Colbert explains god of the gaps

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by MrXYZ

 

No. Logic.

Did the Universe have a beginning?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Are you O'Reilly?? You keep on asking similar questions for which we have no definite answer...and then imply a creator did it. Exactly what we're making fun of here...please continue

Originally posted by Jackson Vega
as an englishman the very fact that bill o'rielly is on tv blows my mind, a truly frightening humanbeing and the fact he holds sway over so many peoples opinion should be a major concern for logical people everywhere. Damn America you scary !!!!!!!

As a Canadian I have to agree. Scary as ^%$#.

Yes, Colbert did a wonderful job showing how ignorant men really are. It is a double-edged sword.

I calmed down a long time ago, when I realized that men don't control the universe, even if they have their own show.

S&F As usual, Stephen Colbert once again hit the nail on the head. The depth of ignorance demonstrated by people like O'Reilly just never ceases to amaze me and I agree with some of this thread's posters that, it's down right scary.

I really believe that this level of ignorance can only be achieved through what I call, willful intellectual laziness. It's a lot easier for them to just say; "God Did It" than it is to try to figure it out. This is what they always seem to say when they are questioned about any event that they deem to be unexplainable. This is why these people are very hard to seriously debate on almost any metaphysical subject, they have only one answer and it's the same for every question, "God Did It." In other words, the phrase; "I don't know but I will research it and come back with an answer" has been replaced with, need I repeat, "God Did It."

reply to post by Flatfish


The shocking part is, if O'Reilly were in Europe, the outcry would be far louder...people would rip him to shreds and he'd lose his job because of crazy remarks like that. They don't tollerate stupidity and ignorance...but I guess it's different in the US.

Of course not all people are like that, and it's bad to generalize...but if you're on O'Reilly's side, you should really take an objective look at your belief! You're hurting the country...

I just found out that lunatic got to interview the president. WOW, journalism in the US really took a nose dive in recent years if you let people like this fool interview the president.

If he were on Comedy Central, it would be funny, but this is just sad. For crying out loud, his show's on a NEWS CHANNEL!! He's dumbing down the nation by leeching of the legitimacy of what should be a news channel.

It really seems as if the US and world in general needs organizations like Wikileaks to add a bit of sanity to the gladiator games that is "news" in the 21st century. It's as if some dumb citizens watch the gladiator games presented by the wanna-be news while the real world moves past them...so sad.

Use your friggin' brains and don't be too proud to admit if you don't have all the answers. There's no need for fairytale magic deities, the world's interesting enough!

reply to post by MrXYZ


I can't stand O'Reilly, but I love my Lord and my country.

Freedom of speech is the best part of being an American. We get to hear every opinion, if we take the time to do it...even people like you.

Your posts are entertaining in the sense of a pipsqueak bully kept at arm's length by the big guy he is trying to offend, swinging his arms furiously and hitting air.

A salute and a prayer for the greatest nation on earth, with a population that is around 75% Christian.

reply to post by Soke33


Contrary to what my post might convey, I got nothing against Christians...or Muslims, or Hindus. I believe their belief is not backed up by evidence, and therefore don't believe in any of it...but they obviously have the right to believe whatever they want unless they hurt others in the process.

The problem is, I believe O'Reilly is hurting others in the process by spreading around his ignorance and uneducated nonsense. That is a bad thing...but in no way do I believe all Christians are like that.

I have plenty of Christian/Muslim friends who believe without subscribing to the crazy 10k year old or talking snake myths

reply to post by MrXYZ


I am glad to see that you have a sense of humor. I don’t meet too many atheists offering lighthearted discussion.

I can only give my own perspective.

If someone with a bullhorn can only rant about a talking snake, that person is obviously narrow-minded.

Hope you are having fun with your horn, but pardon me if I don’t panic over the snake.

There is more to the story.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Given that we have not a shred of evidence that would suggest otherwise, it's a pretty reasonable position. Kinda like not believing in unicorns

Not a shred of evidence?

Do you even understand what is considered evidence?

Evidence

Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

The idea that a Higher Power exists has been common knowledge for thousands of years.

That knowledge would be considered A priori knowledge.

People for thousands of years seemed to have a "spiritual need".

By the way, the burden of proof, lies with you atheists to disprove the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

So far you have not impressed me......................

reply to post by dusty1

Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

You do realize you took the definition regarding evidence in law, right? That's NOT scientific evidence, and witness testimony is NOT scientific evidence because it's clearly not objective.

Objectiveness is important when it comes to science

And no, the burden of proof doesn't lie with atheists. You don't prove a negative. If you come on here and make a statement or claim, it's up to you to prove it. What's your objective evidence that god exists??

If you care, my evidence for claiming god doesn't exist is that there is not a shred of evidence suggesting the contrary

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by uva3021

 

Where did the C, N, H, and O come from?

not only where but why?

this is actually where these so called wanna be physicist who have been duped but still think it is cool, well this is where their logic breaks down... you have stumbled into a giant circle-jerk of sorts. You have asked the right questions and the topic changes course on page 1 right after you ask this.

they do not have the answer, they are only stringing you along keeping this section alive for prey to have a laugh over just like in the opening comedy stint video. Admittedly laughing does feel good, but it is only a basic impulse to say the least.

but the facts are, the people who have asked the right questions have always been spiritual, Isaac Newton believed in God, Aquinas believed in God, Hubble believed in God, Einstein believed in God of order (sound familiar?) Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest gave us the Big Bang theory, Alexander Friedmann who was also a Roman Catholic priest who has whole collage discourses devoted to his works alone...

* Big Bang nucleosynthesis
* infinity
* energy
* conservation of energy
* Friedmann equations

but when you look it up on Wiki you will find no mention of his faith and theism...
en.wikipedia.org...
I would say an edit is in order here !

these examples are just a tiny handful, but ones we can all recognize...

our next greatest advancement is not going to come form this lot you are dealing with here, they only believe what they see on t.v. and read on Wikipedia, the most flawed user entered encyclopedia that ever was.

did they break out Darwin yet

it is their only weapon and tool you know...

ahh yes... hello XYZ, so this is where you hang out eh ?

I am not a profile sniffer but alas I have found you

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

but the facts are, the people who have asked the right questions have always been spiritual, Isaac Newton believed in God, Aquinas believed in God, Hubble believed in God, Einstein believed in God of order (sound familiar?) Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest gave us the Big Bang theory, Alexander Friedmann who was also a Roman Catholic priest who has whole collage discourses devoted to his works alone...

Ah yes, the good old argument from authority...which scientifically speaking is 100% worthless without backup evidence. All those people you mentioned stated a BELIEF, they didn't do studies on the subject to back up their belief like they did when they came up with their scientific theories. So saying their stated belief is just as valid as the brilliance of their theories is beyond silly

As for where the elements come from, we know where and how helium and others form...inside stars. And even if science doesn't have all the answers, the video posted here should make it abundantly clear why not having an answer doesn't make god the most logical choice.

Thanks for proving my point though...the tide comes in, the tide goes out

Originally posted by MrXYZ

You do realize you took the definition regarding evidence in law, right? That's NOT scientific evidence, and witness testimony is NOT scientific evidence because it's clearly not objective.

Objectiveness is important when it comes to science

And no, the burden of proof doesn't lie with atheists. You don't prove a negative. If you come on here and make a statement or claim, it's up to you to prove it. What's your objective evidence that god exists??

If you care, my evidence for claiming god doesn't exist is that there is not a shred of evidence suggesting the contrary

edit on 6-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

You do realize that credible witnesses are evidence, don't you?

Rule 601. General Rule of Competency
Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules. However, in civil actions and proceedings, with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision, the competency of a witness shall be determined in accordance with State law.

en.wikibooks.org...


There are a lot of witnesses testifying that you will have to prove unreliable, according to State Law...not your own. I realize this is true for both sides, but believers of all faiths combined have atheists totally outnumbered.

Originally posted by Soke33

Originally posted by MrXYZ

You do realize you took the definition regarding evidence in law, right? That's NOT scientific evidence, and witness testimony is NOT scientific evidence because it's clearly not objective.

Objectiveness is important when it comes to science

And no, the burden of proof doesn't lie with atheists. You don't prove a negative. If you come on here and make a statement or claim, it's up to you to prove it. What's your objective evidence that god exists??

If you care, my evidence for claiming god doesn't exist is that there is not a shred of evidence suggesting the contrary

edit on 6-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

You do realize that credible witnesses are evidence, don't you?

Rule 601. General Rule of Competency
Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules. However, in civil actions and proceedings, with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision, the competency of a witness shall be determined in accordance with State law.

en.wikibooks.org...


There are a lot of witnesses testifying that you will have to prove unreliable, according to State Law...not your own. I realize this is true for both sides, but believers of all faiths combined have atheists totally outnumbered.

What on earth do american law rules have to do with scientific evidence? That is just insanely WTF! And how the hell can something be true, just because more people believe in it? At some point there were more people believing in fairies and unicorns, than non-believers, that didn't make them become real!

This is really... Just.. WTF... The internet is a weird place.

reply to post by Soke33


And again you quote definitions related to LAW...and NOT science!! The definitions aren't the same in law as in science

In science, witness testimony not backed up by proper evidence is WORTHLESS. If you go to a scientist, and tell him you saw a giant purple spaghetti monster floating 2m in the air, he's gonna call you NUTS if you don't back it up with objective evidence.

Subjective evidence is not evidence in science

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


But you realise that the absence of evidence does not mean the default answer is the correct one. It means we do not yet understand why a particular phenomenon occurs as it does.

One of the greatest things about science is that it can admit when it's wrong and change its theories accordingly to accomodate new information and understanding.

Religion on the otherhand, cannot. It's power comes from its age old dogma drilled into peoples' heads. If new authentic information came to hand that showed clearly Jesus was just a normal guy and was not what Christianity has made him out to be - do you think the various Christian sects would stand up and say, "Oops" ?

Sure, science does not have the answer to everything. But at least it makes an attempt to use common sense, logic and reason to understand the world and universe we live it.

I'm not bashing Christianity specifically - I'm bashing all religions equally.

reply to post by noonebutme


That's the entire point of this thread! To show that just because you don't have an answer to something, god isn't the logical explanation. If you claim he/she/it is responsible without backing up your claim with objective evidence, you look just as silly as O'Reilly

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by uva3021

 

Where did the C, N, H, and O come from?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Is this a serious question? Hydrogen exists because big bang was asymmetric (antimatter and matter didn't cancel out each other completely). The rest comes from stars.