IMO, everything is just energy. Energy is settling down because of "friction" in things. LIfe has sprung up, because certain organizations of energy last, while other's don't. That's how we get evolution. And life.
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.
to the atheists on the board
- Thread starter kungfoofighting
- Start date
Shoeshineboy's contempt for those who do not believe in God (his God?) is barely contained.
I am curious if the statistics he cited earlier have a consensus among scientists - and not just "scientists" of his particular bent.
Isn't it interesting that religious right has recast itself as scientists in its battle against evolution and secularism? They seek to coopt the language and tools of the culture of science with the aim of exploiting the political value of science in pursuit of thier ultimate goal: the perversion of humanism and the establishment of an effectively Christian State.
Kind of like a social virus, not unlike the Islamic militants who adopt the language, customs, and behavior of the Westerner to infiltrate and destroy him.
I am curious if the statistics he cited earlier have a consensus among scientists - and not just "scientists" of his particular bent.
Isn't it interesting that religious right has recast itself as scientists in its battle against evolution and secularism? They seek to coopt the language and tools of the culture of science with the aim of exploiting the political value of science in pursuit of thier ultimate goal: the perversion of humanism and the establishment of an effectively Christian State.
Kind of like a social virus, not unlike the Islamic militants who adopt the language, customs, and behavior of the Westerner to infiltrate and destroy him.
Quote from dgabriel:
Shoeshineboy's contempt for those who do not believe in God (his God?) is barely contained.
I am curious if the statistics he cited earlier have a consensus among scientists - and not just "scientists" of his particular bent.
Isn't it interesting that religious right has recast itself as scientists in its battle against evolution and secularism? They seek to coopt the language and tools of the culture of science with the aim of exploiting the political value of science in pursuit of thier ultimate goal: the perversion of humanism and the establishment of an effectively Christian State.
Kind of like a social virus, not unlike the Islamic militants who adopt the language, customs, and behavior of the Westerner to infiltrate and destroy him.
I find it interesting that you believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I find that science makes it easier for me to accept the concept of something out there which designed the universe. It just happens to be that many scientists would like to use science to prove the non-existence of a god.
Your suspicion that shoeshineboy's statistics might be "fuzzy math", touted only by those who believe as he does, is also amusing. What would be the goal in deceiving others with false calculations? To get atheists to believe that there is a god, and not enjoy all the pleasures life has to offer, only to discover that there is nothing more after you die? Is this the big joke that religious people are trying to pull over on the non-religious? I am confident that shoeshineboy does not have any motivation to trick people into believing as he does.
Quote from kungfoofighting:
For those who do not believe that there is a god, what would your reaction be if the mars rover sent back clear photos of a well built house on the martian surface(assuming that the photo was proven to be legitimate)?
--I originally posted this query at the tail end of a very long thread and decided to make it a new one. My apologies to those who have already replied. I am genuinely interested in hearing what your opinions would be.
Someone else figured out what shelter is? LOL. You religious types with your Appeals to Ignorance kill me.
Quote from kungfoofighting:
I find it interesting that you believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I find that science makes it easier for me to accept the concept of something out there which designed the universe. It just happens to be that many scientists would like to use science to prove the non-existence of a god.
Your suspicion that shoeshineboy's statistics might be "fuzzy math", touted only by those who believe as he does, is also amusing. What would be the goal in deceiving others with false calculations? To get atheists to believe that there is a god, and not enjoy all the pleasures life has to offer, only to discover that there is nothing more after you die? Is this the big joke that religious people are trying to pull over on the non-religious? I am confident that shoeshineboy does not have any motivation to trick people into believing as he does.
You were the original trickster with the question the sprung this thread.
The goal in using those calculations? To promote the religious agenda maybe? I did not say that Shoeshineboy wants to trick us into being beleivers, just that his arguments are the same as those of the religious right that have a political-theocratic agenda.
Even 400 years ago, the church did not expect Galileo to really disbelieve his beliefs, but to obliterate them from public consideration.
Why would you trick us "only for us to discover that there is no afterlife"? Is that ludicrous or what? If there is no afterlife, how would we discover it when we die? Who said anything about afterlife anyway?. And why does there have to be a God for there to be an afterlife? Why does a God filled world have the franchise on ethereal existence? And can you supersize at McD's there or not?
How you inject afterlife into this scientific discussion is a little puzzling. We can't by definition visit it or verify it, model it or measure it, gauge it or glimpse it, see it, size it, or sieze it, define or delineate its dimensions.
I never opposed belief in God, or George Steinbrenner. Whatever your pleasure. Read my statement earlier.
As a palliative, please note the prior post comparing you guys to to Osama's boys was intentionally imflammatory - even if not entirely off the mark.
Quote from kungfoofighting:
In response to your riddle, I must say that the riddle is flawed. One of the presuppositions is that evil exists. How can evil exist if there is no source for moral law? It is not "evil" when a dog tears apart another dog. However, most people consider what Jeffrey Dahmer did to be evil. What gives humans the concept of good and evil if there is no absolute right and wrong?
No, wrong wrong wrong. How about that man as a rational being has the right to life? I bet you didn't think of that?
Quote from dgabriel:
Supposing they find a foxhole on Mars?
Seriously, rather than a house, let's pose a more likely outcome of life and the Mars pursuit: evidence - convincing evidence let's say - of past or current microbial organisms.
Then what?
If I told my wife there were germs discovered on Mars she would send a can lysol to NASA, but what do you all think?
They funny thing is the other day I was joking around with a co-worker and said "suppose they find a watch." Anyway, had to be there.
Quote from kungfoofighting:
I find it interesting that you believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I find that science makes it easier for me to accept the concept of something out there which designed the universe. It just happens to be that many scientists would like to use science to prove the non-existence of a god.
Your suspicion that shoeshineboy's statistics might be "fuzzy math", touted only by those who believe as he does, is also amusing. What would be the goal in deceiving others with false calculations? To get atheists to believe that there is a god, and not enjoy all the pleasures life has to offer, only to discover that there is nothing more after you die? Is this the big joke that religious people are trying to pull over on the non-religious? I am confident that shoeshineboy does not have any motivation to trick people into believing as he does.
Science and religion are mutually excusilve because by definition religion is based on faith, not evidence, and is therefore irrational, while science is based on evidence and therefore rational. So arguing that they are not mutually exclusive is... er, irrational.
Quote from Sardo_Numspa:
Science and religion are mutually excusilve because by definition religion is based on faith, not evidence, and is therefore irrational, while science is based on evidence and therefore rational. So arguing that they are not mutually exclusive is... er, irrational.
I agree with you to a certain extent, since there will always be an element of faith in belief.
However, I think that the separation is not as black and white as you say. I love this quote from agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow talking about the discovery of the COBE radiation:
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has a scaled the nation of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
There are many areas where the two meet, especially where the teleological aspects of life and the cosmos can be debated and discussed.
Is it too much to ask that everyone quits attacking me personally?
I know you guys hate it when someone says, "Those atheists don't believe in God just cuzz they can't handle authority figures" or "Those atheists just don't want to believe in God cuzz they don't have any morals."
I feel that I've been pretty good about avoiding personal attacks and I can't understand why some have to resort to debating tactics of the worst sort...
I know you guys hate it when someone says, "Those atheists don't believe in God just cuzz they can't handle authority figures" or "Those atheists just don't want to believe in God cuzz they don't have any morals."
I feel that I've been pretty good about avoiding personal attacks and I can't understand why some have to resort to debating tactics of the worst sort...