Is there a god? <dramatic music>

Jasonmrc · **Posted:** June 5th, 2007, 2:58 pm

Quote:

Just because you don't think something could exist doesn't mean you have to call that thing a delusion (thus calling the believer a delusionist, thus insulting)

Why not?

Lol...I guess you don't understand that that statement goes againt you also? I don't think your theories could exist so according to you that makes you delusional. And no, i'm not saying you are, but by your words it would mean you are.

Quote:

There is absolutely no difference between a belief in God and a belief that the rain is talking to you by tapping morse code on your window. Both are absolutely irrational and unjustified.

Have you ever been told that the rain can talk to you? I hope not because it CAN'T. (Your going to say I just went against myself, ahh, yep you just thought it) You haven't been told the rain can talk, and neither have I, and its been proven it can't talk...Or has it? What if rain talks at a higher desible then we can hear? Yea its one of my 'delusions' again as you like to call them. No I am not saying the rain can talk but just because something hasn't been proven with rational (your favorite word) reasoning it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means it doesn't exist to you.

Quote:

Also, you have gone and fallen into a trap which I did not purposefully put there, but which was there nevertheless. First, you say you have had no evidence for God's existence, by taking the latter out of evidence vs delusion; then you go and say you have evidence for god's existence through prayers (not sure I see the validity of that evidence, but never mind). You completely contradicted yourself.

When did I say I had no evidence?

I have evidence, its things I have witnessed, but ofcourse my word isn't good enough for you because i'm 'deluded' as you say. And 'deluded' people's words aren't worth listen to, isn't that right? If you would trust me you would have evidence, but you won't believe me because i'm 'delusional'.

If i'm not 'delusional' then why won't you take my word as your hard evidence?

Quote:

What did you pray for, anyway? That the sun would come up tomorrow?

Why would I do that? If he wants it to it will, or if your scientific thoeries want it to it will. Alteast if it didn't we wouldn't be argueing over this endless topic anymore.

Quote:

Give us an example of what you prayed for which came true.

Well I could say I prayed for people to live when the doctors said they would probably die or I could say I prayed for people to be healed when they were very sick, or I could even say I prayed to be protected from a storm. But what would it matter? You wouldn't believe it, you have no value for my word.

Quote:

Time for some quotes from David Hume

Who? A scientist or one of your friends?

Quote:

In your case, you claim that your prayers were answered by god, because you want them to be answered by god.

And your scientific rational reasoning for them being answered is...?

Quote:

Assumptions based around only feelings and things (like, oh, religion?) are bad. Assumptions based upon evidence, or the absence thereof, are not.

What? the 'absence thereof' means nothing is there, it means you thought it up. And if something didn't have hard rational evidence, wouldn't you disbelieve it?

Quote:

'Fact' means incontrovertible truth. Prove God exists, right now, right here, or take back the word 'fact'.

Again, I have the 'facts' but again, you don't believe them.

Quote:

I have, however, said that assuming an egomaniac rapist pervert oh-so-loving deity to exist is completely illogical, irrational, unreasonable and unjustifiable.

You know my response.

Galations 6:7 wrote:

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

Would an author make up a statement like that?

Quote:

That would be giving up, which, just like religion, is lazy.

Well we have one thing in common, neither of us will give up easy. If we were sitting at a table we'd probably both be shouting each other to death by now.

Deuteronomy 9:13 wrote:

I have seen this people, and they are a stiff-necked people indeed!

Carl Sagan wrote:

Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.

'Knowledge'. You don't have knowledge that he doesn't exist.
'Frame of Mind'. Would that be like my deluded Frame of mind? Or some other type?

Anubis wrote:

Of course it does, but how on earth does a 6yr old child who likes sonic the hedgehog (and obviously not had witnessed a birth before) manage to reconstruct an exact replica of a birth happening at the same time while sleeping?

I've had things like that happen, where I dream it and it happens soon or is happening. Can science explain that?

2 Corinthians 12:10 wrote:

That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

You can keep insulting me and calling me delusional but in the end if there is a God then you're the one who lived the delusion of God not existing.

Am I saying I will win this arguement? No. I'm not. I know neither of us will win this, it will only be ended when one of us die, which I hope is not soon for either of us.

I'll leave you with this.

Quote:

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

And that I hope you'll accept my challenge.

Adbot · **Posted:** June 5th, 2007, 2:58 pm

Brad · **Posted:** June 5th, 2007, 3:15 pm

What I fail to understand, is why religious people always act in this way when people express an opinion that is contrary to their own. MOTV didn't say you were stupid, he didn't offend your 'god' whoever that might be. He simply displayed an opinion opposite to what you believe in. You all seem to jump to arms like you are defending yourselves. From what exactly? Your own insecurities about your beliefs? You're trying to defend yourself from an attack thats not come and never will. And through your poor defense of what you believe merely shows your true insecurity and inability to handle the fact that someone in this world might not like what you think and might not agree with what you say.

I don't believe in god, people can care what they like about that. People can judge me for good or for bad about it and it doesn't matter to me and equally I don't mind if people choose to believe the idea of a god. What does annoy me however is when religious people assume that every word said against their beliefs, is an attack. And by believing thus, they are just exposing their deep chasms of insecurity and doubt about what they so strongly profess to believe as truth.

Anubis · **Posted:** June 5th, 2007, 3:37 pm

I find it ironic that most Atheists appear to care more about whether God exists or not than those who truly believe in a God. XD

We've questioned religion's integrity enough now.

Let's talk about the cambrian explosion.

Brad · **Posted:** June 5th, 2007, 3:38 pm

Anubis wrote:

I find it ironic that most Atheists appear to care more about whether God exists or not than those who truly believe in a God. XD

We've questioned religion's integrity enough now.

Let's talk about the cambrian explosion.

Well that's just basic logic o.0

You believe in him, so you're not likely to debate whether or not he exists or not.

...

?

Anubis · **Posted:** June 5th, 2007, 3:51 pm

Of course it is, then may I argue that is also the insecure beliefs of an atheist that invoke such debates?

The Cambrian explosion I believe is the most significant arguement against the evolution theory. It was a geological point in time where animals which had supposedly evolved from one another appeared in the same place. So for example, two fossils were found and dated at 1500BC, one was a Dodo and another was a modern day chicken.

Obviously you know about the Cambrian explosion, I hear it had it's own chapter in Darwin's book. I'm just curious as to why it's still a significant arguement against the theory of evolution which is essentially the atheist bible, forgive the expression. What has Darwin said about it?

The Haysta · **Posted:** June 5th, 2007, 9:12 pm

Anubis wrote:

<blah> 6 y/o ickle nubish witnessing a birth </blah>

What you are talking about is called Astral Travelling/Projection, I think.

*some googling later*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_projection
http://www.psychics.co.uk/astraltravel/

It's one of those things I always wish was a Lunar spell...

Adbot · **Posted:** June 5th, 2007, 9:12 pm

Brad · **Posted:** June 6th, 2007, 4:28 am

Anubis wrote:

Of course it is, then may I argue that is also the insecure beliefs of an atheist that invoke such debates?

The Cambrian explosion I believe is the most significant arguement against the evolution theory. It was a geological point in time where animals which had supposedly evolved from one another appeared in the same place. So for example, two fossils were found and dated at 1500BC, one was a Dodo and another was a modern day chicken.

Obviously you know about the Cambrian explosion, I hear it had it's own chapter in Darwin's book. I'm just curious as to why it's still a significant arguement against the theory of evolution which is essentially the atheist bible, forgive the expression. What has Darwin said about it?

No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No. You've got it completely wrong. I've read 'On The Origin Of Species' Several times and never was anything of that sort mentioned in the book. I thought I may have missed it so browsed several online articles about the Cambrian period and found absolutely no credit to your claims.

Pre-Cambrian (600 Million years ago) the majority of the life on earth had not evolved past the form of algae, bacteria or plankton, then about 550 million years ago a great burst of diversification took place, and from almost not evolving, animals began to start to take the various appearance and characteristics that we recognize today. (bear in mind though, this did happen over the period of millions of years, just compared to the speed it had been going at, it seemed extremely fast).

Now on to Darwin's book, the chapter that deals with the Cambrian Explosion is "On the imperfections of the geological record". The sudden appearance of species may seem to question the theory of evolution itself, but thats not exactly the same as you stated "So for example, two fossils were found and dated at 1500BC, one was a Dodo and another was a modern day chicken." Far from it, in fact. Darwin's main argument against the sudden appearance of species, is as I explained in the first paragraph. He acknowledges that if indeed, many species suddenly appeared almost from nothing, it would be against the the theory of evolution by natural selection. But, as I stated in the first paragraph. Although at the time, it appeared this way, they did not just 'appear from nothing' it was just the great speed (If you can call 50 million years great speed =p) that evolution had increased by. Considering it had taken hundreds, possibly thousands of millions of years for creatures to evolve to plankton, algae, and bacteria, and suddenly in the span of 50 million years, their rate of evolution was greatly increased. Its easy to make the flawed assumption the newly evolved creatures appeared 'from nothing'.

MattVortex · **Posted:** June 6th, 2007, 5:14 am

Jasonmrc wrote:

Quote:

Just because you don't think something could exist doesn't mean you have to call that thing a delusion (thus calling the believer a delusionist, thus insulting)

Why not?

Lol...I guess you don't understand that that statement goes againt you also? I don't think your theories could exist so according to you that makes you delusional. And no, i'm not saying you are, but by your words it would mean you are.

No, I didnt, and you missed out the quote I said. Everyone has the right to say that an unjustified belief is a delusional belief. My beliefs about the big bang and evolution are justified, and there is no evidence than can't be refuted that disproves either theory. Creationists have tried the flagellal motor argument, have tried loads of other things like trying to find some blueshift, but they havent. With lots of evidence for evolution, and no evidence against it, you cannot justifiably say it is false (or a delusion). In a court, people have to show things are true beyond 'reasonable doubt'. Well, evolution and the big bang are. The only doubt posed is by people like you, and doubt like that is irrational.

Quote:

There is absolutely no difference between a belief in God and a belief that the rain is talking to you by tapping morse code on your window. Both are absolutely irrational and unjustified.

Have you ever been told that the rain can talk to you? I hope not because it CAN'T. (Your going to say I just went against myself, ahh, yep you just thought it) You haven't been told the rain can talk, and neither have I, and its been proven it can't talk...Or has it? What if rain talks at a higher desible then we can hear? Yea its one of my 'delusions' again as you like to call them. No I am not saying the rain can talk but just because something hasn't been proven with rational (your favorite word) reasoning it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means it doesn't exist to you.

Both rain talking to you and god existing are irrational and unjustifiable things, thats why I said it. There is NO difference between believing in God and believing the rain talks to you, therefore you saying it cant is unjustified.

And yeah, I like rationalism. It's better than psychotic beliefs, unjustified mad delusions and lies.

Quote:

Also, you have gone and fallen into a trap which I did not purposefully put there, but which was there nevertheless. First, you say you have had no evidence for God's existence, by taking the latter out of evidence vs delusion; then you go and say you have evidence for god's existence through prayers (not sure I see the validity of that evidence, but never mind). You completely contradicted yourself.

When did I say I had no evidence?

I said that no-one can know anything without either a) having evidence or b) being delusional. You then said I had called you delusional, implying that you had no evidence. Then you said you did have evidence.

Quote:

I have evidence, its things I have witnessed, but ofcourse my word isn't good enough for you because i'm 'deluded' as you say. And 'deluded' people's words aren't worth listen to, isn't that right? If you would trust me you would have evidence, but you won't believe me because i'm 'delusional'

If a madman was jabbering on at you about satellites wanting to steal his toast would you believe him? I think not. That I why I dont believe you.

Quote:

What did you pray for, anyway? That the sun would come up tomorrow?

Why would I do that? If he wants it to it will, or if your scientific thoeries want it to it will. Alteast if it didn't we wouldn't be argueing over this endless topic anymore.

Our scientific theories dont want it to. They know with almost 100% certainty it will, because it did yesterday, and the day before, and there is no reason for it to not to tomorrow. I'm sure scientists would want the sun to come up, because we'd all be dead without it, but the scientific theories do not want it to. Saying that is like saying a book wants to be read. It doesnt want to be read, because it cant want.

Quote:

Give us an example of what you prayed for which came true.

Well I could say I prayed for people to live when the doctors said they would probably die or I could say I prayed for people to be healed when they were very sick, or I could even say I prayed to be protected from a storm. But what would it matter? You wouldn't believe it, you have no value for my word.

Of course I wouldnt. Did you read the quote from David Hume? I'll post it here again, shall I...

Quote:

[There has never been] in all history, a miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestionable good sense, education and learning, as to secure us against all delusion of themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to decieve others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time, attesting facts performed in such a public manner and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render to detection unavoidable.

Quote:

Time for some quotes from David Hume

Who? A scientist or one of your friends?

An 18th century philosopher. Generally regarded as one of the first open atheists.

Quote:

In your case, you claim that your prayers were answered by god, because you want them to be answered by god.

And your scientific rational reasoning for them being answered is...?

If there were answered, I would say consequence, uncertainty - in terms of things like medicine, life and death, no one can be absolutely sure. Note, however, that I said claim. I'm not taking your word that they were answered anyway.

Quote:

Assumptions based around only feelings and things (like, oh, religion?) are bad. Assumptions based upon evidence, or the absence thereof, are not.

What? the 'absence thereof' means nothing is there, it means you thought it up. And if something didn't have hard rational evidence, wouldn't you disbelieve it?

'Absence thereof' there implies that if there is no evidence for something, it can be justifiably assumed that it is not true - I apologise, I should have made that more clear. There is no evidence, therefore we can assume he does not exist. There is no evidence that evolution is not correct, therefore we can justifiably assume it is.

Quote:

'Fact' means incontrovertible truth. Prove God exists, right now, right here, or take back the word 'fact'.

Again, I have the 'facts' but again, you don't believe them.

I am this close to flaming you.

You do NOT have FACTS. You have BELIEFS. Without PROOF, they are NOT FACTS.

Let's have a look in the dictionary, shall we:

n.

God cannot be observed, and people who 'experience' him are very likely to be delusional, mad, or just plain desperate for some 'proof' of his 'existence'. Also, these 'experiences' are rather arbritrary. Science can be recreated again and again, whereas these delusions of experience cannot. And have these 'experiences' ever happened to atheists? No. They happen to people who want them to happen; to people who go to evangelical churches and are surrrounded by people who are also under the same delusions.

God's existence is not known to be true, not my me, not by you, not by anyone, therefore it cannot be called a fact, and doing so is WRONG.

Remember, I cannot say it is a fact that he doesnt exist.

Quote:

I have, however, said that assuming an egomaniac rapist pervert oh-so-loving deity to exist is completely illogical, irrational, unreasonable and unjustifiable.

You know my response.

Galations 6:7 wrote:

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

Would an author make up a statement like that?

Yes. To create fear amongst already brainwashed people. 'If you insult god he will smite you down' etc makes fear amongst people with weak minds. Those with strong minds know he is talking bullsh*t to try and brainwash people more. Also, it's Galatians, not Galations.

Quote:

That would be giving up, which, just like religion, is lazy.

Well we have one thing in common, neither of us will give up easy. If we were sitting at a table we'd probably both be shouting each other to death by now.

I am quite sure we would. I'm also quite sure I would be burning your precious bible, too.

Quote:

Carl Sagan wrote:

Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.

'Knowledge'. You don't have knowledge that he doesn't exist.
'Frame of Mind'. Would that be like my deluded Frame of mind? Or some other type?

We dont have knowledge that he doesnt exist, but you dont have knowledge that he does; therefore the only sensible thing to do is assume he doesnt. If your best friend or parent told you there was a huge invisible dragon out in the back garden would you believe them? No. It is only sensible not to. Atheists think the same about your god.

And yes, it is another frame of mind. Did you even read the passage? - 'a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.', rather than a weak frame of mind that believes in something unjustifiably without question.

Quote:

Anubis wrote:

Of course it does, but how on earth does a 6yr old child who likes sonic the hedgehog (and obviously not had witnessed a birth before) manage to reconstruct an exact replica of a birth happening at the same time while sleeping?

I've had things like that happen, where I dream it and it happens soon or is happening. Can science explain that?

Lies, hallucinations, coincidences. There is no rational reason to call it god, or anything religious. (How many times have I said that now?)

Quote:

You can keep insulting me and calling me delusional but in the end if there is a God then you're the one who lived the delusion of God not existing.

HA! Again! You said 'If there is a god' - meaning uncertainty - unlike your so-called evidence you keep mentioning all the time.

And how is believing god does not exist a delusion? If you say not believing in god is a delusion, then you have no right to say that rain talking to you is a delusion, or an invisible dragon in your garden was a delusion, or anything else equally stupid and irrational was a delusion.

Quote:

I'll leave you with this.

Quote:

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

And that I hope you'll accept my challenge.

Haha. Bless me, pray for me, whatever you like. I dont care. But I am having a great time laughing at that.

Anubis · **Posted:** June 6th, 2007, 2:13 pm

Brad wrote:

No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No. You've got it completely wrong. I've read 'On The Origin Of Species' Several times and never was anything of that sort mentioned in the book. I thought I may have missed it so browsed several online articles about the Cambrian period and found absolutely no credit to your claims.

Pre-Cambrian (600 Million years ago) the majority of the life on earth had not evolved past the form of algae, bacteria or plankton, then about 550 million years ago a great burst of diversification took place, and from almost not evolving, animals began to start to take the various appearance and characteristics that we recognize today. (bear in mind though, this did happen over the period of millions of years, just compared to the speed it had been going at, it seemed extremely fast).

Now on to Darwin's book, the chapter that deals with the Cambrian Explosion is "On the imperfections of the geological record". The sudden appearance of species may seem to question the theory of evolution itself, but thats not exactly the same as you stated "So for example, two fossils were found and dated at 1500BC, one was a Dodo and another was a modern day chicken." Far from it, in fact. Darwin's main argument against the sudden appearance of species, is as I explained in the first paragraph. He acknowledges that if indeed, many species suddenly appeared almost from nothing, it would be against the the theory of evolution by natural selection. But, as I stated in the first paragraph. Although at the time, it appeared this way, they did not just 'appear from nothing' it was just the great speed (If you can call 50 million years great speed =p) that evolution had increased by. Considering it had taken hundreds, possibly thousands of millions of years for creatures to evolve to plankton, algae, and bacteria, and suddenly in the span of 50 million years, their rate of evolution was greatly increased. Its easy to make the flawed assumption the newly evolved creatures appeared 'from nothing'.

Ohh, I see. Fair enough. Thanks for explaining it to me, sources aren't very good at explaining it.

So why was it that these creatures evolves at such a "fast" rate compared to now?

Brad · **Posted:** June 6th, 2007, 2:25 pm

Anubis wrote:

Ohh, I see. Fair enough. Thanks for explaining it to me, sources aren't very good at explaining it.

So why was it that these creatures evolves at such a "fast" rate compared to now?

Many people have different theories, the most prominent one seems to be the increase of oxygen in the atmosphere at that time. Which would have increased the amount of fuel available for movement and growth.

Anubis · **Posted:** June 6th, 2007, 2:44 pm

Global Warming is supposed to be caused by the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so would that mean that evolution would slow down at this point? Or speed up, because oxygen is more condense?

Brad · **Posted:** June 6th, 2007, 2:53 pm

Anubis wrote:

Global Warming is supposed to be caused by the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so would that mean that evolution would slow down at this point? Or speed up, because oxygen is more condense?

Due to increased health care evolution is already slowing down. Medically speaking 'weak' people are able to survive and pass on their genes because of treatments and medicines whereas before they would have died. Survival of the fittest is less applicable now because well.. not only the fit survive. I'm not exactly sure how global warming would impact on evolution in that way. Can't see it being a major factor though.

Anubis · **Posted:** June 6th, 2007, 3:09 pm

Brad wrote:

Due to increased health care evolution is already slowing down. Medically speaking 'weak' people are able to survive and pass on their genes because of treatments and medicines whereas before they would have died. Survival of the fittest is less applicable now because well.. not only the fit survive. I'm not exactly sure how global warming would impact on evolution in that way. Can't see it being a major factor though.

Well, I asked because there have been reports of certain fungi fruiting twice a year because of the increase in heat. Which I guess (to a basic level anyway) contradicts that more oxygen = faster evolution. Though, to be fair, if there's more CO2 it doesn't necessarily mean that there's less Oxygen at all.

Evelyn · **Posted:** June 6th, 2007, 7:34 pm

50 million years ago there were not cars around to pollute the earth.

Brad · **Posted:** June 7th, 2007, 8:54 am

Anubis wrote:

Brad wrote:

Due to increased health care evolution is already slowing down. Medically speaking 'weak' people are able to survive and pass on their genes because of treatments and medicines whereas before they would have died. Survival of the fittest is less applicable now because well.. not only the fit survive. I'm not exactly sure how global warming would impact on evolution in that way. Can't see it being a major factor though.

Well, I asked because there have been reports of certain fungi fruiting twice a year because of the increase in heat. Which I guess (to a basic level anyway) contradicts that more oxygen = faster evolution. Though, to be fair, if there's more CO2 it doesn't necessarily mean that there's less Oxygen at all.[/quote

I don't necessarily believe that more oxygen will result in humans evolving faster. It certainly won't inhibit our evolution but won't do anything to drastically improve its speed, if it did, I think the difference is likely to be negligible. But thats just my personal view.