there is no god

[bowlcut]

answer this:

how come with all the powerful telescopes that we have how come we cant find your so called god?

How do you even know if you can see him or not?
You're providing the shittiest theories as to why God isn't real.

[Less Than Three]

you can't believe in god and evolution at the same time.

evolution = science

god != science

Actually, you're wrong. It's more than possible. As said before, you wouldn't necessarily be christian, but its possible.

Nonetheless, religion and/or the debate between christians and scientists on whether God is real or not is a sensitive topic. Neither side can really prove the other one wrong. This thread could go on for weeks, even months and no one here would come to a consensus.

[bowlcut]

Actually, you're wrong. It's more than possible. As said before, you wouldn't necessarily be christian, but its possible.

Nonetheless, religion and/or the debate between christians and scientists on whether God is real or not is a sensitive topic. Neither side can really prove the other one wrong. This thread could go on for weeks, even months and no one here would come to a consensus.

Whether or not atheists are right, they tend to have shittier lives because they think there's no heaven.
Christians tend to be happier, but not as smart.
I'm Deist, so I believe in a higher power, but I also believe that higher power created all that science bullcrap. Much easier this way .

[Less Than Three]

Whether or not atheists are right, they tend to have shittier lives because they think there's no heaven.
Christians tend to be happier, but not as smart.
I'm Deist, so I believe in a higher power, but I also believe that higher power created all that science bullcrap. Much easier this way .

Agreed. And you said the reason they have shittier lives right in your post. "They think there's no heaven".
Christian do tend to be happier, and that's because they believe that after death they'll go to a better place. Lol. I mean, how would you feel if you believed you were gonna die and that's it? And your remains are stuck on this shithole called Earth. I think that would suck.

I also know that its straight fact, that everyone has their own opinions. And its not always easy to change those opinions. What we need to do is stop fighting back and forth between religion, and let everyone think whatever they damn well please.

[Nismo]

Agreed. And you said the reason they have shittier lives right in your post. "They think there's no heaven".
Christian do tend to be happier, and that's because they believe that after death they'll go to a better place. Lol. I mean, how would you feel if you believed you were gonna die and that's it? And your remains are stuck on this shithole called Earth. I think that would suck.

I also know that its straight fact, that everyone has their own opinions. And its not always easy to change those opinions. What we need to do is stop fighting back and forth between religion, and let everyone think whatever they damn well please.

Yeah, sometimes I wish I was a Christian just so that I can think I'll go to heaven, but with the mindset I have now I will never truely believe.. :/

[Trophy Wife]

God may very well exist, but not in the romantic sense we've come to hear about it books. We has humans already have the ability to genetically alter/clone/and mass produce animals. You can't disprove intelligent design.


edit:Ohh, and just to make it clear as to what I'm saying. If something where to of played a roll in our existence or evolution then what would you call that being, or beings? God.

double edit: Kira, there's so much we don't understand about the universe that it's unreal. There is no correct answer here. Even our concept of physics isn't to be trusted because constants change.

I'm not sure you're using the term 'intelligent design' correctly here. Intelligent Design usually refers to the idea that, because lifeforms are so complex, there must have been a creator or higher power in charge of the creation process of lifeforms. It also postulates that the intricacies of our being and our universe have been fine-tuned and could not have possibly been the result of natural processes. Curiously, more often then not, the entity in charge of this process is usually the one which the person postulating this idea worships.

However, the problem with such a concept is that we have already discovered a system that works exceptionally well in explaining this phenomenon and it requires no such entity or guiding hand. We call this process evolution through natural selection. It is measurable, testable, and most importantly, it works on the assumption that no intervening force exists.

I think you may be referring to selective breeding or artificial selection, which would make more sense in regard to your context.

Whether or not atheists are right, they tend to have shittier lives because they think there's no heaven.
Christians tend to be happier, but not as smart.
I'm Deist, so I believe in a higher power, but I also believe that higher power created all that science bullcrap. Much easier this way .

Agreed. And you said the reason they have shittier lives right in your post. "They think there's no heaven".
Christian do tend to be happier, and that's because they believe that after death they'll go to a better place. Lol. I mean, how would you feel if you believed you were gonna die and that's it? And your remains are stuck on this shithole called Earth. I think that would suck.

I also know that its straight fact, that everyone has their own opinions. And its not always easy to change those opinions. What we need to do is stop fighting back and forth between religion, and let everyone think whatever they damn well please.

That's actually incredibly presumptuous as well as being patently untrue. These statements make the grand assumption that atheists and non-believers want to go to heaven, and since they know they probably won't, they therefore lead unhappy lives. Now, while that may be true for a marginally low number of non-believers, the rest would almost unanimously disagree. I can only speak for myself when I say that believing that I will somehow survive my death and live in some celestial reunion hall while being watched over by a father figure for eternity is not exactly my idea of infinite happiness. I prefer subscribing to the notion that, since this is probably the only life I get, I will try making the most of it and perhaps even leave some form of legacy behind, whether that be through offspring, an idea, or my work. That is my eternity. I don't live my life limiting my potential due to fear of punishment or damnation, and my actions and charity are not the result of wishing to be rewarded in the afterlife.

As for Deism, I personally find it to be a pointless tautology which bases itself on appealing to ignorance. It is the nicotine patch after quitting smoking. I gather that it makes sense to Deists internally, but beyond that it seems to create more questions than it answers, especially since it shares the same problem as theism of infinite regression. Now, while I'm sure that Deists find this a comforting viewpoint (which I won't be so bold as to dispute), choosing this position for the purpose of avoiding a challenge seems incredibly disingenuous and lazy.

[Less Than Three]

That's actually incredibly presumptuous as well as being patently untrue. These statements make the grand assumption that atheists and non-believers want to go to heaven, and since they know they probably won't, they therefore lead unhappy lives. Now, while that may be true for a marginally low number of non-believers, the rest would almost unanimously disagree. I can only speak for myself when I say that believing that I will somehow survive my death and live in some celestial reunion hall while being watched over by a father figure for eternity is not exactly my idea of infinite happiness. I prefer subscribing to the notion that, since this is probably the only life I get, I will try making the most of it and perhaps even leave some form of legacy behind, whether that be through offspring, an idea, or my work. That is my eternity. I don't live my life limiting my potential due to fear of punishment or damnation, and my actions and charity are not the result of wishing to be rewarded in the afterlife.

As for Deism, I personally find it to be a pointless tautology which bases itself on appealing to ignorance. It is the nicotine patch after quitting smoking. I gather that it makes sense to Deists internally, but beyond that it seems to create more questions than it answers, especially since it shares the same problem as theism of infinite regression. Now, while I'm sure that Deists find this a comforting viewpoint (which I won't be so bold as to dispute), choosing this position for the purpose of avoiding a challenge seems incredibly disingenuous and lazy.

Everything you just said, came from opinion. And ALMOST everything I have said previously, as well as Forrest has said previously, came from opinion.
As was brought up in my last post, its a fact that everyone has their own opinions. Everyone knows that. So me being "incredibly presumptuous as well as being patently untrue" is neither correct, nor incorrect. It's all based off opinion.

[RJ]

@Trophy Wife What I'm saying is that we can't simply rule it out as a possibility. There's no way of knowing if the law of physics we observe today are how they've always been. Simulations that are being attempted to explain the creation of the universe actually suggest that those laws where not the same as they are now.

I was actually more or less saying there isn't a definitive answer to how the universe was created, not so much the human race, and was merely suggesting intervention. Not that it's what I believe, but it isn't not possible. I've read/watched through a bunch of theories, and they all had their valid points. None of us have the insight required to say what is the correct answer, but we can kind of rule out what isn't.

And yes, I used it correctly.

Given the proper amount of time I have no doubt that the human race could creating a being. Who's to say some other form of life hasn't already achieved this? I'm not saying we're a product of this, but... I think you see what I'm getting at.

[Less Than Three]

I've read/watched through a bunch of theories, and they all had their valid points. None of us have the insight required to say what is the correct answer, but we can kind of rule out what isn't.

I agree completely. I said almost the same thing a couple posts ago. Neither side can truely prove the other side wrong. I mean, this debate in general has been going for many, many years. And yet, no consensus.

[Nismo]

@Trophy Wife What I'm saying is that we can't simply rule it out as a possibility. There's no way of knowing if the law of physics we observe today are how they've always been. Simulations that are being attempted to explain the creation of the universe actually suggest that those laws where not the same as they are now.

That's what I've been trying to say for a long time

[Mouzie]

Monkeys don't have anything close to our DNA, it's the apes that does and they are relatives to the human species. The chimpanzee according to most researchers got around 95%-98% of our DNA structure. Apes are classified as a primate family in which the humans are also classed in. So using monkeys isn't going to work, also I don't know who posted it, because I believed in evolution and all of the theories. (Gasp I know!) So it doesn't make me an atheist or a non-Jew. :/

[Trophy Wife]

Everything you just said, came from opinion. And ALMOST everything I have said previously, as well as Forrest has said previously, came from opinion.
As was brought up in my last post, its a fact that everyone has their own opinions. Everyone knows that. So me being "incredibly presumptuous as well as being patently untrue" is neither correct, nor incorrect. It's all based off opinion.

Since your opinion had a known conflict with reality, I proceeded to call the veracity of your statement into question. While you can very well form the opinion that atheists lead unhappy lives, you can also be wrong due to your statement being objectively false. You are welcome to have your own opinions, however, a statement made with the status of 'opinion' is not immune to criticism, especially when it is based on objective truths that can be used to validate or refute your assertions.

@Trophy Wife What I'm saying is that we can't simply rule it out as a possibility. There's no way of knowing if the law of physics we observe today are how they've always been. Simulations that are being attempted to explain the creation of the universe actually suggest that those laws where not the same as they are now.

I was actually more or less saying there isn't a definitive answer to how the universe was created, not so much the human race, and was merely suggesting intervention. Not that it's what I believe, but it isn't not possible. I've read/watched through a bunch of theories, and they all had their valid points. None of us have the insight required to say what is the correct answer, but we can kind of rule out what isn't.

And yes, I used it correctly.

Given the proper amount of time I have no doubt that the human race could creating a being. Who's to say some other form of life hasn't already achieved this? I'm not saying we're a product of this, but... I think you see what I'm getting at.

I understand what you're saying, but my question is why you feel your proposed ideas of intervention or ID deserve the same plausibility as those with actual empirical foundations. The problem, I find, is that there are literally an infinite amount of things one cannot disprove, however, simply invoking an idea into existence does not grant it the same plausibility as those that are in the realm of reality. This is because reality is very specific in what is real and what is not. Fact of the matter is that there will always be more variations of a claim than reality can support, which is why when extraordinary claims are presented, we do not make the assumption that it has a possibility of being valid unless there is reason to think that it is. The idea of a prime mover guiding the evolutionary process is a superfluous one, and there is absolutely no reason to include divine intervention in an equation when it is not needed or necessary. Adding unnecessary components to an equation only creates more problems than it solves.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with Russell's teapot, but it describes this dichotomy much more eloquently:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

-Bertrand Russell

[bowlcut]

Everything you just said, came from opinion. And ALMOST everything I have said previously, as well as Forrest has said previously, came from opinion.
As was brought up in my last post, its a fact that everyone has their own opinions. Everyone knows that. So me being "incredibly presumptuous as well as being patently untrue" is neither correct, nor incorrect. It's all based off opinion.

Actually, they did a study on it.
About 1,000 Atheists and 1,000 Christians were tested for all that stuff.
Atheists tend to be sadder, and Christians tend to be dumber. Not saying all Atheists are depressed or all Christians are stupid, it's just the majority.

[Empire]

answer this:

how come with all the powerful telescopes that we have how come we cant find your so called god?

Ok this guy is retarded, ignored.

[Mr-[S]nipe]

answer this:

how come with all the powerful telescopes that we have how come we cant find your so called god?

Thats not how we see god.
God is bigger than the earth he is bigger than the galaxy there is no way you could see him threw a uhm telescope... lmao

God speaks threw people with actions .

Ok this guy is retarded, ignored.

Agree 100% though i answered his question xD