Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

page: 25
21
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by gentledissident
reply to post by swan001
 
Yes, if it goes against Christianity, it must be wrong. Please, don't question Christianity. The Bible has already proven that the Bible is completely infallible. If you should think otherwise, you're not reading it right. Please seek the help of your pastor immediately.



Yes, if it goes against the Big Media concepts, it must be wrong. Please, don't question the Big Paid Media and Rotschild/Crowley. The Big Paid Media has already proved that the Big Paid Media is completely infallible. If you should think otherwise, you're not reading it right. Please seek the help of your Government and mental institutions immediately.

See how the same thing can be said from both sides?
That's not the opposite. What makes you think I buy into MSM?




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by GafferUK1981
 


The notion of god is ridiculous based on what...your opinion? Now calling the tooth fairy a fairy tale is one thing, but the nature of creation? That's a completely different concept entirely. The amount of proof supporting god is the exact same amount of proof supporting the big bang theory. None at all. But i'm willing to admit that my belief in a higher power is an OPINION and nothing more. No one should state their opinion and try to pass it off as fact.
edit on 6-9-2012 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kaiode1
 


I'm sorry but you're completely wrong. The universe is expanding as the big bang theory predicts but of course the big bang is a theory and not a fact.

If the notion that a god created everything was just a theory as it should be it would be quickly dismissed as statements made in the bible have been proved incorrect. Of course when the bible is proved wrong all of a sudden we are told that statement was metaphorical which is laughable to be honest.

In my humble opinion I do not think religion should get as much respect as it does. It all boils down to people worshipping an imaginary friend who was conjured up thousands of years ago by primitive people.

It doesn't take much common sense to conclude there is no god. I guess the fear of oblivion when you die has kept religion going but if you accept death as what it is then why worry about something you can't do anything about.
edit on 6-9-2012 by GafferUK1981 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by kaiode1
 





Now calling the tooth fairy a fairy tale is one thing, but the nature of creation? That's a completely different concept entirely.


Whats the difference? one came from a children's story and one came from a religious dogma. Where else did you get the idea everything popped out of nowhere? i guess there is proof that everything popped at same time?




The amount of proof supporting god is the exact same amount of proof supporting the big bang theory. None at all.


No.. there is absolutely no proof for a god, other than man made scriptures. The Big Bang theory on the other hand, explains some things like expansion and how new starts and galaxies are formed. However, there might be more to big bang than what we know, but that is no way defaulting into a "fill in the blank" word called God.




But i'm willing to admit that my belief in a higher power is an OPINION and nothing more. No one should state their opinion and try to pass it off as fact.


Opinion can become fact if it is supported, big bang is not absolute but it has at least some trace of evidence.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GafferUK1981
 


Well i'm not really religious. Belief in a higher source doesn't make me religious by default. I don't abide by dogma. And how do you figure it's just "common sense" not to believe in a creator? Your opinion? Many people would wholeheartly disagree. For a person who thinks differently than you, evolution and all the natural processes and contingencies that ensure life continues on this planet could be all the evidence that they need of some sort of intelligent design. Now don't get me wrong, im not trashing your opinion on the existence of god. You have yours and I have mine. The point is there should be mutual respect enough not to call people who feel differently "cowards" or "stupid." You cant possibly expect people to want to see your side of the argument if you're insulting them simply for having a different opinion on the matter than you do.
edit on 6-9-2012 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream


...so can it then be conceded that the non-existence of god is an opinion at this poibt in time, and not a fact? Dont get me wrong, Im not trying to argue the existence of god because that would be a fruitless effort for the both of us. But do you have just as much respect for the fact that I believe in a higher power, as I do for the fact that you don't? Or r u one of the people who would tell me im wrong, while placing their opinions on a pedestal?
edit on 6-9-2012 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by kaiode1
 


No I would consider it a fact that god does not exist.

The theory has been in play for thousands of years and no evidence can be found to support it and the book that supposedly explains it is littered with errors.

Therefore in a scientific manner I think we can conclusively say there is no god.

Going back to the tooth fairy and god. Children believe in the tooth fairy and adults believe in god. If they are both wrong then what's the difference?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by GafferUK1981
 


The fact that you have no evidence to support the claim you're making. Scientifically speking, it's nothing more than conjecture based upon your opinion. To claim it as factual at this point is a bit of a stretch.
edit on 7-9-2012 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaiode1
reply to post by GafferUK1981
 


The fact that you have no evidence to support the claim you're making. Scientifically speking, it's nothing more than conjecture based upon your opinion. To claim it as factual at this point is a bit of a stretch.
edit on 7-9-2012 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)


You can't prove the non-existence of God. That would be a negative proof and is called an argument from ignorance. The burden of proof falls on those who insist that God exists.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Exactly, I completely agree but I prefer to go further. The thought of a god is irrational and frankly ridiculous. I would say that without any evidence why should we even consider the existence of a god.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


The main point is that neither side has much proof for anything. It could be argued that the very manner in which nature is organized is indicative of a creator. The water cycle for instance. A perfect example of natural order in a world supposedly bred from chaos. The life cycle. Plants provide nutrients for animals that provide other food for other animals. Everything in the natural world is in perfect balance to ensure that life (in all its forms) will never cease. To me, that's indicative of some form of intelligent design. Will I be somehow labeled as "uneducated" or "irrational" for holding this view?
edit on 7-9-2012 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaiode1
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


The main point is (no matter who's burden it is) is that neither side has much proof for anything. It could be argued that the very manner in which nature is organized is indicative of a creator. The water cycle for instance. A perfect example of natural order in a world supposedly bred from chaos. Your mode of thought pretty much determines whether or not you see evidence. Such is the nature of opinions.

Adding "god" or "gods" to the equation does not explain anything. it does not aid in furthering mankind's understanding, it is not a useful tool or framework for validating or expanding knowledge, it is for all intents and purposes completely superfluous. Now, the fact that there is no evidence what so ever for "god" or "gods" even further relegates such an idea to the waste bin of understanding as it only serves to muddy the waters and hold back the quest for knowledge.

Why bother invoking a supreme being or beings for which there is no evidence for and whom does not in any way add to or aid in mankind's quest for understanding or knowledge? It's an imaginary fifth wheel that not only serves no purpose but stunts our quest for knowledge. As soon as we are satisfied with "god did it" then we stop asking questions. Why stop asking question because of some imaginary being? That is the definition of utter lunacy.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


In no way does a belief in god imply that the thirst for knowledge about the way that our world or universe works will simply disappear. Don't make implications that I didn't make, or attempt to put words in my mouth. Many of the greatest names in science (some at the very foundation of scientific principles) were theists. And it did't hinder their contributions to the field.
edit on 7-9-2012 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kaiode1
 


You are talking about burden of proof regarding a god or gods as an explanation in a creationism/evolution thread. I have stated exactly why invoking a god or gods is an utter waste of time when attempting to understand and explain the universe. The fact that some scientists are theists means diddly squat. When they're speaking in the capacity of a scientist, they leave their religion at the door. A scientist's opinion about unscientific things such as religion is no more credible than anyone else's.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaiode1
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


The main point is that neither side has much proof for anything. It could be argued that the very manner in which nature is organized is indicative of a creator. The water cycle for instance. A perfect example of natural order in a world supposedly bred from chaos. The life cycle. Plants provide nutrients for animals that provide other food for other animals. Everything in the natural world is in perfect balance to ensure that life (in all its forms) will never cease. To me, that's indicative of some form of intelligent design. Will I be somehow labeled as "uneducated" or "irrational" for holding this view?
edit on 7-9-2012 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)


Nature doesn't exist in balance or equilibrium. That is a common misconception, though. If there was such a thing, nothing would ever change.
edit on 9/7/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaiode1
reply to post by john_bmth
 


In no way does a belief in god imply that the thirst for knowledge about the way that our world or universe works will simply disappear. Don't make implications that I didn't make, or attempt to put words in my mouth. Many of the greatest names in science (some at the very foundation of scientific principles) were theists. And it did't hinder their contributions to the field.
edit on 7-9-2012 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)


Whether they were theists or not is utterly irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Nye is a washed up hack,

He must need the money real bad



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Look. The bottom line is that whether it's acknowleged or not the belief or non-belief in a creator is a matter of opinion. And should never be pushed on anyone else as fact. All the while calling someone else's opinion silly or ridiculous will never help to make anyone see things your way. All it does is turn people off from any sort of civil discussion/debate on the subject. Opinions should be discussed respectfully and civilly instead of: "well I dont believe in any sort of spiritual existence, the fact that you do makes you irrational. Flat out crazy in fact." Do you not understand how lording your opinion over others as fact could make you seem like a "my way or the highway" type of person? I'm not trying to convince you either way of the existence of a creator. Neither of us will convince the other. But is it possible to discuss such things without the proverbial "throat-tearing" between the theists and the skeptical?
edit on 7-9-2012 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


It is relevant that they were theists because he tried to imply that belief in god would somehow halt scientific discovery. History proves that assumption to be false.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kaiode1
 


You continue to completely miss my point to let me ask you a question:

How does invoking a deity for which there is no evidence what so ever for in any way aid in understanding and explaining the universe?






top topics



 
21
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join