Dawinists standing on the panic button.

[BigPapaVol]

Again, ill-informed crap. We've moved on from the God discussion and are discussing creator/non-creator. Everything I said is completely separate from whether or not the creator is God or not. It seems like most on here, yourself included, are too sensitive to discuss religion and God in an adult fashion.

Keep taking those pop shots at me, unlike you, it doesn't bother me in the least.

you like to think that you have the ability to keep pace, but clearly cannot. Everyone having this inane conversation with you has left the "which God is God" debate and moved to your "unassailable proof" that god doesn't exist.

My ill-informed crap was simply a response to the utter lack of any proof in your proof, which was almost funny in its worthlessness.

I'm not too sensitive to discuss anything on here, but I certainly hope it can be with someone more objective or who can keep up with where we are going.

If you, somehow, believe I have been bothered by your gibberish, you think way to highly of yourself and your position. I find you as big of a hypocrite as humanly possible in this debate. Flatter yourself into believing you're something different, but that doesn't make it true. This thing boiled down to one question, and you used 14 opinion laden, inane points about symmetry as "proof" of your position. Needless to say, but your "proof" proved to be a bit flimsy, at best, and absolutely silly at worst.

Please, keep on offending me, I find it entertaining.

 

[volinbham]

Any one provide cliff notes for this conversation?

God hates capitalism and women.

 

[rjd970]

you like to think that you have the ability to keep pace, but clearly cannot. Everyone having this inane conversation with you has left the "which God is God" debate and moved to your "unassailable proof" that god doesn't exist.

My ill-informed crap was simply a response to the utter lack of any proof in your proof, which was almost funny in its worthlessness.

I'm not too sensitive to discuss anything on here, but I certainly hope it can be with someone more objective or who can keep up with where we are going.

If you, somehow, believe I have been bothered by your gibberish, you think way to highly of yourself and your position. I find you as big of a hypocrite as humanly possible in this debate. Flatter yourself into believing you're something different, but that doesn't make it true. This thing boiled down to one question, and you used 14 opinion laden, inane points about symmetry as "proof" of your position. Needless to say, but your "proof" proved to be a bit flimsy, at best, and absolutely silly at worst.

Please, keep on offending me, I find it entertaining.

Pathetic, and absurdly silly drivel, written by someone with nowhere else to go but petty insults. I'm not going to get dragged down to this level. I'm sure it makes you feel better, and I find it odd the way you respond to entertainment, as you call it.

You've got to be kidding me.

 

[rjd970]

God hates capitalism and women.

And the concept of religion and a creator have nothing in common, and should never be tied together in a debate.

 

[OrangeYankee]

Any one provide cliff notes for this conversation?

When gs is involved, I think I have read Ayn Rand books that are shorter .

 

[OrangeEmpire]

God hates capitalism and women.

1.) I will have to look that one up.

2.) God loves women, just at the references to womens legs in the bible...

 

[OrangeEmpire]

And the concept of religion and a creator have nothing in common, and should never be tied together in a debate.

Did I miss something?

Also, do you work for NASA?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Pathetic, and absurdly silly drivel, written by someone with nowhere else to go but petty insults. I'm not going to get dragged down to this level. I'm sure it makes you feel better, and I find it odd the way you respond to entertainment, as you call it.

You've got to be kidding me.

You're clearly above the fray. Awesome. Now reiterate your proof for me about a god being inexistent. I'll try to keep up.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[rjd970]

You're clearly above the fray. Awesome. Now reiterate your proof for me about a god being inexistent. I'll try to keep up.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

If you would read the last 15 pages, you would see I can't disprove a negative. There are reasons and evidence that suggests there isn't one, at least not as defined by over 90% of the posters here who would take offense to anything I say, yourself included. It's like trying to disprove the existence of Russell's teacup orbiting in space somewhere. Once the rules are lined out so it can't be disproven, even on a philosophical level....never understand his/its motivation, unable to comprehend with our minds, empirical evidence can't apply.....etc...etc...the whole exercise is silly. But at the end of the day, that's all you've got.

I will discuss it all day long, but I refuse to get in a mudslinging fight with you because you want to take offense at something that was never directed personally at you, or anybody for that matter. And if it bothers you...or anybody else for that matter...that much to hear my opinion on religion, feel free to place me on ignore. I enjoy everybody here, whether it is returned or not.

 

[WA_Vol]

The problem with atheism for me is when you break it down to it's core.
An atheist can never explain how out of nothing, out of a vacuum, the first atom evolved.

Their answer whenever I have asked this is the material to create the universe was simply there. In a nutshell, they except on faith the material for the universe always existed. Which to me is no better grounds then the believe then there was a creator of that material.

 

[Brog]

The problem with atheism for me is when you break it down to it's core.
An atheist can never explain how out of nothing, out of a vacuum, the first atom evolved.

Atheists can never explain that, their answer whenever I have asked this is the material to create the universe was simply there. So in a nutshell, they except on faith the material for the universe has simply always existed. Which to me is no better grounds then the believe then there was a creator of that material.

As an atheist, I offer no explination for the creation of the universe due to a lack of evidence. It would be silly to simply believe it was always there, but it would be just as silly to make up a god figure to explain it for whatever religion you subscribe to.

 

[kptvol]

As an atheist, I offer no explination for the creation of the universe due to a lack of evidence. It would be silly to simply believe it was always there, but it would be just as silly to make up a god figure to explain it for whatever religion you subscribe to.

It would be far sillier to pick one side and proclaim the other side foolish.

 

[Brog]

That's why I have no side in the debate on how it all started.

 

[WA_Vol]

As an atheist, I offer no explination for the creation of the universe due to a lack of evidence. It would be silly to simply believe it was always there, but it would be just as silly to make up a god figure to explain it for whatever religion you subscribe to.

That's an agnostic view, not an atheistic view.

 

[Brog]

We're talking about the start of the universe, not whether your god exists. I don't believe in a god because of the lack of evidence to show one, the same reason I don't believe in the neutron egg. Just because I refuse to make up some answer to a question with no answers, doesn't make me agnostic.

 

[motown vol 09]

whats the difference? is it that agnostics question God's existence and a atheists say that there is no way God exists?

 

[WA_Vol]

Agnostics believe there is not enough evidence to determine if God exists or not, its unknowable.

Atheists do not believe in God.

 

[justingroves]

As an atheist, I offer no explination for the creation of the universe due to a lack of evidence. It would be silly to simply believe it was always there, but it would be just as silly to make up a god figure to explain it for whatever religion you subscribe to.

I guess we'll see when we die.

 

[rockytophigh]

As an atheist, I offer no explination for the creation of the universe due to a lack of evidence. It would be silly to simply believe it was always there, but it would be just as silly to make up a god figure to explain it for whatever religion you subscribe to.

Same view as one of my best friends. I call it the too lazy to investigate religion. He calls it athiest/agnostic depending upon the amount of beer he's consumed.

I read a poem one time, I don't recall the author.....but the basic of it was that if there is a God, I have gained everything....and if He does not exist, all I have wasted is time.

No one on this board can prove/disprove the existence of a supreme being, much less whether their brand of belief is the right one. There are many theories of creationism vs. outright evolution....however I find it really hard to concieve the fact we are here talking upon a computer.....some of us 1000s of miles apart....connected virtually through mid air....my wife is watching a tv show narrated, directed, recorded & produced by a human (about animals), and the next smartest animal is a dolphin. We ALL have the option to click on SeaWorld Home and Delta Air Lines - Airline Tickets and Airfare to Worldwide Destinations and book ourselves a flight (through the edges of space no less), rent a car (with thousands of moving and interacting parts made by robots, made by man) and drive over to Sea World to see the next smartest animal on our planet......beg for a fu&^%g fish. If you don't effin' get that......I can't really help ya.

Peace out.

 

[gsvol]

When gs is involved, I think I have read Ayn Rand books that are shorter .

The older the river the more it meanders.

.my wife is watching a tv show narrated, directed, recorded & produced by a human (about animals), and the next smartest animal is a dolphin. We ALL have the option to click on SeaWorld Home and Delta Air Lines - Airline Tickets and Airfare to Worldwide Destinations and book ourselves a flight (through the edges of space no less), rent a car (with thousands of moving and interacting parts made by robots, made by man) and drive over to Sea World to see the next smartest animal on our planet......beg for a fu&^%g fish. If you don't effin' get that......I can't really help ya.

Peace out.

One day at Sea World in Miami I must have watched a dolphin watch humans for nearly an hour. One of the most amazing things was that the vast majority of people walking by never noticed he was watching them.

He was in a shallow pool by himself and was leaning back against the wall of the pool on the far side in a reclining position with his head and upper body out of the water and as people would walk down the sidewalk he would turn a look at people as they appeared at one end of the pool and he would slowly follow them until they disappeared behind a wall, then turn and follow another group as they went by.

It was sort of surreal.

There you go dancing again...I apologize for not performing a spell check...you're still dodging the issue that I have with you...

You stated something as a fact...but not only was it not a fact the exact opposite (that the FBI refutes the 98% stat you mentioned) was a fact...

At issue here is ignorance and credibility...and all the petty insults and insinuations you can throw out won't change that you passionately embrace the former and...based on the way about 98% of the people in this forum respond to you...have very little of the latter

What we are talking about is a matter of semantics.

Just as you were guilty of misspelling I was guilty of not phrasing my assertion in a completely accurate manner.

For that I apologize then.

I should have said 98% were associated with homosexuality in some way.

I'll put up my credibility against your naivete eight days a week.

You can believe it or not, that's was in their report.

Even under the new rules of reporting the majority are committed by homosexuals and if you consider they are only about 3% of the population you can see how children are at a much higher risk to be associated with them.

Under the new criteria first of all, 'bisexuals' were eliminated from the 'homosexual' column, even if they were primarily homosexual.

Pederasts were eliminated also if they didn't have adult homosexual relationships, even though pederasty is a homosexual act itself.

Etc, etc.

A good example was the last or next to last man executed in Tennessee (did they execute Workman yet?) who raped and killed the little five year old girl but forensic evidence proved that he had had homosexual sex earlier in the day. Under current reporting rules though, he wouldn't show up in the 'underage rape by a homosexual' category. Go figure.

We owe much of the ignorance today to the perverted Kinsey report.

 

[volinbham]

If you would read the last 15 pages, you would see I can't disprove a negative. There are reasons and evidence that suggests there isn't one, at least not as defined by over 90% of the posters here who would take offense to anything I say, yourself included. It's like trying to disprove the existence of Russell's teacup orbiting in space somewhere. Once the rules are lined out so it can't be disproven, even on a philosophical level....never understand his/its motivation, unable to comprehend with our minds, empirical evidence can't apply.....etc...etc...the whole exercise is silly. But at the end of the day, that's all you've got.

My problem is with how you frame the argument. It is NOT trying to disprove a negative. Perhaps you mean prove a negative or more correctly, prove that something doesn't exist.

The teacup argument is BS since there is zero indication, history or "evidence" to support that notion. As I've tried to point out, there is at least a human experience throughout time that at least indicates a connection to a supranatural force.

Further, you are framing the argument as one where we claim we can NEVER know a creator (it's motivations, it's form, etc.). That is not the case at all. My point all along has been that because I don't know those things NOW, using facts like the extinction may or may not be relevant. I haven't argued that we WILL NEVER know these things. I've argued that perhaps the verification/falsification paradigm we currently use to create "knowledge" may be insufficient to uncover this knowledge.

Finally, I'm guessing you disagree with the last statement and stand on a belief that if we can't use that system of verification/falsification then we can't prove existence therefore believing in non-existence makes more sense.

 

[rjd970]

The teacup argument is BS since there is zero indication, history or "evidence" to support that notion. As I've tried to point out, there is at least a human experience throughout time that at least indicates a connection to a supranatural force.

I think the "indication" that there is a God is grossly overstated, there is no evidence...anymore than there is evidence against anyway, and human history proves nothing in this regard other than humans are prone to religious and superstitous belief.

The argument you are saying is still nonfalsifiable. The teacup argument, just like the creator one, is set up so it can't be disproven. Everything I have brought up as a case against it is refuted by claims of "we don't know", "it's outside our understanding", and "empirical research doesn't apply by definition" type arguments. Then "evidence" of human history is brought up when I come up with a teacupesque argument (alien supercomputers) like it empirically means something. You are making the case for a creator nonfalsifiable, plain and simple

I'm not buying what your selling here.

I haven't argued that we WILL NEVER know these things. I've argued that perhaps the verification/falsification paradigm we currently use to create "knowledge" may be insufficient to uncover this knowledge.

And my point has been that is a common mistake made by humans throughout history. But given the way what is being argued is constructed, you may be right.

 

[rjd970]

I read an interesting piece on the evolution of human thought, and I think it pertains to the discussion at hand with the human history of creator belief.

There are two types of statistical errors, type I, and type II. A type I error is a "false negative". A type II error is a "false positive".

From an evolutionary perspective, type one errors are typically harmful..."Rattlesnakes are not poisnous" and type two erros typically aren't..."A raindance creates rain". The problem is benign errors live on and get passed down. This doesn't say so much about the compelling nature of man's quest for a creator, as much as it does that there have been no evolutionary selection mechanisms against it.

...I may have the definitions backward with the errors, but you get my drift.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I think the "indication" that there is a God is grossly overstated, there is no evidence...anymore than there is evidence against anyway

and this is the gist of your problem in debating this from the higher intellectual ground you try to take. It's the sole point I've made the entire time and you've refused to acknowledge it.

 

[WA_Vol]

I think the "indication" that there is a God is grossly overstated, there is no evidence...anymore than there is evidence against anyway, and human history proves nothing in this regard other than humans are prone to religious and superstitous belief.

As an atheist, how do you answer the question of where the first atom came from? Science cannot answer that. How out of a vacuum, out of nothing the first atom emerged. The more common explanation that the material always existed is weak.

Its no more of a leap of faith to believe that a creator created the first atom then it is to believe the first atom has always been there.