Why I try to disprove God.

reply to post by Jovi1


The religious right hasn't tried to take a second, closer look at scientific advancement. They have tried to halt it in the name of God.

By all means, slow things down a bit and research them better before releasing new discoveries on the world. But do it for the sake of safety, not to make it easier to cling to your antiquated religious beliefs.

As for stem cells, not that it's a huge part of this topic, but do you mean to tell me a naturally miscarried fetus doesn't have the same stem cells an intentionally aborted one does? Remove religious demands to respect corpses from the equation, and using stem cells acquired that way is no different than donating a body to science.

Originally posted by mattifikation
Religion is a major factor in "tribal divisions," is it not?
[/QUOTE]

It is a factor, the fact that is not the only factor makes a nonsense of your "religion is bad" whinging- people are bad and will commit bad acts, whether in the name of religion, race, culture, communism etc etc

Allow me to retract that lie for you.
If you're going to make claims that, research them so that you know they are a product of your prejudice and not something that's based in statistical knowledge.
[/QUOTE]

those links refute NOTHING of the sort- people can allocate themselves as one religion or another upon entering prison, it does not make them religious, ie the sort of person who was studying his bible and attending church before going out and committing a crime. I think it is perfectly obvious that people who actively commit to religion as opposed to nominal labels (I live in Northern Ireland by the way, over here, 99% of people allocates themselves on census forms, job applications etc as either Catholic or Protestant, meanwhile, those attending church or chapel and actually studying the bible, would be about a third- simply allocating a label is not "religion)

Listen dude, you leave your wallet open in a church and on the street, do it 100 times and come back and tell me how many times it was handed in to the authorities in both cases, come down from your ivory tower and have a dose of reality

Oh, but religion is a problem by itself. Even when not used for controlling people, it still stops the advancement of our race in the name of unproven superstitions.
[/QUOTE]

absoloute tish and piffle, "religion" does not stop advancement, people do- A large school of thought with Christianity has always been to treat the bible not as a literal scientific book which prevents us discovering more about our world, no, rather it was a guide, with underlying principles- BIblical scholars over a thousand years ago laughed at the notion of Genesis being a literal description of creation, as clearly such a book will never be readable. Your point is further refuted because our gift of self awareness, discovery etc, in religion, is treated as a gift from God and to be cherished- your view is very fascist like and rather stifles the very thing you profess to promote


[QUOTE]
Fear of death and unimportance, lack of knowledge of the scientific explanations of the universe, denial of the right of pride, and the desire to feel superior are all reasons why religion exists. This means that religion is not a solution to anything, but a method of avoiding reality.

Quite the contrary, it reinforces reality, this is an earthly, physical world with all the joy and horror it brings, and the freedom from the slavery of pride and ego releases the creative juices

Unfortunately for those who wish to be something more than molecules, I can say period.
[/QUOTE]

More nonsense, molecules neither prove or disprove God, if God exists he created the molecules


[QUOTE]
The best and most irrefutable evidence against God is the fact that humanity predates monotheism by thousands upon thousands of years. The very concept of having just one god did not even emerge until the late Bronze Age. source
[/QUOTE]

That does not refute God- for starters one cannot safely say with any certainty what "beliefs" were held thousands of years ago (there you go with ego and pride supressing reality).


[QUOTE]
The stories of the Bible are not true because they tell us we have known about God since mankind was created. The Bible is what tells us there is a God, so if the Bible is not true, there is not a God. It's as simple as that... period.

Absoloute infantile interpretation of the Bible- even a cursory glance of Genesis, which isnt literal, shows that God pre dates Man, I mean come on, you profess to be some sort of realist.

Leaving aside that little doozy, you don't have to believe in the Bible to believe in God- very lazy assessment there

[edit on 28-11-2007 by blueorder]

even a cursory glance of Genesis, which isnt literal, shows that God pre dates Man,

I'm quoting that because it is the best example out of many in that post of what is called "illogical." In that case, it's "circular logic," trying to prove something with itself.

The only other thing in your post worth addressing, and barely at that, is that you STILL have provided no evidence - other than your own worthless, brainwashed assumptions - that more criminals are atheists than religious. Let's either see some stats or some silence, shall we?

spare me the sanctimony, I had to lower myself to reply to your previous "post"

The stats are self evident you pretentious chap, if they were religious, then they wouldn't be in jail, have a quick precis of the ten commandments for starters, and then recon here and square that with your thrapping over nominal labels upon entering jail

And take me up on my wallet challenge, although you already know the outcome, eh chum



[edit on 28-11-2007 by blueorder]

Yes, I'll be out 100 wallets because Christianity teaches that you can sin all you want, and as long as you're sorry for it and you believe in Jesus you can still go to "heaven."

I see I've really touched a nerve on you. I take it you don't like it when you make up statistics and then somebody asks you to provide a source? Fine. We'll play that game. I'll concede that jail is full of Godless atheists, which must be why they have chapels in all prisons. For all the atheists, right?

But in turn, you'll have to concede that most insane asylums are full of people who think they talk to God. And by your own reasoning, I don't even have to back that statement up. I can just say it, and it must be true because... oh, how does it go? Oh yeah, "The stats are self evident." I'll leave the name calling out of the quote for you.

Do you see the fallacy of your statement yet? Obviously there's no evidence here that all insane people think they talk to God, and obviously there's no evidence that all prisoners are atheists, so your statement is still an unfounded piece of garbage.

reply to post by mattifikation

Hmmm, good sources (except for wikipedia, the fact a page doesn't exist there means nothing). Apparently some things have changed since my college days (yes, I'm an old fart).

In those days, there was a Law of Entropy, which was not quantitative and referred to order/chaos. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is indeed quantitative and refers to calculable energy. I don't expect you to take my word for it, but you'll just have to wait a bit for a source. I just got in after 13 hours on the road.

I do have my old physics book, and will try to look it up for you.

TheRedneck

Oh, and way to go! Keeping me on my toes...

Simple proof of God-> All things are forever and therefore(molecular), something in the quantum state, or above the quantum state, is existing to drive this foreverness.

Well, I included the Wikipedia thing to show that so far nobody's created a page on it yet, meaning it likely doesn't exist.

Maybe scientists just decided they needed a better way to word things and changed it around a bit? They tend to do that. 10 years ago the idea of "demoting" a planet would have sounded ridiculous to me. Now poor Pluto is just a really big rock.

reply to post by mattifikation


You should have simply searched for entropy: en.wikipedia.org...



This seems to be a better source: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...



Try browsing through to the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. And I haven't even had to go through my library yet.

Off-topic as this may seem to be getting, I think I can tie it back in. Thermodynamics itself is one of the cornerstones on which physics (and therefore science) is based. All the sources either of us cited reflects that. And yet, here we have many different sources, all claiming to be accurate as to the definition of that cornerstone. Keep searching around for the second law and you'll find a few dozen related but different definitions.

Now, if there are a few dozen different 'Second Laws of Thermodynamics', I ask you, how do we know which one is correct in which instance? And if we cannot answer this satisfactorily, how do we even know if our answers are correct? We do not even know if we are using the correct equation!

My initial point rests. Present-day science, for all it's bluster, is at least every bit as inherently flawed and contradictory as any theological view.

TheRedneck

You're fast, matt. I'll answer your last post here:

It does indeed look to me like the definitions have changed through time. That form of evolution I'll gladly agree to.


[edit on 28-11-2007 by TheRedneck]

Originally posted by Gorman91
Simple proof of God-> All things are forever and therefore(molecular), something in the quantum state, or above the quantum state, is existing to drive this foreverness.

lol i love post like these...

First of all nothing last forever, not even the laws of physics (Information from 'New Scientist'). I'll try and find it again...

Secondly even if everything last 'forever' that is no more proof of god than a ancient wizard casting a spell to make everything 'forever'.

Well, regardless of what the theory is called or how it's worded, I do get your point. We don't have a clear explanation of where cellular organization came from.

But that's just from what we've figured out so far. If you look at current scientific knowledge compared to all that there is to know about the subject, science is still very much in its infancy.

So, I can certainly agree that science doesn't have the right answers to everything yet. That's what science is all about: creating and testing theories and laws until someday, hopefully, the real ones can be discovered.

That's why I prefer it to religion, which tends to create a theory and demand its adherents believe that theory until the religion no longer exists. If you change the theory, you've created a new religion (and are often threatened with some form of horrible spiritual punishment by the old one.)

Changing a theory in science... well, just changes a theory. Like when they recently discovered that a trait that evolves out of a species can evolve back into it, which was originally believed to be impossible. I really wish I could find a link to any of the articles I read on that.

I suspect someday they'll have answers to questions such as, "Why haven't we observed one species evolving into another" and "How do the number of Chromosomes change?" By then, I expect the theory of evolution will be completely different... possibly even renamed and credited to a new person.

I guess you could say it's the flexibility that I like.

Originally posted by mattifikation
Yes, I'll be out 100 wallets because Christianity teaches that you can sin all you want, and as long as you're sorry for it and you believe in Jesus you can still go to "heaven."
[/QUOTE]

you will be out considerably less times in the church example because those followers of Christ act on his actions (ie do not steal), unlike the criminals who infest our streets who havent the faintest about the Bible or are remotely religious

[QUOTE]
I see I've really touched a nerve on you. I take it you don't like it when you make up statistics and then somebody asks you to provide a source? Fine. We'll play that game. I'll concede that jail is full of Godless atheists, which must be why they have chapels in all prisons. For all the atheists, right?
[/QUOTE]

pointing out your ego and pretentiousness does not mean my nerve has been touched, I am simply being honest. I am saying that your "stats" have proved nothing, they are merely "labels" people apply on entering jail, along with race, sex etc- if you, for one minute, think that the majority of criminals entering our jails were church going bible scholars then I do have a modicum of pity for your fantasy world view- good luck with that


[QUOTE]
But in turn, you'll have to concede that most insane asylums are full of people who think they talk to God. And by your own reasoning, I don't even have to back that statement up. I can just say it, and it must be true because... oh, how does it go? Oh yeah, "The stats are self evident." I'll leave the name calling out of the quote for you.
[/QUOTE]

The asylum reference is odd, hearing "voices" perhaps, is one aspect of lunacy, whether from a 20 foot rabbit or a notion of "god".

[QUOTE]Do you see the fallacy of your statement yet? Obviously there's no evidence here that all insane people think they talk to God, and obviously there's no evidence that all prisoners are atheists, so your statement is still an unfounded piece of garbage.

Yes, all those gang bangers, rapists, murderers, thieves, deviants, etc most of them had been active Bible reading Christian types- you couldnt make it up

reply to post by mattifikation

Then we do agree on science.

I do not mean to imply that I dislike science, quite to the contrary. I simply see it as somewhat inadequate at this time. And I have this thing against hypocrites who claim to have all the answers while obviously fumbling around in the dark for them. Perhaps it is because of the intestinal ailment that has plagued me my whole life. No doctor has ever been able to do more than shove me full of medcines that did nothing but increase the pharmacies' profits, or demand changes to my lifestyle that also did nothing but make me miserable for a few months.

Maybe it was that two weeks back in the 80s when whole milk went from being the perfect food to a cancer-causing bane on society, then back to a healthy drink, then to a major cause of obesity, then back to healthy. All in two weeks.

Could it be due to the fact that clorine is a deadly chemical, yet we purposely use it in our drinking water? Flouride is even more poisonous, and there are reports (unsubstantiated at this time) that flouride causes physchological aberrations.

Gasoline will not ignite when in liguid form. It is the vapors from liquid gasoline that provide combustion. Yet the EPA requires additives that prevent gasoline form vaporizing as effectively. While we're on that subject, the same EPA tends to ignore smokestacks spewing out a noxious mixture of industrial chemicals, while worrying about how much 'pollution' I create by smoking a cigarette. Oh, yes, let's not forget about catalytic converters... the primary source of acid rain, mandated by law to be used...

I could go on for days, but the point should be clear. Yet I do believe science, if it can be isolated from politics and greed, is a good thing. And I understand completely your point about religion seeming as bad, especially when one listens to certain evangelicals who obviously have a political agenda (no names here, the one that keeps popping into my head is dead now). That's why, though I am a staunch believer in Jesus Christ and the Bible, I have rarely attended church on a regular basis. I can only suggest some research on the book itself and not on what people have said about it. A good place to start might e here: www.sacrednamebible.com...

Thank you, matt, for a great debate. I'm sure we will meet again on another topic, and I look forward to it. I leave you with a paraphrased quote by Kenneth Copeland: "The biggest obstacle God has is religion."

TheRedneck

reply to post by blueorder


Since when do you have to be an active Bible reader to be a Christian? I know a ton of people who don't even go to church, but they still believe in God. Whether or not you bother to attend church or read a Bible has nothing at all to do with whether or not you are religious.

At any rate, if church going Christians never did anything bad, there would be no reason for Jesus to exist - they'd be free of sin and would need nobody to save them, would there?

I'm not debating this with you further, go ahead and make your baseless claim again, I won't continue arguing about it. Just realize that repeating a lie over and over again won't make it true.

Well then if my other post doesn't cut it, then it's my personal experiences. But as always, you'd either call me crazy or misinterpreting things. So whatever.

I love you confused folks.

"god" doesn't exist because the word "god" has deeply confused you all.


"god" is nothing to be feared, but you minions love to equate your downfalls to your lack of "faith" in god. LOL.

Your faith in "god" lies in the faith in yourself. If you refuse to recognize yourself as a living being, RESPONSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.......... than you are just another dumb, ignorant coward that believes in "the system" over humanity.

Keep getting fat and enjoy being in debt like the morons you are.

I'm still friends with a lot of you idiots, but at least I can escape this hell hole called america when the time is right. Unfortunately, my best choice is Israel. OHHHHH, how F'd I am.

I'm not really sure what you just said, or which side of the debate you're taking, or for that matter what you're talking about, but I don't think it needed to include more name calling than sentences... regardless of who they were directed to.

Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by blueorder

 

Since when do you have to be an active Bible reader to be a Christian? I know a ton of people who don't even go to church, but they still believe in God. Whether or not you bother to attend church or read a Bible has nothing at all to do with whether or not you are religious.

At any rate, if church going Christians never did anything bad, there would be no reason for Jesus to exist - they'd be free of sin and would need nobody to save them, would there?

I'm not debating this with you further, go ahead and make your baseless claim again, I won't continue arguing about it. Just realize that repeating a lie over and over again won't make it true.

you are misquoting or misunderstanding my quote- I said that active church going Christians are much less likely to end up in jail than non practiscing folk. There is no perfection anywhere, just better and worse

Those stats you gave are just labels people get given from birth, not a sign of religious belief.

Being religious isnt just "believing in God" in my book, you could believe in God and consider God to be an absoloute twat

I've heard dead people and talked with the big man's friends. So you could put a rifle to my head, but I'd happily say God exists no matter what. Sorry, but you could disprove all and everything in the Bible, it wouldn't change my faith.

reply to post by mattifikation

First of all, Nazi Germany was as much about religion as a "master race." I seem to recall hearing something about 6 million Jewish people.

Is not Jewish a ethnic type? Are there not a secular jews?

Second, I never said religion was the only divisive tool used to control people in the world. It is, however, the only one that that has been used since the dawn of written history. It is the only one that those in power can use on anyone, in any nation, at any time.

But you maintain the stance that to get rid of religion would bring peace. Not my words. Your own.

You preach a logical fallacy by arguing that because religion is not the only problem with mankind, it is not a problem at all. Rape is not the only crime. Should we stop trying to prevent rape from occurring?

Huh? Talk to me about logical fallacies and then spout THAT?
You equate the belief in a "higher power" with RAPE????????
Might want to look up the meaning of logical falacy.

I don't plan to address people arguing about what God is, this isn't a thread about semantics. God can be Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, "God" himself, Zeus, or Paris Hilton for all I care. Anything that lies to people to gain control over them is bad and can be done without. Period.

Can we say "out of left field"? Good I knew you could.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by WraothAscendant]