The "appearance of design" inference is as credible as the inference of solidity in matter. Which is to say, it is not.
Just as we know that matter is comprised of atoms which are mostly empty space, when we examine the claims of ID in detail, the inference of design fails. Moreover, evolution by means of natural selection still provides a better and more comprehensive explanation of that which appears intelligently designed.
This is crap. Such pathetic lies and propaganda...
Go read people. Don't let any of these people tell you things that are untrue. The evidence is OVERWHELMING. ID is a fraud. It's not supported, and not scientific. It's just rationalization.
I love how the religious say respect and accept your neighbor but it always come down to if they agree with my ideas no acceptance and evolution is still best idea out there just lets and some design with it
@RadAntelope this is the method you dishonest God-Haters use.You try to belittle Christians and you make completely unscientific statements, as if they are indisputable fact.You think that by making the claims you do and telling people that they don’t understand science, that you can intimidate them. The reality is, you’re just a pretender, who is more ignorant of science, than most and you try to cover it up, with your slams.
Respond to this video..Are we to assume, then, that your obscene and inane comments on these threads are representative of the "worthiness" of theists? LOL
ID is based on the idea that there is a class of biological features that cannot have evolved by natural means. Unfortunately for the ID proponents this class contains no members.
Every single member is an Evangelical Christian?...almost every single member of shermer's movement is Atheist or Agnostic, at least their leaders are anyway. If your evidence leads to atheism then your an atheist & if your evidence leads to theism then your a theist, what does does belief have to do with this? it's the evidence that's in question.
@Law19157 Theism, by definition of being an article of faith, is accepted without evidence, and there really is none. Atheism, as it's narrowly defined in this debate by Steven and his group, cannot provide evidence that God does not exist, because the so-called supernatural cannot be tested by its very nature. The only reasonable position any human can take is Agnosticism, like Shermer does. "Does God Exist?" is a question with no evidence either way, and no sure answer.
@Xenobiologist1 Baloney, Christianity was founded on the resurrection of which there is plenty of evidence for see N. T. Wright, and is backed by signs & wonders when ever an Evangelist holds a crusade. As far as empirical evidence goes people like Shermer and Eugenie Scott have been hell bent on keeping it under raps, there is evidence, your kind are either in denial or don't want people to know...it's people like you that should be fired from academia
@Law19157 You mean the ressurection story that was taken from the countless examples of ressurection myths before it in human history? Jesus as the son of the divine, as being born of a virgin, and rising from the dead is just a very well concerted effort in mythological plagierism.
There is no evidence for Intelligent Design, and it's not even logically sound. People like Shermer and Scott laugh out people like Meyer's and his so-called evidence because of a little thing called peer review.
@Xenobiologist1 wow....thanks for demonstrating that agnosticism is by definition ignorance "does not know, cannot know, doesn't want to know". Your argument has no basis in scholastic fact...nice try
@Law19157 Did you eat paint chips as a child? Agnosticism is acknowledgement that it is impossible to know whether or not a supernatural causative agent exists (i.e. God) It's the only rational position any person can take. There's is zero evidence for his existence, and only evidence from inference against his existence.
But if you want to put it that way, then sure. Nobody does know, nobody can know. Everybody would like to know, Agnostics included, so that one is garbage.
@Xenobiologist1 lol! ignorance is ignorance, with your philosophy not only do you keep yourself in ignorance you go as far as to keep everyone else ignorant too...you & atheism are one in the same. And there are people that do know God exists through first hand empirical evidence...you saying it cannot be known is big fat lie
@Law19157 There is no one who knows God exists, although the way our brains are hardwired from our evolutionary past, they most definitely believe that they know it. That's an utter lie of a claim to make though. There is absolutely zero evidence for God's existence, empirical or otherwise. If you can give me even one piece of it, I'll concede, but I already know you can't.
Maybe I should link you to the definition of ignorance so you can stop misusing the word?
@Xenobiologist1 Yeah...the same way you believe you can trust your reasoning? YOUR A LIAR along with eugenie scott at the rest of that agnostic/atheist association or whatever the name of that organization is. How nice of you to say things without proving it. You & your buddies deliberately keep any kind of evidence God out of the public arena. The case with S. Meyer & the editor of the article that was published in peer review is proof of that. The harassment of that editor speaks for it self..
@Law19157 Steven Meyer's article was discredited because it was just plain bad science and laced with religious thinking. That's what happens when you can't stand up to the rigors of peer review and repeatability in experimentation, or provide conclusive statistics, etc. It's how science separates the real science from the conspiracy theories and superstitious reasoning.
I don't have to prove anything, you're the one making the assertion that God exists. Burden of proof is on you.
@Xenobiologist1 bad science...sure, only to whatever YOUR dogmatic view of science is. Rigors of peer review? you mean harassment? the people who are specifically selected to do the review are people who already have a hostility towards ID and would reject it right off the bat no science required, people like yourself. These people are chosen on purpose. Rigors? more like Rigged...go to show peer review isn't even reliable anymore...
@Law19157 Science is not dogmatic, that's faith and politics. Science is brutally honest and unforgiving if your evidence and statistics don't hold up to the other experts in your field. Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe are just two very good examples of when their beliefs, obviously Christian dogma pushed onto science, don't hold scientific grounds.
See Kitzmiller v. Dover for all the proof you need that ID is just religion in disguise, and is not science.
@Xenobiologist1 Darwinism is dogmatic, you saying Behe's & Meyer's beliefs don't hold scientific grounds is your side of the politics. There you go again "where is the evidence?" Meyer: "here it is" you: "Oh it's religion not science" all politics :0
@Law19157 The only people who call it Darwinism are the IDers, Evolutionary Theory has had far more advocates and contributing scientists than just Darwin. They label it like a religion, when that's just a bad use of language. Me saying Behe and Meyer's research doesn't hold scientific grounds is proven through the processes of real scientists.
It went to court in Kitzmiller v. Dover, it went on for 40 days with witnesses for both sides, and the final decision was that ID is religion.
@Xenobiologist1 Court...More politics...Ok fine, Its the Dogma of evolution then. It's funny why do even ask for the evidence if your just gonna end up labeling it religion...oh right, politics
@Law19157 It's more like the Creationist's Misunderstanding of Science. But we're used to battling ignorant Theists because the evidence points away from, and not toward, their ideas about life, the universe, and everything else.
I ask for the evidence because that's exactly what's needed to get any respectable scientists on board with ID, but there is no evidence, so... we're back to square one. The only politics here are the Creationists disguising ID as science to try and legitimize it.
@Law19157 The editor didn't have his contract renewed because of his failure to follow peer review procedure. Unlike all the other papers published the claimed reviewers have not been identified.
‘Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. ’ [Stephen Jay Gould, The Skeptical Inquirer]
@Xenobiologist1 I know God exist and any body who has an encounter with the Holy Spirit repeatedly knows God exists. Everyone who's seen the evidence or has had a direct experience with God had faith first. I find it amusing that you say "where is the evidence for God I don't see it" and then when its presented you say "Oh it's religion trying to make its way into our classrooms"...what a load of crap, your politicians not scientists, there are plenty of people that don't fall for this garbage
@Law19157 Any and all "encounters" with the Holy Spirit can easily be explained away by basic neuroscience and evolutionary biology. For example, when in deep prayer, the part of the brain associated with orientating the body in physical space is affected, causing a sensation of "leaving the body" or "being at one with the world." Studies have been done to prove it. Neurologically, experiences with God are the same as they were when a Roman claimed to talk to Zeus or a pagan to Tree Spirits.
@Law19157 I really don't need to give you links here. If you want the truth, look it up yourself. Here's some good keywords to help you start "Orientation Association Area" which is the OAA, the part of our brain I mentioned above. Studies clearly show that activity in this section of the brain decreases during deep meditation in monks, and deep prayer in nuns, causing one to lose their orientation in physical space and have a "spiritual experience."
@Xenobiologist1 wow your clueless. A Buddhist experience from meditation is not the same as an encounter with the Holy Spirit. One is subjective on the other is objective. One takes years of practice and training the other takes only a few minutes to hours and requires no training what so ever it can happen at a moments notice without any kind of input from an individual. For example "peace that passes all understanding" Philippians 4:7 for any theist to experience this, he or she...
@Law19157 What are you talking about? The images one sees is entirely dependent on culture. If you had these experiences having been raised in India, you'd see Vishnu. If you'd had them having been raised in Saudi Arabia, you'd see the prophet Mohammed. Nobody sees the Holy Spirit or Jesus except those who were raised as Christians.
That "peace" can be explained neurologically. It may not be the same as the OAA, but that was just an example of religious experience as hallucination.
@Xenobiologist1 seeing images? what are you talking about? I didn't say anything about images...how do you see the Holy Spirit? and what makes you think that just because your raised in a Christian family your automatically Christian? You're completely ignorant of Christian doctrine. You ever look into the amount of sightings of Vishnu or Mohammad? "see Mohammad" that's new, never heard a Muslim claim something like that before.
@Law19157 Seeing things, seeing or experiencing the "Holy Spirit", etc. etc. Hallucinations driven by the brain, filtered through the context of your cultural lens. If you're raised in a Christian family, and you still remain a Christian, then any time you "see something" it's going to be in the context of your worldview (i.e. The Holy Spirit) because it comes from within your brain, not from without. In any rational society, people would be put in mental institutions for such things.
@Xenobiologist1 Shows your ignorance "mental institutions for such things" your the modern day equivalent of early theists involved in which hunts, coming to conclusions on things you you don't understand or think you understand. "it comes from your brain" no your being dishonest, you haven't proven that it comes from the brain there isn't a study that shows that it does, you demonstrate your faith by believing it does
@Xenobiologist1 "peace can be explained neurologically"? you just became a hypocrite. You made statement of faith. You don't know that it can be explained neurologically there hasn't been an experiment that shows it does explain it but you believe it, your believing in the unseen...welcome to the world of faith hypocrite
@Law19157 No, I didn't. Any and all experiences you have that are considered religious can be explained through basic neuroscience, originating in the brain. There have been dozens of studies that have conclusive results, and are backed by leading scientists in the fields of neuroscience, psychology, and cognitive science. It's not my fault you choose to be willfully ignorant just because it doesn't feel good to question your beliefs. Proof isn't important as long as you feel good, right?
@Xenobiologist1 ....isn't required to do any kind of prayer or any other theistic practices to experience something like this. So your OAA lacks explanatory power here...
@Xenobiologist1 Ignorance is a lack of knowledge same as not knowing (you go as far as to promote not knowing) , agnostic is by definition ignorance, the spread of ignorance
@Law19157 By the strict definition of ignorance, but that only applies to things to which someone can actually have knowledge of to begin with. God is not one of those things, it's impossible to be ignorant of God, because it's impossible to have knowledge of God to begin with.
@Xenobiologist1 "No knowledge of God is possible"...LIE, the late Anthony flew didn't think so & he didn't even have an encounter with the Holy Spirit. He went were ever the evidence led so was his philosophy :)
@Law19157 Antony Flew definitely thought so. He's what we call a Deist, not a Theist (big difference.) The only thing he believes is that God created the universe and is the only explanation for life as it is, basically Intelligent Design, which has been thoroughly debunked in science. Other than that, Flew believes God just stayed out of things, he doesn't interact with humans, he doesn't give us morals, he doesn't perform miracles, and he's outside the natural universe and is unknowable.
@Xenobiologist1 Well Duhhhh...saying which of the 3 monotheistic faiths this God is, is completely different topic. I don't know any theist that doesn't acknowledge that. The only place its been debunked is in the imagination of your peers and yourself
@Law19157 Any god,really, or gods for that matter. Flew doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus either, so clearly not Christianity, at any rate.
It's amazing how delusional the brain can make itself when the facts don't fit their dogmatic worldview. This really is circular arguing on your part, just a parrot squawking the same old cries of politics and unfairness. The facts shows ID not only is wrong, but isn't even science to begin with, it's Creationism disguised as science.
@Xenobiologist1 I never said he did, any theist knows he was a deist. However he never denied any evidence for the resurrection of Christ or brought any good counter evidence against it, he even went as far as to that N. T. Wright made the best case for resurrection. And its like I said before, your comment that the resurrection was copied from other religions has been debunked and rejected by Scholars today, that argument is 100 years out of date. Also rejecting Christianity does nothing....
@Xenobiologist1 ...to the argument that God exists. And Antony Flew believed in 'The God of Aristotle' not "any god" as you put it, that's' pretty ignorant on your part. The evidence that was used to defend both the monotheistic God & Aristotle's God already eliminated any polytheistic or roman god's, so it's not any God
@Law19157 And again, there is no evidence, either to support a monotheistic god, Aristotle's god, or multiple gods. No evidence of a supernatural causative agent, period. Even if the evidence you present was good evidence, and supported the idea of a god/gods, that doesn't PROVE the idea of a god/gods. You're leading the evidence, not following it. That's exactly what IDer's do. "Because A could be evidence of an ID, than A is proof that there is an ID."
@Xenobiologist1 Just because you say there is no evidence doesn't make it so...your not the final authority on matter. People like Flew, R. Sternberg and like them were lead by the evidence. Your making false claims about ID, it is evidence based. And since when are things proven in historical science? or any science, tectonic plates big bang or any other scientific theories etc...evidence doesn't prove anything? that's good cause evolution falls in the same category
@Law19157 I say there's no evidence because there IS none. I've looked, lots and lots and lots of people have looked. There isn't some conspiracy here to hide evidence. Believe you me, if we thought there was evidence for God and Jesus and his divinity, all of us would be Christians in a heartbeat, why the hell not? Heaven seems pretty nice!
ID is not evidence based, it's pure Creationist propaganda, bad logic, and a leading of the "evidence" to support a claim that's outside of science.
@Xenobiologist1 Again your not the final authority on this matter, your ether in denial of the evidence or just plain ignorant. ID is evidence based they've presented it a million times already, if there is any propaganda ITS YOU SAYING 'there is no evidence', here by deceiving the public, & keeping from the public that there IS A GOD! best explains why the scientific community was so hostile toward Sternberg and others like him, you do hide & distort evidence and go as far as to...
@Law19157 Again, you're just willfully ignorant here. ID is not evidence based, as much as it'd like to be, and it's been debunked as many times as they've presented it. Irreducible complexity, logical fallacies, and leading of the evidence. They give science a bad name. The only propaganda here is THEIR creationism disguising itself as science, which real scientists find funny and insulting. There's no conspiracy against GOD! If there's evidence for it, we'll gladly cede, but there ISNT!
@Xenobiologist1 ...as far as to discredit, fire or do anything else to keep there mouths shut, that's the only power your people have your theories don't hold up to ID, so the best you can do is to control the information that goes into education and the peer review, otherwise your marvel comic book evo theory can't hold its own, there are plenty of main stream scientist rejecting evolution and plenty more that know it's bad theory but don't say anything because their afraid to lose their jobs
@Law19157 They get fired and discredited because they're not practicing science! They should be made public spectacles of and ridiculed for their blatant ignorance and the audacity they have to fly in the face of real scientific progress! Clearly you don't know what a scientific theory is, so I'll let you look that up before you keep digging yourself into a hole. There are ZERO mainstream scientists rejecting Evolutionary Theory, it's as much fact as gravity!
@Law19157 Clearly, you don't understand what proof means, or evidence, or science, or scientific theory... Proof does not mean 100% certainty, it means evidence that goes beyond reasonable doubt. Plate Tectonics, the Big Bang, and Evolution are scientific theories because they are the best possible, to date, explanations of the evidence gathered from careful observation, measurement, and experimentation. Are they perfect? No, and they don't have to be. Science is fluid, faith is rigid.
@Xenobiologist1 your the one that said evidence doesn't prove anything, I just applied that to Evo theory, its definitely not proven and its far from reasonable doubt and incredibly blurry
@Law19157 what a horse shit comment, you pretend to "know" and that is more honest? by the way there is no evidence whatsoever and the people who know god are lying, they don't know they believe there is a huge difference. Ironic that you would say that shit in your comments, Freudian slip any one?
@Xenobiologist1 "Atheism, as it's narrowly defined in this debate by Steven and his group, cannot provide evidence that God does not exist", huh? theists total inability to provide evidence over 2000 years is evidence.But I dont like this word play, atheism is the rejection of a belief so it is a non belief therefore the burden of proof ls on the ones making a positive claim ie there is a god aka designer.
@ChimeraWarrior73 before go on, I guess I should apologize for the way I came across in my last response. Looking back on what I wrote, it seems pretty arrogant. Sorry. I wish I could say I didn't mean it, but I probably did at the time. It wasn't right. But I wasn't making up the fact that I am busy. Actually, I'm kind've having a hard time. I know you probably think I'm some sort of alias for someone else you've spent time arguing with, but I'm actually an unemployed (not by choice)....
@yistackness ....nobody who's having a hard time paying the bills. I'm currently over my monthly quota for internet usage for the month (by $50) and my cycle resets on the 8th of every month (this tues). Every time I try to respond to a comment, the darn video loads and takes up some of my data (data plan). So if you don't mind, we can continue Tuesday. Or I can message you (less data), but part of me imagines you responding the way you do because you know others may be reading...
@yistackness I'm fine with posting here, but I have to take everything you say with a grain of salt. If you rather here, that's ok. (I can already imagine you writing something like "are you afraid?"). It really has nothing to do with that, and I can prove that after Tuesday. If that's the way you want to go, ok, I'm fine with that. But if you really want to know what my personal intuitions are, I will have to go in depth later next week. I guess for now I should mention one last thing....
@yistackness...I heard from so many atheists about arguments against the possibility of the existence of God, but I play "devil's advocate" against myself all the time. this is why it irritates me when I get accused of not utilizing "critical thinking" when the fact is I can think of better arguments against the existence of God than MOST atheists. The thing is, I've still come to the conclusion that God exists, and NOT ONLY because of emotional appeal. But I only have 500 words at a time here.
@yistackness Let me give you an example of some criticisms that I have YET to hear from atheists concerning the existence of God. I will play your side for a second. And let's see if you can anticipate me by arguing what I would respond to the following challenge: (1) Why would an omniscient+omnipotent Being create anything at all? It cannot be for entertainment because it would know the outcome. It cannot be for surprise/glory (for the same reason). Does this prove that God does not exist???
@yistackness I believe it would disprove the existence of God, save for one possibility. Can you guess what it is? (I could be wrong, but then again, any true "critical thinker" will postulate that they can be wrong about their core beliefs). As far as I can see, this makes perfect sense. If you private message me, I can go on without fear of rattling up my data plan, but if you rather here, that's fine too, but my responses will not be as frequent. If you msg me, I will not comment here anymore
@stramster1 Can you summarize his point/argument? What would force God to create the universe? I was trying to point out a possible argument against the existence of God because there IS a universe. I was sort've playing "devil's advocate" on behalf of ChimeraWarrior73, so we'll see where that goes. I can imagine a scenario where God has the choice to create or not, and for what possible reasons.
@yistackness I am aware of the nature of your argument. I would encourage you to read his and other books on the subject of Big Bang cosmology. A Brief History Of Time is a small book you can knock it over in a day.
The premises and conclusion, from memory, are in either the first or second chapter.
@stramster1 Fair enough, I plan to get around to it someday. I would also encourage you to look into Dr.Dean Radin and Dr.Gerald Schroeder. Try punching either name into youtube, there should be some videos that give the jist of their point. Interesting stuff...
@ChimeraWarrior73 I thought you would like that, lol. If your wang was cut off, would anyone call you "it"? No. "it" is generally used for inanimate objects. But if it floats your boat fine. I can get around to answering your questions eventually, but I believe the answers are currently to advanced for you. I'll have to start from the beginning. You have to learn the alphabet before you can learn to read, right? But we'll start tomorrow (maybe day after)... I have to get up early. Tons of work.
I believe God is a logical necessity. I don't believe that the reality you subscribe to is feasible. It's contradictory. I believe Mind came before matter, and you believe matter came before mind (and even the mind part is questionable). I'm sure I've went on and on months ago, you can scroll back to refresh yourself. Don't be upset with how I interpret your reasoning, just remember: "He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city"
@ChimeraWarrior73 You make it sound like your beliefs are set in stone. But are they really so sound? You have it easy, you simply cherry-pick what you don't believe using certain standards that you simply toss aside whenever convenient (like when you want to believe you have Freewill, that the past is real, that there's an external world, that objective morality exists, etc). BTW, I don't believe God has a gender, but i use the traditional sense for brevity (500 characters only)...
@yistackness ...When I say that I believe in God, then you say that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, but you probably never realized that the "burden of proof" quote is a claim in and of itself. Why not prove that statement before throwing it at anyone? We have no idea what you believe because you are too scared of not being able to prove it. We already know that you do not believe in gravity, lol.
@ChimeraWarrior73 But why are you asking me questions if you cannot accept my answer? You're going to believe what you're going to believe, which is, according to your outlook, that I am not a theist out of my own Freewill, but rather, due to how matter inevitably unfolded. Your belief is that the Big Bang made me come to believe in God. If "proof" is the criteria you demand before believing in anything, then you do not believe in a lot of things (the past, Freewill, objective morality, etc,etc)
@yistackness (cont'd)... If you will not believe in something until there is proof for it, then why not be consistent in you rationality and apply this same standard across the board? Why hold a double-standard on the subject of God alone? But if you're going to lose sleep over how I came to believe in God, well I suppose the answer is that God revealed his existence to me through a number of ways. My turn, how did you come to be two-tiered in your reasoning?
@ChimeraWarrior73 And lets not forget that according to you, my belief in God is a direct result to how the Big Bang "popped". Every particle went flying out, locked into their respective trajectories to this present state where I am a theist and you an atheist. How are you not embarrassed about being so emotionally invested over the inevitable? If you have a problem with me believing in God, then take your beef up with the Big Bang. Without God, there is no possibility of Freewill existing.
First of all, you are simply attacking the example instead of the point. (let's pretend it was a human instead of a dog, what then?). Secondly, how could I prove anyone believes anything? How can you PROVE that everything you experience is NOT a figment of your imagination? You have to face the fact that science cannot prove all truths. Furthermore, science is based on unprovable assumptions that you simply have to take at face value in order for it to function at all. Zing!
@ChimeraWarrior73 A dog might believe in the existence of apples even though it cannot see that it is red (color blind), but it may very well be aware of it's other characteristics (weight, flavor, etc). Not knowing all of the characteristics of an apple does not invalidate the dog's belief that apples exist. If I cannot fully describe God to you, if I am even wrong about certain attributes, it does not invalidate God's existence. Before demanding "proof", define what "proof" would suffice.
"The initial configuration of the universe may have been chosen by God, or it may itself have been determined by the laws of science. In either case, it would seem that everything in the universe would then be determined by evolution according to the laws of science, so it is difficult to see how we can be masters of our fate." -- Stephen Hawking
"You will say that I feel free. This is an illusion, which may be compared to that of the fly in the fable, who, upon the pole of a heavy carriage, applauded himself for directing its course. Man, who thinks himself free, is a fly who imagines he has power to move the universe, while he is himself unknowingly carried along by it." -- Baron d'Hobach
"Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." - Albert Einstein
"Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." --Charles Darwin
"A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills." - Schopenhauer
The point is that if you're going to champion science as the best/only means of seeing truth, then you you better be prepared for the implications. Namely that there is no reason to believe that freewill exists. You would be nothing more than a mathematical equation of particles long locked into their trajectory due to the uncompromising laws of physics since the big bang. If this is really your world view, then how embarrassing it must seem to be so emotionally invested to the inevitable.
@ChimeraWarrior73 Man, you're the king of side-stepping. Everything you respond with just seems to be desperate filler. And this last one was just a cheesy quote, lol. Here: “What we call chaos is just patterns we haven't recognized. What we call random is just patterns we cant decipher. What we can't understand we call nonsense. What we can't read we call gibberish. There is no free will. There are no variables. There is only the inevitable.” - Chuck Palahniuk
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, no one has seen a black hole, but we believe it exists and we can speculate about it's characteristics. I don't pretend to understand God, but I can speculate because i believe God exists out of necessity, just as you would believe Logic exists out of necessity (a square-circle should be just as impossible with or without the existence of the universe). I could go on and on about what i personally believe about God, but this is all moot if you believe God doesn't exist.
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, you can complain about airliners flying into buildings all you want, but you cannot prove that it was not inevitable. Science seems to indicate that matter follows certain laws, and as such, nothing that happened since the Big Bang could have been averted, and even your thoughts and decisions were hinged on the way the Big Bang "popped", and even the maniac who flew the airliner into the buildings was predestined. So you basically have no grounds to complain.
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well you also made an "inverted claim" about a godless universe. As for evil, it cannot possibly exist objectively in a godless universe. But this is where I find it funny that you can complain about "the evil actions of believers". There are obviously more believers in the world than atheists, and if it turned out that the majority of the believers felt that atheism was evil, well then according to you they're right. Why is it better to be atheist? Even if it was true?
@ChimeraWarrior73 You say that I'm playing semantic games? You're the one who "doesn't believe in gravity". lol You say that there is no evidence for God, but this is presupposing that existence itself is not evidence, and any other evidence that you could otherwise mention as evidence for God could just as easily be written off by you as a hallucination, prank, LSD, etc).
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well alright then, if you want to play it that way, then i guess i can say that Theism is NOT a belief either, it's simply the non-belief of a godless universe. As for your imposing of beliefs, well we're still up in the air about that one, because we both have differing uses for the word. You say that certain acts of believers are far too often evil. But where is your proof that evil exists? Evil can only exist if Freewill exists... see why it's actually you bringing it up?
@ChimeraWarrior73 Hey! Weren't you complaining about semantics earlier? You don't "Believe" in this or that, you simply know things about it. So what do you "BELIEVE" in? Do you believe your mother loves you? Or do you just know fun-facts like "well, she makes me pies" and "well, she never hit me". It seems like you find it irrational to believe in anything - which to me is irrational, lol. What can you say you "believe" in?
@ChimeraWarrior73 I'm sure you can believe in Gravity without being able to explain it or define it exactly, so why would it be so strange for me to believe in an entity greater than myself without knowing all of it's attributes? You struggle to believe that we have Freewill without an ounce of proof. You cherry-pick your beliefs and try to impose them upon others with the charge that what other's believe is "evil", and here again, you have no grounds for objective morality. You're cyclical.
@ChimeraWarrior73 So what's your point here? Are you saying that there are no actual universal laws? If you blurr these lines of these apparent "laws", then what's there to hold onto? Why bother asking for "proof" of anything if these "laws" can change or are in doubt? Are you just playing semantics here? This reminds me of the whole atheist-agnostic debate. At least agnostics are logically consistent. There's too many contradictions in atheism.
@ChimeraWarrior73 Here you are once again confusing the topic at hand. You once again bring religion into the discussion. I'm not religious... I hate religion. And who are you to complain about morality if you hold that there are no actual objective morals to begin with? Anything you believe to be shameful or wrong is cannot be proven by you to have been otherwise. A victim of murder had this coming to them since the Big Bang and could not have been averted. You shoot yourself in the foot.
@ChimeraWarrior73 I have never said that you ought to believe what I believe, if anything, it's you who demands that I abandon what I believe. I have never even claimed that you are capable of changing your mind, and according to your outlook on life and reality, it must be said that you believe that you cannot change your mind since you have no Freewill. You demand proof of God, but your outlook on life inhibits you from accepting any amount of proof. You could dismiss any proof.
@ChimeraWarrior73 If you're saying that it is impossible to define something that doesn't exist, then you have 2 problems; first, on what grounds can you prove that this thing doesn't exist; secondly, how can you define you beliefs based on something that allegedly "doesn't exist"? I'm not the one making claims that something doesn't exist - save for when I was talking about Freewill, and how it does not seem possible in a godless universe. And it's the lack of Freewill that steals your thunder.
@ChimeraWarrior73 My mistake. I only said you sound angry because of your numerous slanderous insults. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that this is not the "normal you", and that you simply lose control of yourself from time to time. I didn't realize you do it out of enjoyment. But I'm the one who feels embarrassed about not fully understanding your view on morality. You don't believe in objective morality, and so something like child rape is simply "spilled milk" in the big scheme of things
@ChimeraWarrior73 Ok, I get it, you DO NOT believe in objective morality, but you sure act as though you do. i mean, you tell me i ought to "do this", and "believe that", meanwhile your whole point is that any choice I make is objectively meaningless. So what's your qualm again? What did i do to upset you? - and are you embarrassed about being irrational? What is it about the apparently inevitable past that upsets you in the inevitable present? Are you trying to alter the inevitable future?
@ChimeraWarrior73 I'll be first to say that I cannot define God, but i do believe that Mind came before matter (as physics seems to suggest more and more). Maybe God could be more like Spinoza's God rather than Christianity, etc. Maybe God is outside of this universe. Be careful with the "definition card" because you need a definition of god in order to logically claim that you do not believe in god. If Freewill is to exist, then it's only be so in God, and just maybe we are lent some of it.
@ChimeraWarrior73 There is no evidence to support your the idea that your definition of "evidence" is adequate in finding Truth. Science is permeated with unprovable assumptions, so i guess you don't believe in science either. You obviously do not believe in Freewill and therefore you do not believe evil exists either. So I wonder what you must be thinking as you angrily respond back regarding what is otherwise an inevitable belief of mine that you try to blame me for, and you do this inevitably
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well at least you are being clear now. Now i see that you do not believe in the existence of "Evil", but then I find myself scratching my head when your stance basically seems "if God exists, then He must be evil". So now that it's clear that you do not believe evil exists, then what's your beef with me? And how is it justified other than the whole "what's in it for me?" attitude on life. It seems your in a lose-lose situation regarding the Freewill argument.
@ChimeraWarrior73 So you're hung-up on using the word "slave"?... but then you go on to describe how matter is not capable to break the laws of nature? Seems like a weak and desperate objection to me
As for the Mind, well isn't it your belief that you have a mind? And that this mind was not the result of intelligent design? Then it had to have come about by chance, right? I simply believe that intelligence is required to create intelligence. Has this ever been seen as NOT the case?
@ChimeraWarrior73 I can see this has been taking a toll on you, and that you forgot my stance on this issue. To me, Freewill can only be a possibility in it's truest form if God exists. It seems without a doubt that a Godless universe comprised soley of matter and physical laws cold bring about Freewill. I understand that it can easily be argued that Freewill might not exist even with God in the picture; but to me, at least it means my life was orchestrated. I can go on, but it's up to you...
@ChimeraWarrior73 How you feel about something does not take away the possibility of it's existence. Secondly, you tread on thin ice because you are now making a claim that "evil" exists, and evil can only exist if Freewill exists. You do this over and over - demanding proof to claims, and then claiming something without proof. It seems kind've two-faced, though I don't think you're doing it intentionally. As for the God-Evil dilemma, there are many compatible answers if you want to get into it.
@ChimeraWarrior73 You do not have a grasp on the topic of Freewill. It is not about HOW your decisions come about, it is weather they were ever inevitable. You say that a computer arrives to what appears as a "decision" because of logical programming within it, but isn't your brain logically programmed (even though you believe it was through hap-chance)? If all matter is slave to universal laws, then all the matter in your body is on it's preset trajectory since the big bang.
@ChimeraWarrior73 If some homeless guy came up to me on the street and tried to convince me he was Elvis, I can assure you the argument would not last very long. Not because I would be able to convince him that he is not, and not because he would convince me he is, I would simply move on. "never argue with a fool, onlookers may not know who's who". You try to paint me as a fool, but you're still here. I do not call you a fool, I just believe you are in denial.
When you come across something that is of a complex design you HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO ASSUME A DESIGNER. That assumption begs the question. (petitio principii). The whole ID argument is based on a logical fallacy.
@ChimeraWarrior73 Youtube doesn't let me post a link to an article on the Scientific American website. But you can find it by googling the following: Scientists say free will probably doesn't exist, but urge: "Don't stop believing!" Read the article. You do not have a grasp on the debate of freewill. You are right about why a computer "appears" do be making decisions (logical programming, etc), but you cannot seem to link that to human behavior. Are you not doing what your brain tells you to?
@ChimeraWarrior73 Einstein on whether science and religion are at odds: " the situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". How he felt about atheist efforts to claim him as an ally: "there are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views". I never claimed as absolute that God intervenes, but claimed that i believe in God. Neither did I claim the existence of Freewill
@ChimeraWarrior73 He did not believe in a "personal" God. "I am not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books... The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being towards God" - Einstein
@ChimeraWarrior73 You say that you don't care what I believe.... but here you are! I don't understand what the connection is between fairies and the concept of God. You tell me to "just say no to drugs", but did you tell me that out of freewill? Or was it a result of a determined universe. If the universe is determined, as science suggests, then can you blame me quite for what i believe? And if you blame me, than was your condemnation NOT inevitable?
@ChimeraWarrior73 Geeze, ad hominem much? The definitions of words are important, and I believe you are trying to avoid the fact that this is no trivial matter if we are to be on the same page. And what am I to do if there is a concept that I am trying to put forth that has no known word associated to it? - not that I'm aware of anyway. What if I want to describe a concept that is ever so close to another concept that is only described by a word whose definition is too rigid to adopt?
@ChimeraWarrior73 You say that a program is not making choices... how so? How do you define "choice"? A computer is made up of a complex arrangement of atoms, and so is your brain. Science is dedicated to discovering how to understand and predict arrangements of atoms all the time. Theoretically, with enough data and computing power, it would be possible to predict how you would make future choices, and thus the question of "freewill" arises. You desperately want to believe you have freewill.
@ChimeraWarrior73 I agree with you somewhat. But again, you are defining what evidence is. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You say there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of God, but what is "the hypothesis of God"? please explain. And please explain what WOULD be sufficient evidence. BTW, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of freewill, so it MUST be assumed that you do not believe it exists either. So why fret over my "inevitable" beliefs?
@ChimeraWarrior73 Here you are dictating what is evidence and what is not evidence. If the reality is that the only way that we can exist is if God exists, then how would you except that fact? How could it be proven? By taking away God to see everything disappear? But then who is left to witness the proof? You see what I mean? What if God is like Spinoza's God (the kind Einstein believed in)? Would it still be so far-fetched? So impossible?
Would you like some cheese with that whine? You're only upset because I am turning your world upside down by making you face questions you never realized you were running from. Sure it's easy to criticize other people's fundamental beliefs, but then you throw a tantrum when tasting your own medicine. You can't even justify your anger with me without implying that I had some choice in the matter, and without proof that I had the freewill in doing such, then you face your own criticism.
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, if "you" is used in reference to a "person", then how do you define "person"? If you believe that people cannot be described by science (or one day described by science), then you believe that humans are just as abstract as the concept of god, and outside the realm of science. The difference you place on a collection of atoms we call a rock and the collection of atoms you call "me" is independence of the concept of freewill - only the illusion thereof.
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, why would you say that humans have will, and computers do not? Computers process information, and our brains do too, so do you believe computers have "will"? And lets not forget that you are playing semantics by taking out the "free' part. I was talking about freewill (and determinism). You can bluntly say "I know i have freewill because i make choices", well, a computer can be programmed to say "i have freewill because I make choices" too. Check and mate.
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, you are just making big claims with no evidence. That's not actually an issue to me, it is you who complains to those who believe in God without proof, but here you are with no proof that my beliefs are absurd, you are going on blind faith. You use the word "fact" loosely and disingenuously. There is no "fact" that my beliefs are absurd, especially if you are going to say that God is outside the realm of science. it is you who is contradicting himself, not me.
@ChimeraWarrior73 You're forgetting my point that it is just as impossible to rigorously prove the existence of something as it is to prove the non-existence of something. You say that you know computers exist "based on observable evidence", but here you are putting blind faith in your observations. A thousand years ago, your observable evidence would lead you to believe the earth was flat. This would be logical to you. And now you admit that God would be abstract, so what's your point?
@ChimeraWarrior73 That would only be the case if you could define "you". Just about every cell in your body dies and is replaced every 15 years, so the memories that you have of loved ones who have long since passed away are merely carbon-copied "pass-me-downs" and your current "you" never actually met them or was even "loved" by them (if you believe love exists). Why do you say "you" to a person and not a rock? Rocks at least retain their matter more consistently than we do, right?
@ChimeraWarrior73 You would love for the bible to have something to do with my beliefs wouldn't you? You'd love this because then you can run your anti-religion playbook. Now i realize why you keep bringing religion and the bible into the topic at hand. I thought you were a scarred as a child due to some frisky priest or something. But to bring you back on track, I was talking about Freewill last, and how you have no proof that it exists. So words like "ought" should not be used by you. lol
@ChimeraWarrior73 I don't know why you're so hung up on the topic of religion or why you go out of your way to bring it up all the time, or even what it has to do with anything I say. I can't help but wonder if this fixation stems from some traumatic childhood experience. Maybe you were wronged at the hands of some religious person in the past? We're you ever an alterboy? Did a priest ask you to play funny games? How did this complex originate? I've never heard of a bible-thumping atheist, lol.
@ChimeraWarrior73 You're really fixated on religion and deists. You're not the first atheist that I've noticed with this fixation. I sometimes wonder is this complex originated from some pent-up resentment dating back to to wrong committed to them at the hands of some religious person in the past. We you ever an alterboy in a catholic church growing up? Did the priest play funny games with you? What could be the reason behind all this religious talk from you all the time?
@ChimeraWarrior73 Give the name of God to some vague abstraction?? Lets say for arguments sake that you agree that God exists. Would you immediately assume that God would be easy to understand? How couldn't God be abstract? (to us anyways). You probably have little understanding of how your computer works, it may be vague to you, but it doesn't take away your acknowledgment of it's existence.
@ChimeraWarrior73 I'm with you on that one. Religion has hampered and oppressed both science and theists in the past. I hate religion just as much as you do. As for your reasoning for knowing that I exist, well the reasoning is pretty lame. For all you know I could be a computer, or even chipmunk walking on this keyboard and just coincidentally typing what appears as purposeful conversation (this would actually be more probable than your explanation of the universe).
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, on the same note, you can ask "how one can prove that which DOES exist?" I mean, if God does exist, how can I prove it to you? How can I prove to you that I exist? (and not merely a figment of your imagination?) How do you prove that the past exists, and that the universe did not pop into being 5 mins ago with the appearance of age? All I'm trying to show you is that we BOTH hold certain things as true, and WITHOUT proof (you know, that which YOU demand BEFORE believing).
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, if God does exist, then you would be in no position to realize whether or not nature demonstrates God. From a philosophical point of view, if God exits, then our existence would be proof of God's existence, whether you accept it or not, because that would be the stark reality. Now, if you want to champion the phrase "the burden of proof is on the one making the claim", then you have to prove that Freewill exists since you are complaining about the religious people.
@ChimeraWarrior73 I understand your definition of atheism, it is the non-belief in a claim, and so you say that the burden of proof is on the one making a claim. Well, I have a non-belief in the claim "there is no God", so i guess the burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claim "there is no God"? I mean, it's not like you are saying "there COULD be a God", because that would be agnosticism. And since there is no proof of freewill, it follows that you do not believe it exists either.
@ChimeraWarrior73 Yes, but what if these cave-drawings were proven to have been drawn decades after the extinction of this particular dinosaur drawn? Could you still accept it if it was "all you had to go on"? I realize that there are no believers in dinosaurs trying to convert you, but neither am I, so what's your point?
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, if you are going to argue about the term "religious", then at least be fair and explain YOUR definition of "religious", because it certainly is not the same as the one found in a dictionary, so excuuuuse me for sounding like I'm playing "semantics".
@ChimeraWarrior73 It is absolutely absurd to understand how you can reject the existence of something when you cannot even describe what that thing is. If you reject "X", then I'm tempted to ask you what X is. So what is God to you? I see that you keep categorizing God with the Easter bunny and faeries, but you are making a categorical error. In the case of God existing, there would be God, and then there would be everything else. Neither the easter bunny or faeries are omnipotent or omniscient.
@ChimeraWarrior73 Your definition of atheism is different than the one found in a dictionary. Atheism is a belief that there is no God. If you only doubted God's existence, then you would be agnostic instead. But because you believe there is no God, then you are making a universal claim that there is no God. Time and again we hear atheists say "we are not making a claim, we are simply rejecting the claim that there is a God". Well the, I am simply rejecting the claim "there is NO God".
@ChimeraWarrior73 I never contested the existence of T-rex. I'm trying to show you how fickle you are when it comes to proof. My question to you was (and remains unanswered) is if you would believe that T-rex existed if there were no remains of T-rex, only sagas and caveman drawings and written accounts. You say that even if there were only caveman drawings, that it would be more evidence than of Jesus. But now you are just being extremely ridiculous. I guess you don't believe much about history
@ChimeraWarrior73 I'm proud to say that I am not religious. I think it's you who is ashamed to admit that your standard for believing in God, if applied to other beliefs that you take for granted, would otherwise render them just as "nonsensical". And of course theism, theology and religion are all related, but the are also different. Your parents may be related, but they remain different people. I believe Mind came before matter, you believe that Mind came after.
@ChimeraWarrior73 Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And what is your definition of "evidence"? "Evidence" has never ceased being a hot topic. I mean, if there were no remains of T-Rex, then what would you accept as evidence? Would you accept witness testimony? Written documents? Drawings? If you would only accept the remains as evidence, then what's the evidence that Caesar existed? Anything short of having his remains would, according to you, be grounds to dismiss his existence.
@ChimeraWarrior73 I'm glad to see you learned the definition of theism, and you will notice that no where does it mention "religion". Theology on the other hand involves religion, which is why I'm not a theologian either.
Atheism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] -noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
That's right, a "belief" in a "doctrine" with no evidence to support it. oops!
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, you may be right, but you are making a universal claim (and here I thought atheists try to avoid making claims, least they shoot themselves in the foot). But even if you are right, you would only be right insofar as the present concerns as this does not include the future or past. There are no Tyrannosaurus Rexs alive today (a universal claim, I know), but if true, then does that mean they never existed, or that they will never exist again? Better luck next time...
@ChimeraWarrior73 Yes, well, it's none of your business what I can talk about. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that there is no God. There is absolutely no evidence for most of what you take for granted. There is absolutely no evidence that atheism is accurate. You try time and again to slip religion into a topic about theism, but this is just another desperate attempt to hold onto your fleeting rationality. I'm not religious, so why make up a strawman?
@ChimeraWarrior73 I think it matters a whole lot to you. You're here aren't you? You're the one so sure that this is your "one life to live", and this is how you choose to spend it? I think maybe you're doubtful about atheism, and you use this malign posturing to mask your secret devil's advocate agenda (you know, to find out more about theism). And what the heck do unicorns and faeries have to do with God? It's not even comparing apples and oranges, it's like apples with the number 12.
@ChimeraWarrior73 I don't buy that. It was only after I made fun of the fact that you are 45 years old and using school-yard insults, that you finally decided to try and sound smart by making things up, but as I slowly exposed you, you decided to play it off like "it was all a joke". Yeah right. You were grabbing for straws - a last ditch effort to redeem yourself. Now you default back to the "I can't justify my own beliefs anymore than the ones I mock" stance.
@ChimeraWarrior73 I do not doubt you for a second that you would love nothing more than to slander me, but this is simply because you do not believe in objective morality, and so anything goes for you. For you, murder is nothing more than spilled milk. You believe that everything is determined and thus freewill cannot exist. And since freewill cannot exist, then the murderer was not only unaccountable, but his actions were also inevitable. Wow! No wonder you're so crabby!
@ChimeraWarrior73 Messing with my head? That would be true if I was actually swallowing what you said, but if you paid attention, you'd see that I was calling you out on it the whole way through (especially when you contradicted Kurt Godel). Anyways, I guess you concede that my point still stands: If proof is what you demand before believing in something, then it follows that you do not believe in Freewill, external minds, mathematical truths, the past, and even logic itself (to name a few).
@ChimeraWarrior73 Open mouth, insert foot. How does a theory become synonymous with a proof? You point out some theory, and then say "it proves" this and that. You must be extrapolating the wrong idea from this THEORY. Logic is an "if...then" process which proceeds from the known to the unknown. But if nothing is known at the beginning of the process, then nothing can ever be known. You can't use logic to generate knowledge from a state of total ignorance - G.K.Chesteron. Better luck next time.
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, I have never seen a proof of this ambiguous theory. But then again, no one can prove logic itself. I mean, if one attempts to prove logic by using logic, then they fall into the trap of circular-reasoning. Thus, if your basis for believing in anything is based upon proof, then you immediately have to accept that there is a host of things in which you do not believe. These include, Freewill, Logic, the past, the external world, external minds, objective morality, etc, etc
@ChimeraWarrior73 Oh comon! When I hear someone claim what God can and cannot do, I have to take a step back and wonder on what authority and experience this person has. "God can only define itself???" Gimme a break. Tell me the difference between the "totality of the whole" and the "whole of totality" - is it not redundant? When is something "neo" no longer "neo"? What happens when something "newer" to your theories comes along? Do you call it "extra-neo"? What is this "reality" you speak of?
The "appearance of design" inference is as credible as the inference of solidity in matter. Which is to say, it is not.
Just as we know that matter is comprised of atoms which are mostly empty space, when we examine the claims of ID in detail, the inference of design fails. Moreover, evolution by means of natural selection still provides a better and more comprehensive explanation of that which appears intelligently designed.
Qillz 3 months ago
This is crap. Such pathetic lies and propaganda...
Go read people. Don't let any of these people tell you things that are untrue. The evidence is OVERWHELMING. ID is a fraud. It's not supported, and not scientific. It's just rationalization.
The information is out there. Educate yourself.
CaptainTae 3 months ago 2
Given the evidence, when we don't have an answer we cry "God did it !"
TheThunderduck 3 months ago
I love how the religious say respect and accept your neighbor but it always come down to if they agree with my ideas no acceptance and evolution is still best idea out there just lets and some design with it
mottzilla2 4 months ago
ROFL Shermer got slutted. This is pure gold!
Seigu007 4 months ago
@Seigu007 Yeah, we saw your obsession with "ass rape" on the other thread when you claimed the same thing. Yawn.
RadAntelope 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RadAntelope this is the method you dishonest God-Haters use.You try to belittle Christians and you make completely unscientific statements, as if they are indisputable fact.You think that by making the claims you do and telling people that they don’t understand science, that you can intimidate them. The reality is, you’re just a pretender, who is more ignorant of science, than most and you try to cover it up, with your slams.
Seigu007 3 months ago
atheists are worthless and irrelevant by their own admission.
Seigu007 4 months ago
Respond to this video..Are we to assume, then, that your obscene and inane comments on these threads are representative of the "worthiness" of theists? LOL
RadAntelope 3 months ago
@Seigu007 Who admitted that? We make our own worth.
Solitaire8888 1 month ago
ID is based on the idea that there is a class of biological features that cannot have evolved by natural means. Unfortunately for the ID proponents this class contains no members.
gamesbok 5 months ago
Every single member is an Evangelical Christian?...almost every single member of shermer's movement is Atheist or Agnostic, at least their leaders are anyway. If your evidence leads to atheism then your an atheist & if your evidence leads to theism then your a theist, what does does belief have to do with this? it's the evidence that's in question.
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 Theism, by definition of being an article of faith, is accepted without evidence, and there really is none. Atheism, as it's narrowly defined in this debate by Steven and his group, cannot provide evidence that God does not exist, because the so-called supernatural cannot be tested by its very nature. The only reasonable position any human can take is Agnosticism, like Shermer does. "Does God Exist?" is a question with no evidence either way, and no sure answer.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 Baloney, Christianity was founded on the resurrection of which there is plenty of evidence for see N. T. Wright, and is backed by signs & wonders when ever an Evangelist holds a crusade. As far as empirical evidence goes people like Shermer and Eugenie Scott have been hell bent on keeping it under raps, there is evidence, your kind are either in denial or don't want people to know...it's people like you that should be fired from academia
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 You mean the ressurection story that was taken from the countless examples of ressurection myths before it in human history? Jesus as the son of the divine, as being born of a virgin, and rising from the dead is just a very well concerted effort in mythological plagierism.
There is no evidence for Intelligent Design, and it's not even logically sound. People like Shermer and Scott laugh out people like Meyer's and his so-called evidence because of a little thing called peer review.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 wow....thanks for demonstrating that agnosticism is by definition ignorance "does not know, cannot know, doesn't want to know". Your argument has no basis in scholastic fact...nice try
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 Did you eat paint chips as a child? Agnosticism is acknowledgement that it is impossible to know whether or not a supernatural causative agent exists (i.e. God) It's the only rational position any person can take. There's is zero evidence for his existence, and only evidence from inference against his existence.
But if you want to put it that way, then sure. Nobody does know, nobody can know. Everybody would like to know, Agnostics included, so that one is garbage.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 lol! ignorance is ignorance, with your philosophy not only do you keep yourself in ignorance you go as far as to keep everyone else ignorant too...you & atheism are one in the same. And there are people that do know God exists through first hand empirical evidence...you saying it cannot be known is big fat lie
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 There is no one who knows God exists, although the way our brains are hardwired from our evolutionary past, they most definitely believe that they know it. That's an utter lie of a claim to make though. There is absolutely zero evidence for God's existence, empirical or otherwise. If you can give me even one piece of it, I'll concede, but I already know you can't.
Maybe I should link you to the definition of ignorance so you can stop misusing the word?
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 Yeah...the same way you believe you can trust your reasoning? YOUR A LIAR along with eugenie scott at the rest of that agnostic/atheist association or whatever the name of that organization is. How nice of you to say things without proving it. You & your buddies deliberately keep any kind of evidence God out of the public arena. The case with S. Meyer & the editor of the article that was published in peer review is proof of that. The harassment of that editor speaks for it self..
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 Steven Meyer's article was discredited because it was just plain bad science and laced with religious thinking. That's what happens when you can't stand up to the rigors of peer review and repeatability in experimentation, or provide conclusive statistics, etc. It's how science separates the real science from the conspiracy theories and superstitious reasoning.
I don't have to prove anything, you're the one making the assertion that God exists. Burden of proof is on you.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 bad science...sure, only to whatever YOUR dogmatic view of science is. Rigors of peer review? you mean harassment? the people who are specifically selected to do the review are people who already have a hostility towards ID and would reject it right off the bat no science required, people like yourself. These people are chosen on purpose. Rigors? more like Rigged...go to show peer review isn't even reliable anymore...
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 Science is not dogmatic, that's faith and politics. Science is brutally honest and unforgiving if your evidence and statistics don't hold up to the other experts in your field. Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe are just two very good examples of when their beliefs, obviously Christian dogma pushed onto science, don't hold scientific grounds.
See Kitzmiller v. Dover for all the proof you need that ID is just religion in disguise, and is not science.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 Darwinism is dogmatic, you saying Behe's & Meyer's beliefs don't hold scientific grounds is your side of the politics. There you go again "where is the evidence?" Meyer: "here it is" you: "Oh it's religion not science" all politics :0
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 The only people who call it Darwinism are the IDers, Evolutionary Theory has had far more advocates and contributing scientists than just Darwin. They label it like a religion, when that's just a bad use of language. Me saying Behe and Meyer's research doesn't hold scientific grounds is proven through the processes of real scientists.
It went to court in Kitzmiller v. Dover, it went on for 40 days with witnesses for both sides, and the final decision was that ID is religion.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 Court...More politics...Ok fine, Its the Dogma of evolution then. It's funny why do even ask for the evidence if your just gonna end up labeling it religion...oh right, politics
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 It's more like the Creationist's Misunderstanding of Science. But we're used to battling ignorant Theists because the evidence points away from, and not toward, their ideas about life, the universe, and everything else.
I ask for the evidence because that's exactly what's needed to get any respectable scientists on board with ID, but there is no evidence, so... we're back to square one. The only politics here are the Creationists disguising ID as science to try and legitimize it.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Law19157 The editor didn't have his contract renewed because of his failure to follow peer review procedure. Unlike all the other papers published the claimed reviewers have not been identified.
‘Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. ’ [Stephen Jay Gould, The Skeptical Inquirer]
gamesbok 5 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 I know God exist and any body who has an encounter with the Holy Spirit repeatedly knows God exists. Everyone who's seen the evidence or has had a direct experience with God had faith first. I find it amusing that you say "where is the evidence for God I don't see it" and then when its presented you say "Oh it's religion trying to make its way into our classrooms"...what a load of crap, your politicians not scientists, there are plenty of people that don't fall for this garbage
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 Any and all "encounters" with the Holy Spirit can easily be explained away by basic neuroscience and evolutionary biology. For example, when in deep prayer, the part of the brain associated with orientating the body in physical space is affected, causing a sensation of "leaving the body" or "being at one with the world." Studies have been done to prove it. Neurologically, experiences with God are the same as they were when a Roman claimed to talk to Zeus or a pagan to Tree Spirits.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 "studies have been done to prove it"...wow, you went from pretty good to really good Liar
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 I really don't need to give you links here. If you want the truth, look it up yourself. Here's some good keywords to help you start "Orientation Association Area" which is the OAA, the part of our brain I mentioned above. Studies clearly show that activity in this section of the brain decreases during deep meditation in monks, and deep prayer in nuns, causing one to lose their orientation in physical space and have a "spiritual experience."
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 wow your clueless. A Buddhist experience from meditation is not the same as an encounter with the Holy Spirit. One is subjective on the other is objective. One takes years of practice and training the other takes only a few minutes to hours and requires no training what so ever it can happen at a moments notice without any kind of input from an individual. For example "peace that passes all understanding" Philippians 4:7 for any theist to experience this, he or she...
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 What are you talking about? The images one sees is entirely dependent on culture. If you had these experiences having been raised in India, you'd see Vishnu. If you'd had them having been raised in Saudi Arabia, you'd see the prophet Mohammed. Nobody sees the Holy Spirit or Jesus except those who were raised as Christians.
That "peace" can be explained neurologically. It may not be the same as the OAA, but that was just an example of religious experience as hallucination.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 seeing images? what are you talking about? I didn't say anything about images...how do you see the Holy Spirit? and what makes you think that just because your raised in a Christian family your automatically Christian? You're completely ignorant of Christian doctrine. You ever look into the amount of sightings of Vishnu or Mohammad? "see Mohammad" that's new, never heard a Muslim claim something like that before.
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 Seeing things, seeing or experiencing the "Holy Spirit", etc. etc. Hallucinations driven by the brain, filtered through the context of your cultural lens. If you're raised in a Christian family, and you still remain a Christian, then any time you "see something" it's going to be in the context of your worldview (i.e. The Holy Spirit) because it comes from within your brain, not from without. In any rational society, people would be put in mental institutions for such things.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 Shows your ignorance "mental institutions for such things" your the modern day equivalent of early theists involved in which hunts, coming to conclusions on things you you don't understand or think you understand. "it comes from your brain" no your being dishonest, you haven't proven that it comes from the brain there isn't a study that shows that it does, you demonstrate your faith by believing it does
Law19157 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 "peace can be explained neurologically"? you just became a hypocrite. You made statement of faith. You don't know that it can be explained neurologically there hasn't been an experiment that shows it does explain it but you believe it, your believing in the unseen...welcome to the world of faith hypocrite
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 No, I didn't. Any and all experiences you have that are considered religious can be explained through basic neuroscience, originating in the brain. There have been dozens of studies that have conclusive results, and are backed by leading scientists in the fields of neuroscience, psychology, and cognitive science. It's not my fault you choose to be willfully ignorant just because it doesn't feel good to question your beliefs. Proof isn't important as long as you feel good, right?
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 ....isn't required to do any kind of prayer or any other theistic practices to experience something like this. So your OAA lacks explanatory power here...
Law19157 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 Ignorance is a lack of knowledge same as not knowing (you go as far as to promote not knowing) , agnostic is by definition ignorance, the spread of ignorance
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 By the strict definition of ignorance, but that only applies to things to which someone can actually have knowledge of to begin with. God is not one of those things, it's impossible to be ignorant of God, because it's impossible to have knowledge of God to begin with.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 ...yup, the spread of ignorance
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 Again, No knowledge of God is possible, therefore ignorance of God is a false statement.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 "No knowledge of God is possible"...LIE, the late Anthony flew didn't think so & he didn't even have an encounter with the Holy Spirit. He went were ever the evidence led so was his philosophy :)
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 Antony Flew definitely thought so. He's what we call a Deist, not a Theist (big difference.) The only thing he believes is that God created the universe and is the only explanation for life as it is, basically Intelligent Design, which has been thoroughly debunked in science. Other than that, Flew believes God just stayed out of things, he doesn't interact with humans, he doesn't give us morals, he doesn't perform miracles, and he's outside the natural universe and is unknowable.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 Well Duhhhh...saying which of the 3 monotheistic faiths this God is, is completely different topic. I don't know any theist that doesn't acknowledge that. The only place its been debunked is in the imagination of your peers and yourself
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 Any god,really, or gods for that matter. Flew doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus either, so clearly not Christianity, at any rate.
It's amazing how delusional the brain can make itself when the facts don't fit their dogmatic worldview. This really is circular arguing on your part, just a parrot squawking the same old cries of politics and unfairness. The facts shows ID not only is wrong, but isn't even science to begin with, it's Creationism disguised as science.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 I never said he did, any theist knows he was a deist. However he never denied any evidence for the resurrection of Christ or brought any good counter evidence against it, he even went as far as to that N. T. Wright made the best case for resurrection. And its like I said before, your comment that the resurrection was copied from other religions has been debunked and rejected by Scholars today, that argument is 100 years out of date. Also rejecting Christianity does nothing....
Law19157 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 ...to the argument that God exists. And Antony Flew believed in 'The God of Aristotle' not "any god" as you put it, that's' pretty ignorant on your part. The evidence that was used to defend both the monotheistic God & Aristotle's God already eliminated any polytheistic or roman god's, so it's not any God
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 And again, there is no evidence, either to support a monotheistic god, Aristotle's god, or multiple gods. No evidence of a supernatural causative agent, period. Even if the evidence you present was good evidence, and supported the idea of a god/gods, that doesn't PROVE the idea of a god/gods. You're leading the evidence, not following it. That's exactly what IDer's do. "Because A could be evidence of an ID, than A is proof that there is an ID."
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 Just because you say there is no evidence doesn't make it so...your not the final authority on matter. People like Flew, R. Sternberg and like them were lead by the evidence. Your making false claims about ID, it is evidence based. And since when are things proven in historical science? or any science, tectonic plates big bang or any other scientific theories etc...evidence doesn't prove anything? that's good cause evolution falls in the same category
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 I say there's no evidence because there IS none. I've looked, lots and lots and lots of people have looked. There isn't some conspiracy here to hide evidence. Believe you me, if we thought there was evidence for God and Jesus and his divinity, all of us would be Christians in a heartbeat, why the hell not? Heaven seems pretty nice!
ID is not evidence based, it's pure Creationist propaganda, bad logic, and a leading of the "evidence" to support a claim that's outside of science.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 Again your not the final authority on this matter, your ether in denial of the evidence or just plain ignorant. ID is evidence based they've presented it a million times already, if there is any propaganda ITS YOU SAYING 'there is no evidence', here by deceiving the public, & keeping from the public that there IS A GOD! best explains why the scientific community was so hostile toward Sternberg and others like him, you do hide & distort evidence and go as far as to...
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 Again, you're just willfully ignorant here. ID is not evidence based, as much as it'd like to be, and it's been debunked as many times as they've presented it. Irreducible complexity, logical fallacies, and leading of the evidence. They give science a bad name. The only propaganda here is THEIR creationism disguising itself as science, which real scientists find funny and insulting. There's no conspiracy against GOD! If there's evidence for it, we'll gladly cede, but there ISNT!
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago 2
@Xenobiologist1 ...as far as to discredit, fire or do anything else to keep there mouths shut, that's the only power your people have your theories don't hold up to ID, so the best you can do is to control the information that goes into education and the peer review, otherwise your marvel comic book evo theory can't hold its own, there are plenty of main stream scientist rejecting evolution and plenty more that know it's bad theory but don't say anything because their afraid to lose their jobs
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 They get fired and discredited because they're not practicing science! They should be made public spectacles of and ridiculed for their blatant ignorance and the audacity they have to fly in the face of real scientific progress! Clearly you don't know what a scientific theory is, so I'll let you look that up before you keep digging yourself into a hole. There are ZERO mainstream scientists rejecting Evolutionary Theory, it's as much fact as gravity!
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago 2
@Law19157 Clearly, you don't understand what proof means, or evidence, or science, or scientific theory... Proof does not mean 100% certainty, it means evidence that goes beyond reasonable doubt. Plate Tectonics, the Big Bang, and Evolution are scientific theories because they are the best possible, to date, explanations of the evidence gathered from careful observation, measurement, and experimentation. Are they perfect? No, and they don't have to be. Science is fluid, faith is rigid.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 your the one that said evidence doesn't prove anything, I just applied that to Evo theory, its definitely not proven and its far from reasonable doubt and incredibly blurry
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 Just because you're too stupid to understand it, doesn't mean it's not right.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Law19157 idiot!
boc1953 8 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 not knowing that God exist and no knowledge of God is possible is the same
Law19157 9 months ago
@Law19157 what a horse shit comment, you pretend to "know" and that is more honest? by the way there is no evidence whatsoever and the people who know god are lying, they don't know they believe there is a huge difference. Ironic that you would say that shit in your comments, Freudian slip any one?
pandorachild 7 months ago
@Law19157 Oh, I apologize, you meant the resurrection as in an inevitable zombie apocalypse. I'll keep my shotgun handy.
Xenobiologist1 9 months ago
@Xenobiologist1 "Atheism, as it's narrowly defined in this debate by Steven and his group, cannot provide evidence that God does not exist", huh? theists total inability to provide evidence over 2000 years is evidence.But I dont like this word play, atheism is the rejection of a belief so it is a non belief therefore the burden of proof ls on the ones making a positive claim ie there is a god aka designer.
pandorachild 7 months ago
PWNED OWNED PWNED
Seigu007 10 months ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 before go on, I guess I should apologize for the way I came across in my last response. Looking back on what I wrote, it seems pretty arrogant. Sorry. I wish I could say I didn't mean it, but I probably did at the time. It wasn't right. But I wasn't making up the fact that I am busy. Actually, I'm kind've having a hard time. I know you probably think I'm some sort of alias for someone else you've spent time arguing with, but I'm actually an unemployed (not by choice)....
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness ....nobody who's having a hard time paying the bills. I'm currently over my monthly quota for internet usage for the month (by $50) and my cycle resets on the 8th of every month (this tues). Every time I try to respond to a comment, the darn video loads and takes up some of my data (data plan). So if you don't mind, we can continue Tuesday. Or I can message you (less data), but part of me imagines you responding the way you do because you know others may be reading...
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness I'm fine with posting here, but I have to take everything you say with a grain of salt. If you rather here, that's ok. (I can already imagine you writing something like "are you afraid?"). It really has nothing to do with that, and I can prove that after Tuesday. If that's the way you want to go, ok, I'm fine with that. But if you really want to know what my personal intuitions are, I will have to go in depth later next week. I guess for now I should mention one last thing....
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness...I heard from so many atheists about arguments against the possibility of the existence of God, but I play "devil's advocate" against myself all the time. this is why it irritates me when I get accused of not utilizing "critical thinking" when the fact is I can think of better arguments against the existence of God than MOST atheists. The thing is, I've still come to the conclusion that God exists, and NOT ONLY because of emotional appeal. But I only have 500 words at a time here.
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness Let me give you an example of some criticisms that I have YET to hear from atheists concerning the existence of God. I will play your side for a second. And let's see if you can anticipate me by arguing what I would respond to the following challenge: (1) Why would an omniscient+omnipotent Being create anything at all? It cannot be for entertainment because it would know the outcome. It cannot be for surprise/glory (for the same reason). Does this prove that God does not exist???
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness I believe it would disprove the existence of God, save for one possibility. Can you guess what it is? (I could be wrong, but then again, any true "critical thinker" will postulate that they can be wrong about their core beliefs). As far as I can see, this makes perfect sense. If you private message me, I can go on without fear of rattling up my data plan, but if you rather here, that's fine too, but my responses will not be as frequent. If you msg me, I will not comment here anymore
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness Hawking addresses this in his book A Brief History of Time, suggesting god didn't have a choice in the creation of the universe.
stramster1 1 year ago
@stramster1 Can you summarize his point/argument? What would force God to create the universe? I was trying to point out a possible argument against the existence of God because there IS a universe. I was sort've playing "devil's advocate" on behalf of ChimeraWarrior73, so we'll see where that goes. I can imagine a scenario where God has the choice to create or not, and for what possible reasons.
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness I am aware of the nature of your argument. I would encourage you to read his and other books on the subject of Big Bang cosmology. A Brief History Of Time is a small book you can knock it over in a day.
The premises and conclusion, from memory, are in either the first or second chapter.
stramster1 1 year ago
@stramster1 Fair enough, I plan to get around to it someday. I would also encourage you to look into Dr.Dean Radin and Dr.Gerald Schroeder. Try punching either name into youtube, there should be some videos that give the jist of their point. Interesting stuff...
yistackness 11 months ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 I thought you would like that, lol. If your wang was cut off, would anyone call you "it"? No. "it" is generally used for inanimate objects. But if it floats your boat fine. I can get around to answering your questions eventually, but I believe the answers are currently to advanced for you. I'll have to start from the beginning. You have to learn the alphabet before you can learn to read, right? But we'll start tomorrow (maybe day after)... I have to get up early. Tons of work.
yistackness 1 year ago
I believe God is a logical necessity. I don't believe that the reality you subscribe to is feasible. It's contradictory. I believe Mind came before matter, and you believe matter came before mind (and even the mind part is questionable). I'm sure I've went on and on months ago, you can scroll back to refresh yourself. Don't be upset with how I interpret your reasoning, just remember: "He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city"
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 You make it sound like your beliefs are set in stone. But are they really so sound? You have it easy, you simply cherry-pick what you don't believe using certain standards that you simply toss aside whenever convenient (like when you want to believe you have Freewill, that the past is real, that there's an external world, that objective morality exists, etc). BTW, I don't believe God has a gender, but i use the traditional sense for brevity (500 characters only)...
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness ...When I say that I believe in God, then you say that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, but you probably never realized that the "burden of proof" quote is a claim in and of itself. Why not prove that statement before throwing it at anyone? We have no idea what you believe because you are too scared of not being able to prove it. We already know that you do not believe in gravity, lol.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 But why are you asking me questions if you cannot accept my answer? You're going to believe what you're going to believe, which is, according to your outlook, that I am not a theist out of my own Freewill, but rather, due to how matter inevitably unfolded. Your belief is that the Big Bang made me come to believe in God. If "proof" is the criteria you demand before believing in anything, then you do not believe in a lot of things (the past, Freewill, objective morality, etc,etc)
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness (cont'd)... If you will not believe in something until there is proof for it, then why not be consistent in you rationality and apply this same standard across the board? Why hold a double-standard on the subject of God alone? But if you're going to lose sleep over how I came to believe in God, well I suppose the answer is that God revealed his existence to me through a number of ways. My turn, how did you come to be two-tiered in your reasoning?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 And lets not forget that according to you, my belief in God is a direct result to how the Big Bang "popped". Every particle went flying out, locked into their respective trajectories to this present state where I am a theist and you an atheist. How are you not embarrassed about being so emotionally invested over the inevitable? If you have a problem with me believing in God, then take your beef up with the Big Bang. Without God, there is no possibility of Freewill existing.
yistackness 1 year ago
First of all, you are simply attacking the example instead of the point. (let's pretend it was a human instead of a dog, what then?). Secondly, how could I prove anyone believes anything? How can you PROVE that everything you experience is NOT a figment of your imagination? You have to face the fact that science cannot prove all truths. Furthermore, science is based on unprovable assumptions that you simply have to take at face value in order for it to function at all. Zing!
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 A dog might believe in the existence of apples even though it cannot see that it is red (color blind), but it may very well be aware of it's other characteristics (weight, flavor, etc). Not knowing all of the characteristics of an apple does not invalidate the dog's belief that apples exist. If I cannot fully describe God to you, if I am even wrong about certain attributes, it does not invalidate God's existence. Before demanding "proof", define what "proof" would suffice.
yistackness 1 year ago
"The initial configuration of the universe may have been chosen by God, or it may itself have been determined by the laws of science. In either case, it would seem that everything in the universe would then be determined by evolution according to the laws of science, so it is difficult to see how we can be masters of our fate." -- Stephen Hawking
yistackness 1 year ago
"You will say that I feel free. This is an illusion, which may be compared to that of the fly in the fable, who, upon the pole of a heavy carriage, applauded himself for directing its course. Man, who thinks himself free, is a fly who imagines he has power to move the universe, while he is himself unknowingly carried along by it." -- Baron d'Hobach
yistackness 1 year ago
"Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." - Albert Einstein
"Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." --Charles Darwin
"A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills." - Schopenhauer
yistackness 1 year ago
The point is that if you're going to champion science as the best/only means of seeing truth, then you you better be prepared for the implications. Namely that there is no reason to believe that freewill exists. You would be nothing more than a mathematical equation of particles long locked into their trajectory due to the uncompromising laws of physics since the big bang. If this is really your world view, then how embarrassing it must seem to be so emotionally invested to the inevitable.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Man, you're the king of side-stepping. Everything you respond with just seems to be desperate filler. And this last one was just a cheesy quote, lol. Here: “What we call chaos is just patterns we haven't recognized. What we call random is just patterns we cant decipher. What we can't understand we call nonsense. What we can't read we call gibberish. There is no free will. There are no variables. There is only the inevitable.” - Chuck Palahniuk
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, no one has seen a black hole, but we believe it exists and we can speculate about it's characteristics. I don't pretend to understand God, but I can speculate because i believe God exists out of necessity, just as you would believe Logic exists out of necessity (a square-circle should be just as impossible with or without the existence of the universe). I could go on and on about what i personally believe about God, but this is all moot if you believe God doesn't exist.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, you can complain about airliners flying into buildings all you want, but you cannot prove that it was not inevitable. Science seems to indicate that matter follows certain laws, and as such, nothing that happened since the Big Bang could have been averted, and even your thoughts and decisions were hinged on the way the Big Bang "popped", and even the maniac who flew the airliner into the buildings was predestined. So you basically have no grounds to complain.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well you also made an "inverted claim" about a godless universe. As for evil, it cannot possibly exist objectively in a godless universe. But this is where I find it funny that you can complain about "the evil actions of believers". There are obviously more believers in the world than atheists, and if it turned out that the majority of the believers felt that atheism was evil, well then according to you they're right. Why is it better to be atheist? Even if it was true?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 You say that I'm playing semantic games? You're the one who "doesn't believe in gravity". lol You say that there is no evidence for God, but this is presupposing that existence itself is not evidence, and any other evidence that you could otherwise mention as evidence for God could just as easily be written off by you as a hallucination, prank, LSD, etc).
yistackness 1 year ago
Easy WIN for Meyer. Shermer got slutted.
Seigu007 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well alright then, if you want to play it that way, then i guess i can say that Theism is NOT a belief either, it's simply the non-belief of a godless universe. As for your imposing of beliefs, well we're still up in the air about that one, because we both have differing uses for the word. You say that certain acts of believers are far too often evil. But where is your proof that evil exists? Evil can only exist if Freewill exists... see why it's actually you bringing it up?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Hey! Weren't you complaining about semantics earlier? You don't "Believe" in this or that, you simply know things about it. So what do you "BELIEVE" in? Do you believe your mother loves you? Or do you just know fun-facts like "well, she makes me pies" and "well, she never hit me". It seems like you find it irrational to believe in anything - which to me is irrational, lol. What can you say you "believe" in?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 I'm sure you can believe in Gravity without being able to explain it or define it exactly, so why would it be so strange for me to believe in an entity greater than myself without knowing all of it's attributes? You struggle to believe that we have Freewill without an ounce of proof. You cherry-pick your beliefs and try to impose them upon others with the charge that what other's believe is "evil", and here again, you have no grounds for objective morality. You're cyclical.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 So what's your point here? Are you saying that there are no actual universal laws? If you blurr these lines of these apparent "laws", then what's there to hold onto? Why bother asking for "proof" of anything if these "laws" can change or are in doubt? Are you just playing semantics here? This reminds me of the whole atheist-agnostic debate. At least agnostics are logically consistent. There's too many contradictions in atheism.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Here you are once again confusing the topic at hand. You once again bring religion into the discussion. I'm not religious... I hate religion. And who are you to complain about morality if you hold that there are no actual objective morals to begin with? Anything you believe to be shameful or wrong is cannot be proven by you to have been otherwise. A victim of murder had this coming to them since the Big Bang and could not have been averted. You shoot yourself in the foot.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 I have never said that you ought to believe what I believe, if anything, it's you who demands that I abandon what I believe. I have never even claimed that you are capable of changing your mind, and according to your outlook on life and reality, it must be said that you believe that you cannot change your mind since you have no Freewill. You demand proof of God, but your outlook on life inhibits you from accepting any amount of proof. You could dismiss any proof.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 If you're saying that it is impossible to define something that doesn't exist, then you have 2 problems; first, on what grounds can you prove that this thing doesn't exist; secondly, how can you define you beliefs based on something that allegedly "doesn't exist"? I'm not the one making claims that something doesn't exist - save for when I was talking about Freewill, and how it does not seem possible in a godless universe. And it's the lack of Freewill that steals your thunder.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 My mistake. I only said you sound angry because of your numerous slanderous insults. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that this is not the "normal you", and that you simply lose control of yourself from time to time. I didn't realize you do it out of enjoyment. But I'm the one who feels embarrassed about not fully understanding your view on morality. You don't believe in objective morality, and so something like child rape is simply "spilled milk" in the big scheme of things
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Ok, I get it, you DO NOT believe in objective morality, but you sure act as though you do. i mean, you tell me i ought to "do this", and "believe that", meanwhile your whole point is that any choice I make is objectively meaningless. So what's your qualm again? What did i do to upset you? - and are you embarrassed about being irrational? What is it about the apparently inevitable past that upsets you in the inevitable present? Are you trying to alter the inevitable future?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Nice dodge. Smoke and mirrors....and insults....great.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 I'll be first to say that I cannot define God, but i do believe that Mind came before matter (as physics seems to suggest more and more). Maybe God could be more like Spinoza's God rather than Christianity, etc. Maybe God is outside of this universe. Be careful with the "definition card" because you need a definition of god in order to logically claim that you do not believe in god. If Freewill is to exist, then it's only be so in God, and just maybe we are lent some of it.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 There is no evidence to support your the idea that your definition of "evidence" is adequate in finding Truth. Science is permeated with unprovable assumptions, so i guess you don't believe in science either. You obviously do not believe in Freewill and therefore you do not believe evil exists either. So I wonder what you must be thinking as you angrily respond back regarding what is otherwise an inevitable belief of mine that you try to blame me for, and you do this inevitably
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well at least you are being clear now. Now i see that you do not believe in the existence of "Evil", but then I find myself scratching my head when your stance basically seems "if God exists, then He must be evil". So now that it's clear that you do not believe evil exists, then what's your beef with me? And how is it justified other than the whole "what's in it for me?" attitude on life. It seems your in a lose-lose situation regarding the Freewill argument.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 So you're hung-up on using the word "slave"?... but then you go on to describe how matter is not capable to break the laws of nature? Seems like a weak and desperate objection to me
As for the Mind, well isn't it your belief that you have a mind? And that this mind was not the result of intelligent design? Then it had to have come about by chance, right? I simply believe that intelligence is required to create intelligence. Has this ever been seen as NOT the case?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 I can see this has been taking a toll on you, and that you forgot my stance on this issue. To me, Freewill can only be a possibility in it's truest form if God exists. It seems without a doubt that a Godless universe comprised soley of matter and physical laws cold bring about Freewill. I understand that it can easily be argued that Freewill might not exist even with God in the picture; but to me, at least it means my life was orchestrated. I can go on, but it's up to you...
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 How you feel about something does not take away the possibility of it's existence. Secondly, you tread on thin ice because you are now making a claim that "evil" exists, and evil can only exist if Freewill exists. You do this over and over - demanding proof to claims, and then claiming something without proof. It seems kind've two-faced, though I don't think you're doing it intentionally. As for the God-Evil dilemma, there are many compatible answers if you want to get into it.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 You do not have a grasp on the topic of Freewill. It is not about HOW your decisions come about, it is weather they were ever inevitable. You say that a computer arrives to what appears as a "decision" because of logical programming within it, but isn't your brain logically programmed (even though you believe it was through hap-chance)? If all matter is slave to universal laws, then all the matter in your body is on it's preset trajectory since the big bang.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 If some homeless guy came up to me on the street and tried to convince me he was Elvis, I can assure you the argument would not last very long. Not because I would be able to convince him that he is not, and not because he would convince me he is, I would simply move on. "never argue with a fool, onlookers may not know who's who". You try to paint me as a fool, but you're still here. I do not call you a fool, I just believe you are in denial.
yistackness 1 year ago
When you come across something that is of a complex design you HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO ASSUME A DESIGNER. That assumption begs the question. (petitio principii). The whole ID argument is based on a logical fallacy.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Youtube doesn't let me post a link to an article on the Scientific American website. But you can find it by googling the following: Scientists say free will probably doesn't exist, but urge: "Don't stop believing!" Read the article. You do not have a grasp on the debate of freewill. You are right about why a computer "appears" do be making decisions (logical programming, etc), but you cannot seem to link that to human behavior. Are you not doing what your brain tells you to?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Einstein on whether science and religion are at odds: " the situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". How he felt about atheist efforts to claim him as an ally: "there are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views". I never claimed as absolute that God intervenes, but claimed that i believe in God. Neither did I claim the existence of Freewill
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 He did not believe in a "personal" God. "I am not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books... The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being towards God" - Einstein
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 You say that you don't care what I believe.... but here you are! I don't understand what the connection is between fairies and the concept of God. You tell me to "just say no to drugs", but did you tell me that out of freewill? Or was it a result of a determined universe. If the universe is determined, as science suggests, then can you blame me quite for what i believe? And if you blame me, than was your condemnation NOT inevitable?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Geeze, ad hominem much? The definitions of words are important, and I believe you are trying to avoid the fact that this is no trivial matter if we are to be on the same page. And what am I to do if there is a concept that I am trying to put forth that has no known word associated to it? - not that I'm aware of anyway. What if I want to describe a concept that is ever so close to another concept that is only described by a word whose definition is too rigid to adopt?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 You say that a program is not making choices... how so? How do you define "choice"? A computer is made up of a complex arrangement of atoms, and so is your brain. Science is dedicated to discovering how to understand and predict arrangements of atoms all the time. Theoretically, with enough data and computing power, it would be possible to predict how you would make future choices, and thus the question of "freewill" arises. You desperately want to believe you have freewill.
yistackness 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChimeraWarrior73 I agree with you somewhat. But again, you are defining what evidence is. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You say there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of God, but what is "the hypothesis of God"? please explain. And please explain what WOULD be sufficient evidence. BTW, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of freewill, so it MUST be assumed that you do not believe it exists either. So why fret over my "inevitable" beliefs?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Here you are dictating what is evidence and what is not evidence. If the reality is that the only way that we can exist is if God exists, then how would you except that fact? How could it be proven? By taking away God to see everything disappear? But then who is left to witness the proof? You see what I mean? What if God is like Spinoza's God (the kind Einstein believed in)? Would it still be so far-fetched? So impossible?
yistackness 1 year ago
Would you like some cheese with that whine? You're only upset because I am turning your world upside down by making you face questions you never realized you were running from. Sure it's easy to criticize other people's fundamental beliefs, but then you throw a tantrum when tasting your own medicine. You can't even justify your anger with me without implying that I had some choice in the matter, and without proof that I had the freewill in doing such, then you face your own criticism.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, if "you" is used in reference to a "person", then how do you define "person"? If you believe that people cannot be described by science (or one day described by science), then you believe that humans are just as abstract as the concept of god, and outside the realm of science. The difference you place on a collection of atoms we call a rock and the collection of atoms you call "me" is independence of the concept of freewill - only the illusion thereof.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, why would you say that humans have will, and computers do not? Computers process information, and our brains do too, so do you believe computers have "will"? And lets not forget that you are playing semantics by taking out the "free' part. I was talking about freewill (and determinism). You can bluntly say "I know i have freewill because i make choices", well, a computer can be programmed to say "i have freewill because I make choices" too. Check and mate.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, you are just making big claims with no evidence. That's not actually an issue to me, it is you who complains to those who believe in God without proof, but here you are with no proof that my beliefs are absurd, you are going on blind faith. You use the word "fact" loosely and disingenuously. There is no "fact" that my beliefs are absurd, especially if you are going to say that God is outside the realm of science. it is you who is contradicting himself, not me.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 You're forgetting my point that it is just as impossible to rigorously prove the existence of something as it is to prove the non-existence of something. You say that you know computers exist "based on observable evidence", but here you are putting blind faith in your observations. A thousand years ago, your observable evidence would lead you to believe the earth was flat. This would be logical to you. And now you admit that God would be abstract, so what's your point?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 That would only be the case if you could define "you". Just about every cell in your body dies and is replaced every 15 years, so the memories that you have of loved ones who have long since passed away are merely carbon-copied "pass-me-downs" and your current "you" never actually met them or was even "loved" by them (if you believe love exists). Why do you say "you" to a person and not a rock? Rocks at least retain their matter more consistently than we do, right?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 You would love for the bible to have something to do with my beliefs wouldn't you? You'd love this because then you can run your anti-religion playbook. Now i realize why you keep bringing religion and the bible into the topic at hand. I thought you were a scarred as a child due to some frisky priest or something. But to bring you back on track, I was talking about Freewill last, and how you have no proof that it exists. So words like "ought" should not be used by you. lol
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 I don't know why you're so hung up on the topic of religion or why you go out of your way to bring it up all the time, or even what it has to do with anything I say. I can't help but wonder if this fixation stems from some traumatic childhood experience. Maybe you were wronged at the hands of some religious person in the past? We're you ever an alterboy? Did a priest ask you to play funny games? How did this complex originate? I've never heard of a bible-thumping atheist, lol.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 You're really fixated on religion and deists. You're not the first atheist that I've noticed with this fixation. I sometimes wonder is this complex originated from some pent-up resentment dating back to to wrong committed to them at the hands of some religious person in the past. We you ever an alterboy in a catholic church growing up? Did the priest play funny games with you? What could be the reason behind all this religious talk from you all the time?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Give the name of God to some vague abstraction?? Lets say for arguments sake that you agree that God exists. Would you immediately assume that God would be easy to understand? How couldn't God be abstract? (to us anyways). You probably have little understanding of how your computer works, it may be vague to you, but it doesn't take away your acknowledgment of it's existence.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 I'm with you on that one. Religion has hampered and oppressed both science and theists in the past. I hate religion just as much as you do. As for your reasoning for knowing that I exist, well the reasoning is pretty lame. For all you know I could be a computer, or even chipmunk walking on this keyboard and just coincidentally typing what appears as purposeful conversation (this would actually be more probable than your explanation of the universe).
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, on the same note, you can ask "how one can prove that which DOES exist?" I mean, if God does exist, how can I prove it to you? How can I prove to you that I exist? (and not merely a figment of your imagination?) How do you prove that the past exists, and that the universe did not pop into being 5 mins ago with the appearance of age? All I'm trying to show you is that we BOTH hold certain things as true, and WITHOUT proof (you know, that which YOU demand BEFORE believing).
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, if God does exist, then you would be in no position to realize whether or not nature demonstrates God. From a philosophical point of view, if God exits, then our existence would be proof of God's existence, whether you accept it or not, because that would be the stark reality. Now, if you want to champion the phrase "the burden of proof is on the one making the claim", then you have to prove that Freewill exists since you are complaining about the religious people.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 I understand your definition of atheism, it is the non-belief in a claim, and so you say that the burden of proof is on the one making a claim. Well, I have a non-belief in the claim "there is no God", so i guess the burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claim "there is no God"? I mean, it's not like you are saying "there COULD be a God", because that would be agnosticism. And since there is no proof of freewill, it follows that you do not believe it exists either.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Again, ... what does the bible have to do with my belief in the existence of God?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, what does the bible have to do with my belief in the existence of God?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Yes, but what if these cave-drawings were proven to have been drawn decades after the extinction of this particular dinosaur drawn? Could you still accept it if it was "all you had to go on"? I realize that there are no believers in dinosaurs trying to convert you, but neither am I, so what's your point?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, if you are going to argue about the term "religious", then at least be fair and explain YOUR definition of "religious", because it certainly is not the same as the one found in a dictionary, so excuuuuse me for sounding like I'm playing "semantics".
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 It is absolutely absurd to understand how you can reject the existence of something when you cannot even describe what that thing is. If you reject "X", then I'm tempted to ask you what X is. So what is God to you? I see that you keep categorizing God with the Easter bunny and faeries, but you are making a categorical error. In the case of God existing, there would be God, and then there would be everything else. Neither the easter bunny or faeries are omnipotent or omniscient.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Your definition of atheism is different than the one found in a dictionary. Atheism is a belief that there is no God. If you only doubted God's existence, then you would be agnostic instead. But because you believe there is no God, then you are making a universal claim that there is no God. Time and again we hear atheists say "we are not making a claim, we are simply rejecting the claim that there is a God". Well the, I am simply rejecting the claim "there is NO God".
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 I never contested the existence of T-rex. I'm trying to show you how fickle you are when it comes to proof. My question to you was (and remains unanswered) is if you would believe that T-rex existed if there were no remains of T-rex, only sagas and caveman drawings and written accounts. You say that even if there were only caveman drawings, that it would be more evidence than of Jesus. But now you are just being extremely ridiculous. I guess you don't believe much about history
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 I'm proud to say that I am not religious. I think it's you who is ashamed to admit that your standard for believing in God, if applied to other beliefs that you take for granted, would otherwise render them just as "nonsensical". And of course theism, theology and religion are all related, but the are also different. Your parents may be related, but they remain different people. I believe Mind came before matter, you believe that Mind came after.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 By the way, if you don't know what a strawman is, look it up. And look up "red herring" while you're at it.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And what is your definition of "evidence"? "Evidence" has never ceased being a hot topic. I mean, if there were no remains of T-Rex, then what would you accept as evidence? Would you accept witness testimony? Written documents? Drawings? If you would only accept the remains as evidence, then what's the evidence that Caesar existed? Anything short of having his remains would, according to you, be grounds to dismiss his existence.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 I'm glad to see you learned the definition of theism, and you will notice that no where does it mention "religion". Theology on the other hand involves religion, which is why I'm not a theologian either.
Atheism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] -noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
That's right, a "belief" in a "doctrine" with no evidence to support it. oops!
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, you may be right, but you are making a universal claim (and here I thought atheists try to avoid making claims, least they shoot themselves in the foot). But even if you are right, you would only be right insofar as the present concerns as this does not include the future or past. There are no Tyrannosaurus Rexs alive today (a universal claim, I know), but if true, then does that mean they never existed, or that they will never exist again? Better luck next time...
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Yes, well, it's none of your business what I can talk about. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that there is no God. There is absolutely no evidence for most of what you take for granted. There is absolutely no evidence that atheism is accurate. You try time and again to slip religion into a topic about theism, but this is just another desperate attempt to hold onto your fleeting rationality. I'm not religious, so why make up a strawman?
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 I think it matters a whole lot to you. You're here aren't you? You're the one so sure that this is your "one life to live", and this is how you choose to spend it? I think maybe you're doubtful about atheism, and you use this malign posturing to mask your secret devil's advocate agenda (you know, to find out more about theism). And what the heck do unicorns and faeries have to do with God? It's not even comparing apples and oranges, it's like apples with the number 12.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 I don't buy that. It was only after I made fun of the fact that you are 45 years old and using school-yard insults, that you finally decided to try and sound smart by making things up, but as I slowly exposed you, you decided to play it off like "it was all a joke". Yeah right. You were grabbing for straws - a last ditch effort to redeem yourself. Now you default back to the "I can't justify my own beliefs anymore than the ones I mock" stance.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 I do not doubt you for a second that you would love nothing more than to slander me, but this is simply because you do not believe in objective morality, and so anything goes for you. For you, murder is nothing more than spilled milk. You believe that everything is determined and thus freewill cannot exist. And since freewill cannot exist, then the murderer was not only unaccountable, but his actions were also inevitable. Wow! No wonder you're so crabby!
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Messing with my head? That would be true if I was actually swallowing what you said, but if you paid attention, you'd see that I was calling you out on it the whole way through (especially when you contradicted Kurt Godel). Anyways, I guess you concede that my point still stands: If proof is what you demand before believing in something, then it follows that you do not believe in Freewill, external minds, mathematical truths, the past, and even logic itself (to name a few).
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Open mouth, insert foot. How does a theory become synonymous with a proof? You point out some theory, and then say "it proves" this and that. You must be extrapolating the wrong idea from this THEORY. Logic is an "if...then" process which proceeds from the known to the unknown. But if nothing is known at the beginning of the process, then nothing can ever be known. You can't use logic to generate knowledge from a state of total ignorance - G.K.Chesteron. Better luck next time.
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Well, I have never seen a proof of this ambiguous theory. But then again, no one can prove logic itself. I mean, if one attempts to prove logic by using logic, then they fall into the trap of circular-reasoning. Thus, if your basis for believing in anything is based upon proof, then you immediately have to accept that there is a host of things in which you do not believe. These include, Freewill, Logic, the past, the external world, external minds, objective morality, etc, etc
yistackness 1 year ago
@ChimeraWarrior73 Oh comon! When I hear someone claim what God can and cannot do, I have to take a step back and wonder on what authority and experience this person has. "God can only define itself???" Gimme a break. Tell me the difference between the "totality of the whole" and the "whole of totality" - is it not redundant? When is something "neo" no longer "neo"? What happens when something "newer" to your theories comes along? Do you call it "extra-neo"? What is this "reality" you speak of?
yistackness 1 year ago