About religion

[A Vestigial Mote]

Of course theres a valid base. I along with many people disagree with you for various reasons. Plus, your hope will never come to pass. As long as people are around, religion and spiritual experiences will too.



Ridicule does not refute my point. It weakens your position.



Oh really? Ok, so you wanna go down that road? You want me to talk to you like a child back? If we go down that path, this will be unfruitfull.



Oh so you can foist your ideas onto them instead hey? Get real.

And im sure enough people like how i believe have shown you to be a crackpot too for saying theres no God?

Its not i that is the crackpot. The truely crazy person is the one who denies all the clear evidence for a God, a spiritual realm a afterlife, ect.



I dont care about elvis and your comparing apples to oranges with intent to discredite belief in God as the same and its clearly not. Plus way more people believe in it then elvis being alive at that. There is evidence for God unlike elvis being alive.



Are you being productive holding your beliefs, following up on them and trying to persuade me of them? Eat your own words pale.

Also, productive can be subjective in this case. Theres different kinds of productivity. In this area its digging for knowledge. Thats a form of productivity. But, even if it wasnt, does that make me unproductive? Hell no, i work for a living. This would make it a interesting subject to discuss. Whats wrong with that? Mr dictator here.



Yea well your not doing a very good job of dissuading me thats for SURE.



Laugh him out of the room? Man, wer on a debate forum, im not "bringing" anything up. I did not even open the thread. Im contributing to it, which i have every right too. And you can respond to me or NOT. Thats your right too. But if you think its a waste of time, then why are you wasting time then? Go do something else. Take a hike.



No, its not like believing elvis is still alive. THATS whats REALLY dumb. Not the point i made.



Yes, ill tell you how i got there. Picture a timeline in your brain. Now, usually with time lines they have a beginning and a ending. Then it shows the events on the timeline.

Ok....you got that much yes? Hopefully.

Now, in the case of this timeline, it has no begining point. So, if you put all the events on this timeline, no avents are going to have a starting point. Why? Because something has to start first before the stream of other events happen. But, theres no start on the timeline. What would begin? Nothing. So, all events would not begin, all events would take forever to take place. Therefore nothing would take place.

Do you know anything about logic? How it works? If not, im not gonna teach it to you. Go learn it first, then come debate me. Until then, this discussion is dead if you cant understand the logic in how i broke it down for you here.



Oh no! Im not pretending, i KNOW for a fact your reasoning is flawed.



I am right, right, right, right. Say it a thousand times, you think ill agree? Preach it till your blue, it won't work on me.



If say the chicken event was done in the year 2018, how would it happen if theres no starting point? My brain is working just fine. Its yours that needs work. But you see, my prior post i was being nice to you. No more, you dont deserve it.



No, its not plausable, because time needs a beginning!

Furthermore, the god hypotheses is OVER your view due to the fact of evidence for order and design in the universe and due to the logic that time began, along with the universe. And also due to many spiritual experiences by the millions.

Take that for a touch down, pale!

Two things:

1. the "beginning of time" for the eventual observer (aka "us") is entirely arbitrary within the scope of objective "time". Your assertion about things taking forever or having no start in an eternal universe is complete and utter garbage thinking.

2. I am not the one making all sorts of claims about existence and God etc. You are. So me holding any beliefs I hold (which, if you'll note, I am perfectly fine admitting are ONLY beliefs where applicable) doesn't have much to do. with my denouncement of some of your claims to knowledge. Like this whole eternal universe thing - which I still can't believe you think is well reasoned on your part. The ideas you have truly have nothing going for them.

And you're right, I have wasted enough time talking to you. Reply all you want, I'm done.

 

[Looncall]

Its not an excuse. There is evidence. The laws, design, complexity IS the evidence. Spiritual experiences are more evidence.

Alot of folks are just merely asleep to the evidence. They need to wake up and SEE the coffee.

How do you get from observed order to god(s)?

How do you know that so-called "spiritual experiences" are not delusions?

 

[Jollybear]

Two things:

1. the "beginning of time" for the eventual observer (aka "us") is entirely arbitrary within the scope of objective "time". Your assertion about things taking forever or having no start in an eternal universe is complete and utter garbage thinking.

How is my point garbage? All your saying is that its garbage, your not really breaking it down. So, your denial is garbage.

2. I am not the one making all sorts of claims about existence and God etc

Yea, thats what atheists love to do, absolve themselves from intellectual responsibility. It seams to be a pattern.

You are making claims, your claims are just different then my claims.

So, bare YOUR responsibility and quit the easy way out which is redicule. Thats easy because its lazy. And further, its an insecurity.

You are. So me holding any beliefs I hold (which, if you'll note, I am perfectly fine admitting are ONLY beliefs where applicable)

And mine are beliefs too, there not proven. I have admitted that already. But, my beliefs are based on evidence, inference, logic, philosophy and spiritual experiences that are in the millions. Your beliefs are NOT based on that. So, you need to wake up to reality.

doesn't have much to do. with my denouncement of some of your claims to knowledge.

Logic is not full on knowledge. Like i said, go learn logic, then come back and debate me. Im not gonna teach you logic. But you know what? If you wer a nice guy, i WOULD teach you logic, but your not deserving of me being your teacher. So, go learn it yourself.

Like this whole eternal universe thing - which I still can't believe you think is well reasoned on your part. The ideas you have truly have nothing going for them.

Im not gonna break it down for you again.

This time im gonna ask you a logical question.

Ill use a tree as a hypothetical.

A tree STARTS as a seed. Grows roots, a stem, branches and leaves.

Now, suppose hypthetically this tree is eternal. So, it cant start as a seed, and if it dont start then the other parts cannot come, like root, stem, ect.

So, how does the tree start? Come on MR LOGIC MAN!

And you're right, I have wasted enough time talking to you. Reply all you want, I'm done.

Apparently you LOVE WASTING TIME! because you keep doing it, so, that must mean you dont really think its a waste of time. Your one big conflict within yourself.

 

[Jollybear]

I think this fairy thing is a strawman. God is outside time, matter and energy, unlike fairies.

You haven't demonstrated that God exists at all, let alone that God exists outside time, matter, and energy.

If your expecting me to prove God, no, if you expect evidence, yes, i have given that. Design and spiritual experiences.

Also, if God created the universe, logically he is outside time, matter, space and all other energy (God has energy in himself).

And how do you know that magical fairies do not exist outside of time, matter , and energy?

Because they have arms, legs, wings, faces, and that means contained within space, time, matter and energy.

God designed the LAWS and the laws work the dam of the river. So, indirectly, God has designed the river and dam

.

So according to you NOTHING happens naturally and nothing EVER happens by chance. O-kay... if you say so.

Define natural?

As fare as chance is concerned, no, nothing happens by chance. Chance does not even EXIST.

Under controlled conditions chance is shown to not exist. Look at this coin flippin machine >

The Not So Random Coin Toss

Where did the laws come from in your view? Did they come from nothing, from chance? From God? Or wer they always there?

Human beings came up with the laws as a way to describe how the universe works.

So, how do those same "humans" describe where or how did the laws come from?

 

[Muffled]

I have seen many who ask, is God real? Does God exist? Religion right or wrong?

And those who do believe in a God or a Buddha does their best to explain. And those who do not belive try to find a way to disprove God ( and that is ofcourse fine )

But just for the sake of a discussion.

If those who are believers must give a Proof about God or the religion to be true.
Can we ask those who does not believe about roof that God does not exist?

Ofcourse i respect those who not believe but sometimes i do get curious to their Proof of non existance.

I believe they would run into the problem of the null hypothesis. There isn't any valid reason why a God should not exist.

 

[Muffled]

Why? a Beleif on something spiritual as God is a personal belief and why is it needed to prove that God exist to those who do not believe? I tried 20 years to explain my buddhist view, but when talking to non believers what happens is a million questions that is impossible to answer since there is no physical eveidence i can give, only a wisdom to the answer

I believe wisdom is sufficient to show that Buddhism is insufficient and in some cases incorrect.

 

[Muffled]

Let's say it's proven that God exists, who cares?
Let's say it's proven that God does not exists, who cares?
It's meaningless to argue either way because it doesn't matter.

I believe my God can do things to help me and does.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I believe wisdom is sufficient to show that Buddhism is insufficient and in some cases incorrect.

Incorrect compared to?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I believe my God can do things to help me and does.

Yes He can.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Design is not the same thing as imagining a face in a cloud.
Totally different. Furthermore, thats just a fancy way to make intelligent design look stupid.

Intelligent design needs no help to look stupid.

But intelligent design is more smarter then the alternative explanations.

Intelligent design wasn't even a scientific theory; it was a legal tactic.

Intelligent design is a pared-down version of so-called "creation science" to attempt to get it into American public schools. What it says and doesn't say was based on a legal interpretation of what would and wouldn't be allowed in American public schools by the First Amendment, not on any scientific evidence or inferences. It was based on an incorrect interpretation, as Kitzmiller v. Dover established, but that was still the intent.

And "creation science" itself was just a paring down of creationism as part of an earlier attempt to find something that would pass legal challenge.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory; it's one in a series of failed, dishonest tactics in an attempt to use public schools to proselytize to kids.

 

[Jollybear]

Intelligent design needs no help to look stupid.


Intelligent design wasn't even a scientific theory; it was a legal tactic.

Intelligent design is a pared-down version of so-called "creation science" to attempt to get it into American public schools. What it says and doesn't say was based on a legal interpretation of what would and wouldn't be allowed in American public schools by the First Amendment, not on any scientific evidence or inferences. It was based on an incorrect interpretation, as Kitzmiller v. Dover established, but that was still the intent.

And "creation science" itself was just a paring down of creationism as part of an earlier attempt to find something that would pass legal challenge.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory; it's one in a series of failed, dishonest tactics in an attempt to use public schools to proselytize to kids.

I get so tired of hearing this nonsense.

Attacking the motives of those who hold to the view of intelligent design does not refute intelligent design.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I get so tired of hearing this nonsense.

Attacking the motives of those who hold to the view of intelligent design does not refute intelligent design.

No, the fact that there's no scientific merit whatsoever to intelligent design does that. All I'm pointing out is that it was never intended to have scientific merit. Intelligent design was never about convincing peer reviewers; it was about convincing a sympathetic judge, with the aid of the right "expert" witnesses.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You will never be able to scientificly prove that God exist because he would have no reason to show him self to those who do not believe or search for the truth of the path. Religion is not about proving to people that God or buddhais there, it is about the personal awakening to the truth of existance

 

[Jollybear]

No, the fact that there's no scientific merit whatsoever to intelligent design does that. All I'm pointing out is that it was never intended to have scientific merit. Intelligent design was never about convincing peer reviewers; it was about convincing a sympathetic judge, with the aid of the right "expert" witnesses.

I dont agree at all with that. Nor do the ID promoters involved. Plus again, it does not refute ID on its own merit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dont agree at all with that. Nor do the ID promoters involved. Plus again, it does not refute ID on its own merit.

It has already been refuted. If you're curious as to how, check category CI in the list here:

An Index to Creationist Claims

Personally, I refuse to engage with ID as if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis... partly because it isn't; "design" is so vaguely defined by the ID movement that the movement has no actual testable hypotheses.

But there's also another reason to approach it as the political and legal, not scientific, position that it is: the "teach the controversy" tactic. Rather than pretend that ID is an actual scientific theory that can be defended on its own merits, the approach they've taken is to falsely claim that settled science of evolution isn't actually settled, and that ID is entitled to a spot in the marketplace of ideas of alternatives to evolution.

The intent is to put people who support the actual science into a difficult position:

- they can engage with ID, and in doing so concede that it's worth engaging with.

- they can refuse to engage with it and run the risk that people who aren't terribly familiar with the support for evolutionary science that they're being closed-minded.

I'm very sorry if your youth pastor or whoever led you astray, but you've been duped into perpetuating a dishonest tactic in defense of claims with no scientific merit.

 

[Jollybear]

It has already been refuted. If you're curious as to how, check category CI in the list here:

An Index to Creationist Claims

Ive read articles on that site in the past. Im not convinced.

Personally, I refuse to engage with ID as if it's a legitimate scientific hypothesis..

not only is ID a scientific hypotheses, its in fact a better one then the alternatives of chance and time making it all. Just because its not accepted by the few in power in the mainstream as scientific dont mean that its not, for logically it is.

partly because it isn't; "design" is so vaguely defined by the ID movement that the movement has no actual testable hypotheses.

Vague? Whats so vague about saying complexity and information looks designed, therefore we infer actual design? Thats as clear and simple as you can get.

But there's also another reason to approach it as the political and legal, not scientific, position that it is: the "teach the controversy" tactic. Rather than pretend that ID is an actual scientific theory that can be defended on its own merits, the approach they've taken is to falsely claim that settled science of evolution isn't actually settled, and that ID is entitled to a spot in the marketplace of ideas of alternatives to evolution.

Design by a unintelligent natural process is not "settled". It may he settled in the minds of some high up scientists. But, not all scientists agree with this. And of course, alot of lay folk, me obviously included dont agree and therefore its NOT settled.

As for "teach the controversy". I dont have a problem with that, but, id go further and say ID stands stronger then the alternative.

The intent is to put people who support the actual science into a difficult position:

Which those scientists should be put in that difficult position because there theories are wrong. Heres the situation: they DECIDE whats scientific, they dont prove it.

- they can engage with ID, and in doing so concede that it's worth engaging with.

Engaging with proponents of chance made us is not worth engagement. The only reason it needs to be done is because enough people believe it that we gotta work with the nonsense of it. Naturalistic minded scientists are holding back science, not advancing it.

- they can refuse to engage with it and run the risk that people who aren't terribly familiar with the support for evolutionary science that they're being closed-minded.

They are closed minded because ID is fare more rational then chance designed us.

Also if your so familair with the natural mechanisms designing us, why pass me off to a website? You explain it, ive read enough websites. Websites cannot discuss things, like we can.

I'm very sorry if your youth pastor or whoever led you astray

My own brain led me, along with the help of reading both sides, no pastor or whoever else. And it did not lead me astray. Your mind got led astray though.

but you've been duped into perpetuating a dishonest tactic in defense of claims with no scientific merit.

Theres no dishonesty, no dupping. And it does have scientific merit.

Complexity and information. Then we infer design. Simple, but brilliant.

 

[Workman]

You will never be able to scientificly prove that God exist because he would have no reason to show him self to those who do not believe or search for the truth of the path. Religion is not about proving to people that God or buddhais there, it is about the personal awakening to the truth of existance

What is the truth? But what does word truth actually mean itself? True means for the 1 can only be one.

Truth is,
A man has two sides of himself,

1: The inner self is where holds your deep emotions where your families, beliefs, morals, happy needs anything that is most treasured, it is the most absolute purest..that would be your TRUE side..which can only be THE 1

2: second will be your outer side, where if I met you, I’m meeting your outer side, only you determine which u should give me, your true side or another; which if you don’t give me true(1) then you switch to (2)which draws in a billion truths, but cannot be THE 1 TRUE...

TRUE is only THE 1,
Truth can be in the billion or more,
You can only find GOD through BEING TRUE(1).

You choose!

 

[Riders]

There is plenty of proof for evolution including the created itself. There has been a fish found not only one but several as I understand it, several animals, that are around now that were not around before now for millions or 10s of thousands of years, thus proving these animals existed that evolution claimed. It also proves the earth is starting evolution over the idea, that people came from animals? yea theres proof now, I have heard a few people have developed animal type body body parts a few have, animal or tiger claw for one nail that type of thing.

 

[Riders]

Here is proof and a source! A piranha fish that lived over 100 million years ago is back today here's a picture, and the earth is still evolving we are in an evolution!Piranha-like specimen, 150 million years old, is earliest known flesh-eating fish

 

[Spirit of Light]

What is the truth? But what does word truth actually mean itself? True means for the 1 can only be one.

Truth is,
A man has two sides of himself,

1: The inner self is where holds your deep emotions where your families, beliefs, morals, happy needs anything that is most treasured, it is the most absolute purest..that would be your TRUE side..which can only be THE 1

2: second will be your outer side, where if I met you, I’m meeting your outer side, only you determine which u should give me, your true side or another; which if you don’t give me true(1) then you switch to (2)which draws in a billion truths, but cannot be THE 1 TRUE...

TRUE is only THE 1,
Truth can be in the billion or more,
You can only find GOD through BEING TRUE(1).

You choose!

The number one you talk about in the 1. that is atachments to this world, that i am leting go, what i do search for is the camlness and the tranquiity within, the meditative form