You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Game Over, Atheists
- Thread starter shark
- Start date
shark
Registered: Jul 2008
Posts: 72
03-31-10 07:20 PM
That god isn't real. I mean "god" might still exist inside your heart or whatever but it's not an actual, real thing in reality.
This religion thing is a whole big myth, you know like, Santa Claus or something of that nature. Just in case you didn't know.
This has been a public service announcement.
Quote from shark:
If evolution is real and god isn't, then why are there so many immoral people in the world?
Good luck.
the united states is described by some as the most immoral nation in the world. the united states is 75% christian. any connection?
"You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.â
â Bertrand Russell, Why I am Not a Christian, 1927
Why take your science from an ancient document. The Bible clearly states the world is flat,,, and that the sun revolves around the world,,these are clearly wrong,,in ancient times it was also thought that ones thinking took place in your chest cavity,,today were sure its in the brain, for most individuals.
There is a great deal of concern about what is clean and unclean due to the fact they lived in filth and dirt nor did they have toilet paper.
People are animals and do things like animals will do, we have rules and laws to keep our bad behaviors in check.
There is a great deal of concern about what is clean and unclean due to the fact they lived in filth and dirt nor did they have toilet paper.
People are animals and do things like animals will do, we have rules and laws to keep our bad behaviors in check.
Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â
But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?
Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why.
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?
Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why.
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
Quote from jem:
Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â
But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?
Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why.
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
Excellent clip. For some reason I'm reminded of the philosopher's quip, that if Man ever invents a telescope powerful enough to peer all the way across the universe he'll probably find himself looking at the back of his own head.
Quote from bullmarket79:
Why take your science from an ancient document. The Bible clearly states the world is flat,,, and that the sun revolves around the world,,.
Neither of these things are true, except in a childish, close-minded reading. Every document must be considered as a whole, not extracting a shard and then proclaiming.
Whether Koran, Shakespeare, Bagavad-Gita, the whole work must be considered and understood, and in context, or it is just an uninformed amateur talking. There was a good saying - "Text without context (considering the larger/surrounding text) is pretext (a lie)."
It is like these modern revisionists, who turn people like Columbus or Washington into evil wretches, juding them on 21st morals and not in the older world in which they lived.
In reality, the bible was the first place that said the Earth was round ("the Lord sitteth upon the circle of the Earth") and that the earth is suspended in space (nothing) ("He stretcheth out the north places, and hangeth the Earth upon nothing")
If you can't even answer this, then you officially have to admit that atheism is a lie.
If evolution is real and god isn't, then why are there so many immoral people in the world?
Good luck.
I would ask why god would make such an immoral world.
Evolution does not claim to result in people that fit your definition of moral.
Your argument is an example of the regression fallacy and is therefore useless, hope you didn't spend too much time on it.