverted. It's an brown townogy as well.) trying to argue which is better fruit, apples or cauliflower.

Why bother comparing the two? You really just asked? I compare the two because you sincerely believe it is an explanation. You brown townogy was unneeded, and your attempts at wit are rather dull.

You can say that with a straight face? If there is anything that history and politics has taught me, it's that everyone is incredibly significant. Every choice you make changes the world, changes the course of history. Perhaps on the grand scale of things, we're fairly insignificant, but the choices I make today can be significant to everything that matters to me. I could care less if my accomplishments and choices will never affect the universe as a whole; I can only hope that it affects humanity.

History has quite obviously not taught you much. We are insignificant. Simple as that. If you want to deal with relativity, we are significant to an ant whom we are about to crush. But if you want to refer to significance in general the only thing you can compare yourself to is the cosmos. A belief in God implies we are significant to the cosmos, which we are simply not. We may be significant to ourselves, but that's irrelevant.

[Zaran]

You can say that with a straight face? If there is anything that history and politics has taught me, it's that everyone is incredibly significant. Every choice you make changes the world, changes the course of history.

Will the world end if I decide to leave the pickles off my sandwich.  I'm hungry and I want to know.

[Snackbar]

Will the world end if I decide to leave the pickles off my sandwich.  I'm hungry and I want to know.

No. It doesn't keep that choice from being significant, however.

derp

Did you even bother to read the entire article?

This seems to indicate that a spherical view is widely held AND that the Church is not concerned about a scriptural conflict.

Sounds like the religions did not consider a flat Earth to be a part of dogma.

You're still being a loving idiot. You are dismissing the "who created God" argument as simplistic without even bothering to answer it. God created everything, according to the Bible. Everything. God is too improbable to have spontaneously appeared. Therefore God did not create everything. Therefore the Bible is wrong, and therefore you're wrong. Who says the GUT has to be more complex than what it explains? Where is the logic behind that? Is the equation E=MC^2 more complex than the multitude of formations of atoms that make up, say, an asteroid? They factor into a simple equation. Your logic is skewed and your knowledge is questionable.

I don't think you understand. The GUT [i]is[/i] a complex theory. The "theory of everything" (or at least the theories we have now) is insanely complex compared to gravity and electromagnetic forces. If you don't realize that, you don't know anything about the GUT. When you combine two things together, you make something more complex, not something that is simpler.

Why bother comparing the two? You really just asked? I compare the two because you sincerely believe it is an explanation. You brown townogy was unneeded, and your attempts at wit are rather dull.

Let me state once more, that I never stated God was an explanation. God is not an explanation, and He never will be. Richard Dawkins, however, seems to believe that God is an explanation, even though He's not. God created the basis of everything, but that doesn't make him an explanation for anything. Just because He made it doesn't mean that's the reason it works. After all, a watch doesn't run just because a watchmaker made it.

History has quite obviously not taught you much. We are insignificant. Simple as that. If you want to deal with relativity, we are significant to an ant whom we are about to crush. But if you want to refer to significance in general the only thing you can compare yourself to is the cosmos. A belief in God implies we are significant to the cosmos, which we are simply not. We may be significant to ourselves, but that's irrelevant.

Are you not aware that history is the study of ourselves? It's not the studies of the cosmos, but of humanity's actions. The only thing relevant in history is how humanity has reacted to itself and to nature. As I'm part of the human race, my actions are significant to humanity, and to history.

[Menen]

The posts are getting longer!! D:

[Wedge]

     "So, by some great leap of stupidity..."

No. So, by your inability to come up with a valid argument you must instead pretend I said something else and argue against it instead, so that you actually have something to post?

I state that a god is not subject to comparison to humans because, surprise, a god isn't human. If a volcano kills a person, we don't call the volcano a murderer. We call the person a fool for standing in the way of a lava flow. The only thing capable of murder is another human.

     "He is not above humans as described in the Bible."

Then clearly you haven't read it. Or did you mean to write 'The Bible describes God as being above humans but that is incorrect.' That may be true but Christians do not believe so and that's really all that matters.

     "It should be evil because it is intentional harm of the species. It is evil because it is unthoughtful."

Well that's fine and Christians certainly do believe it's unacceptable behavior but it's also against God's law.

     "Because political agendas are not inspired by biblical morality."

It sounds like you're trying to be sarcastic here, but no, they're not. Very few people read the Bible and decide for themselves that they should oppose a modern political issue. It was based on oral tradition and the people who wrote the Bible could hardly predict stem cell research. A preacher with an agenda tells them it's wrong and they're going to hell if they don't oppose it. This is not a flaw in Christian morals. This is a flaw in people and power.

[Wizard]

There's no reason why a grand unified theory would be more complex than the universe because it isn't possible for us to comprehend the entire universe. If a GUT is ever devised then it would have to be less complex otherwise we would not come up with it. In addition, nothing in the universe can be more complex than the universe, including a GUT. If we never come up with one your point is irrelevant.

[Rughugger]

The Big Bang = God's Falcon Punch /thread.

[Shadow Ninja]

I dont like McCain or Obama.