# Intelligence Debate > Creation/Evolution poll xD



## Way.Of.The.Mantis

Ive made this poll as a result of reading the extended topic about the intelligence of mantids...

Im not trying to spark another debate, but hey they're good right? Although I dont know if this is a secular board or not :wink:

:idea: I realise I may have been quite general with the options, but you can add your own in reply after hitting 'other'.

Ciao!

*WOAH I GO AWAY FOR 2 WEEKS AND THIS EXTENDS TO 12 PAGES!*


----------



## Rick

First choice.


----------



## randyardvark

impersonal designer, i think it might just be me trying to believe theres something bigger, re incarnation is a nice belief of mine 2, none of that heaven and heck stuff


----------



## ABbuggin

Second choice. It only makes sense.


----------



## OGIGA

I'm surprised that Creation is in the lead.  Didn't expect that in an insect forum.


----------



## Way.Of.The.Mantis

God is still in the lead! :wink:


----------



## Ian

Why didn't you include Noel Edmonds on the poll? He is cleaarly the answer to any question of this nature.


----------



## Way.Of.The.Mantis

I would have, but deal or no deal wanted payment for the copyright :wink:

If you ask me, Jessica Alba is the answer to everthing..think about it, 'would you like Jessica with that?


----------



## Ian

Yea...Okay the answer would always be yes, but I just don't see her having such an authorititive attitude as Noel. Plus, she doesn't wear floral shirts. (Okay...that does have an advantage  )


----------



## Way.Of.The.Mantis

> If you ask me, Jessica Alba is the answer to everything


Id like to change answers Ian... Arielle Kebbel


----------



## athicks

First choice!



> I'm surprised that Creation is in the lead.  Didn't expect that in an insect forum.


I'm surprised too!


----------



## robo mantis

> Why didn't you include Noel Edmonds on the poll? He is cleaarly the answer to any question of this nature.


Wow ian wow lol i say God!!!!!!!!


----------



## Asa

Numba' two.


----------



## robo mantis

Thanks God i never knew we had so many christians here like me :shock:


----------



## Asa

Yep, appears to be lots of Christians. Rather surprising.


----------



## robo mantis

Yeah but expect the unexpected christians are everywhere which is good


----------



## Asa

Well, there are only 18 votes.


----------



## robo mantis

Yeah but not many will vote.


----------



## Asa

How could they?! I love polls! :twisted:


----------



## Johnald Chaffinch

*how life will have begun : from a primitive form of natural selection - the survival of the fittest chain of molecules to the environment. *

if you're asking how did all of this universe come to be - the ONLY explanation is that the whole multi-verse is infinite and chaotic, the opposite of nothing. put it this way, the multiverse cant have started from nothing - because that's self-evident, something cant come from nothing. there cant be just some-thing - because that would have demanded some decision maker, the only possibility at the root of it all is infinite chaos, everything. this is because there are probabilities within infinities.

life will develop in some different types of places, this is just one of them, a likely place for it to happen.

believing in a god for an explanation is avoiding obvious obstacles in thought, like what created the god. this is all natural common sense, you dont need to be an expert in physics to think about these things because physics as we know it will not exist outside this universe - so it's irrelevant to the fundamental question.

there is one possibility though for all the religious hopefuls - that this is a biocosm, the theory that 'this universe' was created by a more highly evolved being/race.

but at some point that would have developed in the way i stated above. it's very unlikely, but possible.

also if you'd like to believe in an afterlife than just think how what makes you up is part of an infinite and eternal metaverse, you might get recycled.


----------



## robo mantis

I disagree God made himself because he wanted to be here but when he made us he is so smart we can't wrap our minds around it. Just thinking about it makes us confused thats why he is God and we are human.


----------



## jmac27

I chose the option "Other" because I don't think this is knowable information. Neither science nor religion will ever prove how life or the universe began. I think the big bang theory, the theory that life is a cosmological accident, and any religious theories or beliefs are all equally ridiculous explanations for the start to everything. I don't deny any possibilities, however. Anything is possible. I just personally don't like to assume one way or the other. Perhaps the only way we will find out the answers to the big questions will be in death. But who knows, we may die as clueless as the day we were born.


----------



## spawn

Don't sell yourself short, Ian. Katie Price Jordan is a gorgeous piece of meat.


----------



## Johnald Chaffinch

i need to word myself better...


----------



## Asa

God did not make himself. He was and always will be. We are not supposed to fully understand him. He gave us physics to determine wordly objects, obviously not spiritual. Physics do not apply, because to God, time does not exist. He sees all time as always happening. As you are typing he also sees Roman Gladiators preparing for battle. Sorry my opinion is so vague, but as I said, until we are in heaven or heck, we will not fully understand. I love spiritual discussions/debates


----------



## robo mantis

Sorry Asa i meant he was always there i got a little off track.


----------



## Asa

Don't worry, I know what you meant :wink:


----------



## AFK

I hope I can gain enough understanding to accept Jesus as my Saviour.


----------



## OGIGA

> religion is a mental disorder. seriously.i invite any religious person to prove that there is a god or that creationism is true (without using circular reasoning), and i will quickly debunk each argument.


If this forum were FatWallet, I'd give you red. If you're just here to offend people, why don't you stay out?

By the way, read stuff by Hugh Ross. As I recall, he said that Einstein's theory of (general?) relativity states that an intelligent agent must exist before the universe did. A lot of people happen to call this intelligent agent God. :wink:


----------



## robo mantis

Ogiga got you there also there were witnesses to darwins death and he said before he died that he knew all the stuff he said were lies. He said that only a few people witnessed it.


----------



## AFK

> religion is a mental disorder. seriously.i invite any religious person to prove that there is a god or that creationism is true (without using circular reasoning), and i will quickly debunk each argument.
> 
> 
> 
> If this forum were FatWallet, I'd give you red. If you're just here to offend people, why don't you stay out?
Click to expand...

if you get offended by something that challenges your beliefs, then you need to develop a thicker skin.



> By the way, read stuff by Hugh Ross.


if hugh ross wants to challenge me, let him do so. i want to hear YOUR counterarguments.



> As I recall, he said that Einstein's theory of (general?) relativity states that an intelligent agent must exist before the universe did. A lot of people happen to call this intelligent agent God. :wink:


1. this is the logical fallacy called "appeal to authority."

2. an intelligent agent must exist before the universe did = assertion

where is the evidence? assertions are NOT proofs until proven.

3. "A lot of people happen to call this intelligent agent Gos." one's personal feelings are moot considering that this is a point of logic. where is the evidence to support the assertion?


----------



## AFK

> Ogiga got you there


he didn't get me with anything other than saying what you already believe.



> also there were witnesses to darwins death and he said before he died that he knew all the stuff he said were lies. He said that only a few people witnessed it.


what is your source and how credible is it? either way, what darwin says does not in anyway make an argument more or less true/accurate. thinking so commits the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority."


----------



## Asa

There's plenty of ways to prove Darwin was wrong.

AFK, Here's a question, "Prove God doesn't exist"


----------



## OGIGA

I think we should all ignore AFK. He's going to get this thread locked like all the other threads when he starts doing things like this. Just watch him toss around definitions to make it seem like you can never convince him of anything.


----------



## Asa

But these discussions are so fun.

AFK, I am saddened by your stubborness to even consider... If an assertion is a judgement whereby truth lies, then God could then be considered an assertion. But if God were an assertion, then there would be not faith. Therefore God is judgement; judgement is counterparted by mercy, which allows judgement to enter the realm of assertion. When judgement ends, or when the world ends, there will be mercy and justice, but no assertion. And without assertion, the supposed passage between the two would be destroyed, thereby destroying any created forms. Following the belief that God was not created by any cosmic accident, then that would contradict atheism and any other known relegion anti to Christianity. I have skimmed the surface of books written by the genius Thomas Aquinas. Today's philosophers are still trying to unravel the mysteries hidden inside his books. We believe that he had a vision of heaven, and compared his books to it, and called them nothing but 'straw' and left them uncompleted. All of what I have written was what my faith dictates. How could an intelligent being not exist? The odds of a single cell, let alone the world could be created coinciedentaly are almost impossible to number within the amount of pages this website could hold. My little view.


----------



## robo mantis

Also how could our earth perfectly be positioned but no others our sun is 1 in a billion. A little fact is that if we were 1 mile closer we would all burn how does that happen by accedent???


----------



## athicks

You only think it is by accident because you have not seen all of the instable, failed planetary systems. Chance plays a larger part in life than most people think about.


----------



## athicks

Oh! and only one more vote for the evolutionists to be tied!


----------



## jmac27

I think AFK is wrong to deny the existence of God and to attack those that do believe in God. I also think it's wrong to spew forth unfounded arguments and statements. AFK, if you're going to criticize religion, do so in a less offensive manner. It makes us non-believers look as bad as those that push the religions on us. As for you who believe in God, don't lie about things you've heard, like Darwin saying his life's work was a lie. That's just ridiculous. If you're going to argue in favor of the existence of God, do so in an open-minded fashion and consider other possibilities as well. I don't like close minded people that deny things without ever giving thought to the other persons ideas. That goes both for atheists and Christians alike. I think you're both wrong, to be honest. You can't prove that God exists and you can't prove he doesn't; we'll just never know.

I think science and religion both have completely far out and ridiculous assumptions. You think it's crazy that somehow we're positioned in _exactly_ the right place by complete chance and that somehow conditions were perfect in a primordial earth for the right organic compounds to come together and create the phenomenon we call life? I'd agree with you, it sounds crazy. Then again, a God that creates a universe, introduces people without giving them any consent to be part of existence and without giving them any list of rules or laws by which to live by and never once giving proof of himself is equally insane in my mind. I think Christianity is equally as nihilistic as atheism. Both make life out, on this world, to be completely pointless.


----------



## AFK

> There's plenty of ways to prove Darwin was wrong.


assuming you're talking about evolution, i'd like to hear one of these many ways. also, just as a warning, i may or may not entertain with a response, not because i'm ignoring you, but because my original terms were that i will attempt to debunk challenges that creationism is true, not evolution. the latter is a whole another can of worms.  



> AFK, Here's a question, "Prove God doesn't exist"


1. the burden of proof is on the positive. proving something isn't or doesn't is a negative. the DEFAULT condition is that there is no god so therefore, it is the theist's sole responsibility to prove that there is god. it's like going up someone and saying that there is an invisible cat in the room right now, and if that someone objects, you tell him that's he wrong because he can't prove that there is an invisible cat. in fact, this can be said with ANY negative:

person A: the loch ness monster exists.

person B: i disagree. it doesn't exist.

person A: prove that it doesn't exist.

person B: ######?

person A: see, since you can't prove that it doesn't exist, the loch ness monster exists.

person B: ######.

2. proving this negative is impossible. there is no way to check every corner of the universe for god, and even if you could, while you are checking one corner, he might have just moved to another. some theists might jump at this point to proclaim victory, but this resembles NOTHING like a victory of any sort. proving the non-existence of god is just as impossible as it is to prove the existence of god. the bottomline still remains: there is NO REASON whatsoever to believe there is a god.


----------



## AFK

> I think we should all ignore AFK. He's going to get this thread locked like all the other threads when he starts doing things like this. Just watch him toss around definitions to make it seem like you can never convince him of anything.


people tend to get upset at things they don't understand.


----------



## AFK

> But these discussions are so fun.AFK, I am saddened by your stubborness to even consider... If an assertion is a judgement whereby truth lies, then God could then be considered an assertion. But if God were an assertion, then there would be not faith. Therefore God is judgement; judgement is counterparted by mercy, which allows judgement to enter the realm of assertion. When judgement ends, or when the world ends, there will be mercy and justice, but no assertion. And without assertion, the supposed passage between the two would be destroyed, thereby destroying any created forms. Following the belief that God was not created by any cosmic accident, then that would contradict atheism and any other known relegion anti to Christianity. I have skimmed the surface of books written by the genius Thomas Aquinas. Today's philosophers are still trying to unravel the mysteries hidden inside his books. We believe that he had a vision of heaven, and compared his books to it, and called them nothing but 'straw' and left them uncompleted. All of what I have written was what my faith dictates. How could an intelligent being not exist? The odds of a single cell, let alone the world could be created coinciedentaly are almost impossible to number within the amount of pages this website could hold. My little view.


i never said that assertions are pointless. all i said was that assertions require evidence to believe in.

faith is the suspension of logic and rationality in order to believe in something irrational.


----------



## AFK

> Also how could our earth perfectly be positioned but no others our sun is 1 in a billion. A little fact is that if we were 1 mile closer we would all burn how does that happen by accedent???


1. equally incredible are the following:

A. what are the chances that i dropped this pencil at precisely 9:32pm PST at this exact same angle and i'm also thinking about my mantises at the same time? close to 0.

B. what are the chances that i'm typing this post in this is exact, particular syntax and diction? close to 0.

in both scenarios, which have already happened, are they INDICATIVE of divine intervention? no.

2. also to consider (or rather, remember) is that yes, of course our earth is perfectly positioned. that is exactly why life exists. give the gazillion number of stars and planets out there, the probability of a planet in earth's position is close to 100%.

---------------------------------------

so in light of #1 and #2, there is actually nothing unusual about your observation. it's amazing under very certain specific contexts, e.g. scenarios A and B would be otherwise unusual too without those certain specified contexts.


----------



## AFK

anyway, i hope this thread doesn't get locked. debate to me is a sport, and i also hope that out of all this, that i can get some people to start examining about their faith (because i do see this as a very relevent social issue...that's another can of worms though), whether it *strengthens *or *weakens *it.


----------



## AFK

> I think AFK is wrong to deny the existence of God


how is that wrong? there is just simply no reason for me to believe in a god. the theists have to prove to me that there is one. how can a default position be "wrong" until the positive is proven? it's illogical.



> and to attack those that do believe in God.


this is a discussion forum, not to mention that this thread is specifically titled as a DEBATE, so i'm just starting a discussion/debate. granted, i may have injected some emotion into my approach, but i genuinely feel that way - that it's a social problem, but again, i'm focusing on another topic at the moment, i.e. whether creationism or god exists. if my emotions offends, i don't think it's that difficult to ignore.



> I also think it's wrong to spew forth unfounded arguments and statements.


show me one single unfounded argument/statement of mine. in fact, i'm the one who's preaching about providing evidence to an assertion.



> AFK, if you're going to criticize religion, do so in a less offensive manner. It makes us non-believers look as bad as those that push the religions on us.


as i said above, my approach may have been emotional, but it's not really that overbearing that it needs to become melodramatic. also, i don't think anyone will associate all non-believers being the same as me.



> You can't prove that God exists and you can't prove he doesn't; we'll just never know.


exactly. there is just simply no logical reason to believe (i dare anyone to bring up pascal's wager lol). and no, fear is not a logical reason.

also, the burden of proof rests on the positive, not the negative.



> I think science and religion both have completely far out and ridiculous assumptions. You think it's crazy that somehow we're positioned in _exactly_ the right place by complete chance and that somehow conditions were perfect in a primordial earth for the right organic compounds to come together and create the phenomenon we call life? I'd agree with you, it sounds crazy.


sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. just become something is "strange" doesn't mean it's false. also, things are ONLY "strange" because we are not accustomed to the newness of a seemingly radical idea/discovery, e.g. just 100 years ago, jets would be stranger than fiction. i think what happens is that people often think more by their emotions than by rationality. people of power; e.g. governments, the media, corporations, etc.; are aware of this human weakness and capitalize on it by creating propaganda, political campaigns that focus more on sensationalism rather than facts, commercials that persuade emotionally, etc. etc. etc. if we want a chance, we have to rise above this and stop being so intellectually lazy/dishonest.


----------



## OGIGA

> 1. the burden of proof is on the positive. proving something isn't or doesn't is a negative. the DEFAULT condition is that there is no god so therefore, it is the theist's sole responsibility to prove that there is god. it's like going up someone and saying that there is an invisible cat in the room right now, and if that someone objects, you tell him that's he wrong because he can't prove that there is an invisible cat. in fact, this can be said with ANY negativeerson A: the loch ness monster exists.
> 
> person B: i disagree. it doesn't exist.
> 
> person A: prove that it doesn't exist.
> 
> person B: ######?
> 
> person A: see, since you can't prove that it doesn't exist, the loch ness monster exists.
> 
> person B: ######.
> 
> 2. proving this negative is impossible. there is no way to check every corner of the universe for god, and even if you could, while you are checking one corner, he might have just moved to another. some theists might jump at this point to proclaim victory, but this resembles NOTHING like a victory of any sort. proving the non-existence of god is just as impossible as it is to prove the existence of god. the bottomline still remains: there is NO REASON whatsoever to believe there is a god.


 :lol: :lol: :lol: I can't help but laugh at your logic. You know, it's really difficult to ignore you. Claiming that there is no god/God is a very affirmative statement. I can't seem to figure out why your thinking is so binary (black and white), But if that's the way you think, keep it to yourself. I think the world is better off accepting the fact that there are things they are unsure of rather than make an affirmative statement that something does not exist until proven otherwise.


----------



## OGIGA

> I think we should all ignore AFK. He's going to get this thread locked like all the other threads when he starts doing things like this. Just watch him toss around definitions to make it seem like you can never convince him of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> people tend to get upset at things they don't understand.
Click to expand...

They do, but don't forget about yourself. Just look at all your flame posts from other locked threads.


----------



## OGIGA

> faith is the suspension of logic and rationality in order to believe in something irrational.


There you go defining things for people again. Ever thought of faith as believing in something that's a possibility but not yet known? Like, "I have faith that we will eventually develop teleportation technology"?

May I ask how old you are, AFK?


----------



## OGIGA

> 2. also to consider (or rather, remember) is that yes, of course our earth is perfectly positioned. that is exactly why life exists. give the gazillion number of stars and planets out there, the probability of a planet in earth's position is close to 100%.


Not that I disagree with you, but why don't you back your affirmative claim like how you like everybody else to? And "common sense" is not an acceptable answer.


----------



## AFK

> 1. the burden of proof is on the positive. proving something isn't or doesn't is a negative. the DEFAULT condition is that there is no god so therefore, it is the theist's sole responsibility to prove that there is god. it's like going up someone and saying that there is an invisible cat in the room right now, and if that someone objects, you tell him that's he wrong because he can't prove that there is an invisible cat. in fact, this can be said with ANY negativeerson A: the loch ness monster exists.
> 
> person B: i disagree. it doesn't exist.
> 
> person A: prove that it doesn't exist.
> 
> person B: ######?
> 
> person A: see, since you can't prove that it doesn't exist, the loch ness monster exists.
> 
> person B: ######.
> 
> 2. proving this negative is impossible. there is no way to check every corner of the universe for god, and even if you could, while you are checking one corner, he might have just moved to another. some theists might jump at this point to proclaim victory, but this resembles NOTHING like a victory of any sort. proving the non-existence of god is just as impossible as it is to prove the existence of god. the bottomline still remains: there is NO REASON whatsoever to believe there is a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol: I can't help but laugh at your logic. You know, it's really difficult to ignore you. Claiming that there is no god/God is a very affirmative statement. I can't seem to figure out why your thinking is so binary (black and white), But if that's the way you think, keep it to yourself. I think the world is better off accepting the fact that there are things they are unsure of rather than make an affirmative statement that something does not exist until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

wrong. i've told you before, if you do not understand logic, then don't pretend you do.http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWE...en-of-Proof.htm

it's a negative. end of argument.


----------



## OGIGA

> anyway, i hope this thread doesn't get locked. debate to me is a sport, and i also hope that out of all this, that i can get some people to start examining about their faith (because i do see this as a very relevent social issue...that's another can of worms though), whether it *strengthens *or *weakens *it.


Just as long as you don't start calling people names again, I suppose. I don't know if you'll take this advice, but believing in something negative (like God does not exist) also requires faith. If you disagree (like I expect you to anyway), I can elaborate.


----------



## AFK

> I think we should all ignore AFK. He's going to get this thread locked like all the other threads when he starts doing things like this. Just watch him toss around definitions to make it seem like you can never convince him of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> people tend to get upset at things they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do, but don't forget about yourself. Just look at all your flame posts from other locked threads.
Click to expand...

you've yet to demonstrate this other than following me around trying to attack me for one last word.


----------



## AFK

> faith is the suspension of logic and rationality in order to believe in something irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go defining things for people again. Ever thought of faith as believing in something that's a possibility but not yet known? Like, "I have faith that we will eventually develop teleportation technology"?
> 
> May I ask how old you are, AFK?
Click to expand...

you are arguing semantics.look up "faith" in the dictionary. there are at least 9 definitions. you're not proving/disproving anything by referring to a different definition. straw man fallacy.


----------



## AFK

> 2. also to consider (or rather, remember) is that yes, of course our earth is perfectly positioned. that is exactly why life exists. give the gazillion number of stars and planets out there, the probability of a planet in earth's position is close to 100%.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I disagree with you, but why don't you back your affirmative claim like how you like everybody else to? And "common sense" is not an acceptable answer.
Click to expand...

what's this fixation of "affirmative?"

assertion: there is nothing unusual about "earth [being] perfectly positioned."

evidence: "given the gazillion number of stars and planets out there, the probability of a planet in earth's position is close to 100%."

it's backed up and in plain sight.


----------



## AFK

> anyway, i hope this thread doesn't get locked. debate to me is a sport, and i also hope that out of all this, that i can get some people to start examining about their faith (because i do see this as a very relevent social issue...that's another can of worms though), whether it *strengthens *or *weakens *it.
> 
> 
> 
> Just as long as you don't start calling people names again, I suppose. I don't know if you'll take this advice, but believing in something negative (like God does not exist) also requires faith. If you disagree (like I expect you to anyway), I can elaborate.
Click to expand...

before you take moral high ground, look at your first post in this page. along with the countless other posts where you follow me around to try to throw insults at me.

as for believing in a negative, you have it wrong. you don't believe in a negative. a negative is simply a lack of belief in a positive. therefore, there is no faith involved (or with theists, a negative is a lack of faith).


----------



## OGIGA

> I think we should all ignore AFK. He's going to get this thread locked like all the other threads when he starts doing things like this. Just watch him toss around definitions to make it seem like you can never convince him of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> people tend to get upset at things they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do, but don't forget about yourself. Just look at all your flame posts from other locked threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you've yet to demonstrate this other than following me around trying to attack me for one last word.
Click to expand...

It's my pleasure to demonstrate what you do. Just look here: http://www.mantidforum.com/forum/viewtopic...04&amp;start=30

I'm following you around *challenging* you less than half as much as you're doing to everyone else... until tonight.


----------



## OGIGA

> 1. the burden of proof is on the positive. proving something isn't or doesn't is a negative. the DEFAULT condition is that there is no god so therefore, it is the theist's sole responsibility to prove that there is god. it's like going up someone and saying that there is an invisible cat in the room right now, and if that someone objects, you tell him that's he wrong because he can't prove that there is an invisible cat. in fact, this can be said with ANY negativeerson A: the loch ness monster exists.
> 
> person B: i disagree. it doesn't exist.
> 
> person A: prove that it doesn't exist.
> 
> person B: ######?
> 
> person A: see, since you can't prove that it doesn't exist, the loch ness monster exists.
> 
> person B: ######.
> 
> 2. proving this negative is impossible. there is no way to check every corner of the universe for god, and even if you could, while you are checking one corner, he might have just moved to another. some theists might jump at this point to proclaim victory, but this resembles NOTHING like a victory of any sort. proving the non-existence of god is just as impossible as it is to prove the existence of god. the bottomline still remains: there is NO REASON whatsoever to believe there is a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol: I can't help but laugh at your logic. You know, it's really difficult to ignore you. Claiming that there is no god/God is a very affirmative statement. I can't seem to figure out why your thinking is so binary (black and white), But if that's the way you think, keep it to yourself. I think the world is better off accepting the fact that there are things they are unsure of rather than make an affirmative statement that something does not exist until proven otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong. i've told you before, if you do not understand logic, then don't pretend you do.http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWE...en-of-Proof.htm
> 
> it's a negative. end of argument.
Click to expand...

Just because somebody wrote something on a webpage doesn't make it true, even it the first-level domain is edu. If it does, let me know, okay?


----------



## AFK

> I think we should all ignore AFK. He's going to get this thread locked like all the other threads when he starts doing things like this. Just watch him toss around definitions to make it seem like you can never convince him of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> people tend to get upset at things they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do, but don't forget about yourself. Just look at all your flame posts from other locked threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you've yet to demonstrate this other than following me around trying to attack me for one last word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's my pleasure to demonstrate what you do. Just look here: http://www.mantidforum.com/forum/viewtopic...04&amp;start=30
> 
> I'm following you around *challenging* you less than half as much as you're doing to everyone else... until tonight.
Click to expand...

that doesn't show anything other than people disagreeing with me. some people just simply become so emotionally and personally invested in a belief that if it gets challenged, they feel threatened/insulted. i think that's what's happening to you, hence you obsessively following me around. i'd appreciate it if you stop it and get over it. it's becoming a little annoying.


----------



## AFK

> 1. the burden of proof is on the positive. proving something isn't or doesn't is a negative. the DEFAULT condition is that there is no god so therefore, it is the theist's sole responsibility to prove that there is god. it's like going up someone and saying that there is an invisible cat in the room right now, and if that someone objects, you tell him that's he wrong because he can't prove that there is an invisible cat. in fact, this can be said with ANY negativeerson A: the loch ness monster exists.
> 
> person B: i disagree. it doesn't exist.
> 
> person A: prove that it doesn't exist.
> 
> person B: ######?
> 
> person A: see, since you can't prove that it doesn't exist, the loch ness monster exists.
> 
> person B: ######.
> 
> 2. proving this negative is impossible. there is no way to check every corner of the universe for god, and even if you could, while you are checking one corner, he might have just moved to another. some theists might jump at this point to proclaim victory, but this resembles NOTHING like a victory of any sort. proving the non-existence of god is just as impossible as it is to prove the existence of god. the bottomline still remains: there is NO REASON whatsoever to believe there is a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol: I can't help but laugh at your logic. You know, it's really difficult to ignore you. Claiming that there is no god/God is a very affirmative statement. I can't seem to figure out why your thinking is so binary (black and white), But if that's the way you think, keep it to yourself. I think the world is better off accepting the fact that there are things they are unsure of rather than make an affirmative statement that something does not exist until proven otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong. i've told you before, if you do not understand logic, then don't pretend you do.http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWE...en-of-Proof.htm
> 
> it's a negative. end of argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because somebody wrote something on a webpage doesn't make it true, even it the first-level domain is edu. If it does, let me know, okay?
Click to expand...

what constitutes a negative and positive statement is fundamental logic and philosophy. you refusing to accept the foundations of philosophy tells me that the socratic method does not work on you, thus you are unfit for logical discussion.


----------



## OGIGA

> faith is the suspension of logic and rationality in order to believe in something irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go defining things for people again. Ever thought of faith as believing in something that's a possibility but not yet known? Like, "I have faith that we will eventually develop teleportation technology"?
> 
> May I ask how old you are, AFK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are arguing semantics.look up "faith" in the dictionary. there are at least 9 definitions. you're not proving/disproving anything by referring to a different definition. straw man fallacy.
Click to expand...

Which dictionary do you use? Here's what Merriam-Webster says



> Main Entry: 1faithPronunciation: 'fAth
> 
> Function: noun
> 
> Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
> 
> Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
> 
> 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
> 
> 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
> 
> 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs &lt;the Protestant faith&gt;
> 
> synonym see BELIEF
> 
> - on faith : without question &lt;took everything he said on faith&gt;


I consider Merriam-Websters' definitions much more reputable than your definition that you didn't even give a source. Oh, I think he left off something about [ir]rationality and logic.

Edit: Link to M-W's definition of faith: http://m-w.com/dictionary/faith


----------



## AFK

I want to know the forgiving love of Jesus.


----------



## AFK




----------



## OGIGA

> what constitutes a negative and positive statement is fundamental logic and philosophy. you refusing to accept the foundations of philosophy tells me that the socratic method does not work on you, thus you are unfit for logical discussion.


Here you going again with that. I didn't study philosophy, but if you're arguing what you call "fundamental logic and philosophy" by Socrates, then I will have to disagree with both of you. Sorry, I deny your verdict on whether or not somebody is fit for logical discussion.

If you don't think a negative statement is [sometimes] affirmative, then I'll say that you are unfit for logical discussion. Thank you very much.


----------



## OGIGA

> i'm done with you. going to bed. after all your attempts to insult me masked as counterarguments, you still haven't proven anything.


Goodnight. Thanks for your blatant attempts to insult me. Only reputable people can make me feel insulted. I did not have any intention on trying to prove anything to you as I don't think you would let yourself be convinced. Have fun being away from science.


----------



## OGIGA

> 2. also to consider (or rather, remember) is that yes, of course our earth is perfectly positioned. that is exactly why life exists. give the gazillion number of stars and planets out there, the probability of a planet in earth's position is close to 100%.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I disagree with you, but why don't you back your affirmative claim like how you like everybody else to? And "common sense" is not an acceptable answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what's this fixation of "affirmative?"
> 
> assertion: there is nothing unusual about "earth [being] perfectly positioned."
> 
> evidence: "given the gazillion number of stars and planets out there, the probability of a planet in earth's position is close to 100%."
> 
> it's backed up and in plain sight.
Click to expand...

Try submitting that to a scientific journal. Even if it's true, good luck.


----------



## OGIGA

> anyway, i hope this thread doesn't get locked. debate to me is a sport, and i also hope that out of all this, that i can get some people to start examining about their faith (because i do see this as a very relevent social issue...that's another can of worms though), whether it *strengthens *or *weakens *it.
> 
> 
> 
> Just as long as you don't start calling people names again, I suppose. I don't know if you'll take this advice, but believing in something negative (like God does not exist) also requires faith. If you disagree (like I expect you to anyway), I can elaborate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> before you take moral high ground, look at your first post in this page. along with the countless other posts where you follow me around to try to throw insults at me.
> 
> as for believing in a negative, you have it wrong. you don't believe in a negative. a negative is simply a lack of belief in a positive. therefore, there is no faith involved (or with theists, a negative is a lack of faith).
Click to expand...

Okay, let me give you an example.



> Bob, a villager of a small village in Ghana says to Jill, "I think AFK lives in America."Jill replies, "If you can't prove that, AFK does not live in America."
> 
> Bob helplessly states, "Look, I have no money. I have no computer to go to. I can't use a telephone. How can I ever find out?"
> 
> Jill concludes, "Okay then. Problem solved. Our default conclusion, then, is that AFK does not live in America."


I assert that Jill's conclusion that you don't live in America is "affirmative."


----------



## OGIGA

> that doesn't show anything other than people disagreeing with me. some people just simply become so emotionally and personally invested in a belief that if it gets challenged, they feel threatened/insulted. i think that's what's happening to you, hence you obsessively following me around. i'd appreciate it if you stop it and get over it. it's becoming a little annoying.


Listen to yourself for once. You yourself even said that your approach may have been emotional. When you think you are beginning to threaten or insult somebody's beliefs, that's when you should focus on respect. Apparently, you miserably failed at that so instead of talking to you like a Mr. Nice Guy, I'm just treating you the way you treat others. That's the only way you've influenced me so far. Thank you.


----------



## OGIGA

> dictionary.comeither way, even your preferred dictionary shows multiple definitions. it still stands that you referring to a different definition (with your dictionary, it would be definition 2b1) proves/disproves nothing.


Is there a problem with multiple definitions? Aren't you the one who gave "faith" a single definition?

Dictionary.com gave multiple definitions and from different sources. I normally wouldn't put such a long segment of text in a forum post, but for the sake of being extra verbose, here it is:



> 14 results for: faithDictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
> 
> faith /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> 
> –noun
> 
> 1.	confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
> 
> 2.	belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
> 
> 3.	belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
> 
> 4.	belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
> 
> 5.	a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
> 
> 6.	the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
> 
> 7.	the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
> 
> 8.	Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
> 
> —Idiom
> 
> 9.	in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
> 
> [Origin: 1200–50; ME feith &lt; AF fed, OF feid, feit &lt; L fidem, acc. of fidés trust, akin to fīdere to trust. See confide]
> 
> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
> 
> Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
> 
> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
> 
> Faith /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> 
> –noun
> 
> a female given name.
> 
> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
> 
> Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
> 
> American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
> 
> faith (fāth) Pronunciation Key
> 
> n.
> 
> 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
> 
> 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
> 
> 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
> 
> 4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
> 
> 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
> 
> 6. A set of principles or beliefs.
> 
> [Middle English, from Anglo-Norman fed, from Latin fidēs; see bheidh- in Indo-European roots.]
> 
> (Download Now or Buy the Book)
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
> 
> Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
> 
> Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
> 
> faith
> 
> c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885.
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
> 
> WordNet - Cite This Source
> 
> faith
> 
> noun
> 
> 1. a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" [syn: religion]
> 
> 2. complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
> 
> 3. an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" [syn: religion]
> 
> 4. loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"
> 
> WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
> 
> American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms - Cite This Source
> 
> faith
> 
> see act of faith; in bad (good) faith; leap of faith; on faith; pin one's hopes (faith) on.
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
> 
> Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
> 
> Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source
> 
> faith1 [feiθ] noun
> 
> trust or belief
> 
> Example: She had faith in her ability.
> 
> Arabic: ثِقَه
> 
> Chinese (Simplified): 信任
> 
> Chinese (Traditional): 信任
> 
> Czech: důvěra
> 
> Danish: tillid; tiltro
> 
> Dutch: vertrouwen
> 
> Estonian: usk
> 
> Finnish: usko, luottamus
> 
> French: confiance
> 
> German: das Vertrauen
> 
> Greek: πίστη, εμπιστοσύνη
> 
> Hungarian: bizalom
> 
> Icelandic: trú; traust
> 
> Indonesian: keyakinan
> 
> Italian: fiducia
> 
> Japanese: 信頼
> 
> Korean: 믿음, 신뢰
> 
> Latvian: ticība; paļāvība
> 
> Lithuanian: (pasi)tikėjimas
> 
> Norwegian: tillit, (til)tro
> 
> Polish: wiara
> 
> Portuguese (Brazil): confiança
> 
> Portuguese (Portugal): fé
> 
> Romanian: încredere
> 
> Russian: вера
> 
> Slovak: dôvera
> 
> Slovenian: zaupanje
> 
> Spanish: confianza
> 
> Swedish: tro, tillit
> 
> Turkish: güven
> 
> faith2 [feiθ] noun
> 
> religious belief
> 
> Example: Years of hardship had not caused him to lose his faith.
> 
> Arabic: إيمـان
> 
> Chinese (Simplified): 信仰
> 
> Chinese (Traditional): 信仰
> 
> Czech: víra
> 
> Danish: tro; religion
> 
> Dutch: geloof
> 
> Estonian: usk, usund
> 
> Finnish: usko
> 
> French: foi
> 
> German: der Glaube
> 
> Greek: πίστη
> 
> Hungarian: hit
> 
> Icelandic: (guðs)trú
> 
> Indonesian: iman
> 
> Italian: fede
> 
> Japanese: 信仰
> 
> Korean: 신앙, 믿음
> 
> Latvian: ticība
> 
> Lithuanian: tikėjimas
> 
> Norwegian: tro(sretning), religion
> 
> Polish: wiara
> 
> Portuguese (Brazil): fé
> 
> Portuguese (Portugal): fé
> 
> Romanian: credinţă
> 
> Russian: вера
> 
> Slovak: viera
> 
> Slovenian: vera
> 
> Spanish: fe
> 
> Swedish: tro
> 
> Turkish: inanç
> 
> faith3 [feiθ] noun
> 
> loyalty to one's promise
> 
> Example: to keep/break faith with someone
> 
> Arabic: وَعْد، إخْلاص، ثِقَه
> 
> Chinese (Simplified): 信义
> 
> Chinese (Traditional): 信義
> 
> Czech: slovo
> 
> Danish: troskab
> 
> Dutch: erewoord
> 
> Estonian: ustavus
> 
> Finnish: lupaus
> 
> French: parole
> 
> German: das Versprechen
> 
> Greek: τήρηση υπόσχεσης
> 
> Hungarian: ígéret
> 
> Icelandic: tryggð, trúnaður
> 
> Indonesian: kepercayaan
> 
> Italian: parola
> 
> Japanese: 誓約
> 
> Korean: 성실, 충성
> 
> Latvian: uzticība; solījums
> 
> Lithuanian: ištikimybė
> 
> Norwegian: troskap
> 
> Polish: słowność
> 
> Portuguese (Brazil): fidelidade
> 
> Portuguese (Portugal): promessa
> 
> Romanian: cuvânt
> 
> Russian: обещание
> 
> Slovak: dodržanie slova
> 
> Slovenian: obljuba
> 
> Spanish: palabra
> 
> Swedish: förtroende
> 
> Turkish: sözüne sadık kalma
> 
> See also: faithful, in (all) good faith, Yours faithfully
> 
> Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.
> 
> Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
> 
> Main Entry: faith
> 
> Function: noun
> 
> 1 a : allegiance or loyalty to a duty or a person b : sincerity or honesty of intentions —see also BAD FAITH, GOOD FAITH
> 
> 2 : fidelity to one's promises and obligations
> 
> Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
> 
> U.S. Gazetteer - Cite This Source
> 
> Faith, SD (city, FIPS 20980) Location: 45.02588 N, 102.03643 W
> 
> Population (1990): 548 (249 housing units)
> 
> Area: 3.2 sq km (land), 0.0 sq km (water)
> 
> Zip code(s): 57626
> 
> Faith, NC (town, FIPS 22600) Location: 35.58806 N, 80.46123 W
> 
> Population (1990): 553 (234 housing units)
> 
> Area: 1.9 sq km (land), 0.0 sq km (water)
> 
> U.S. Gazetteer, U.S. Census Bureau
> 
> Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary - Cite This Source
> 
> Faith
> 
> Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests. Faith is the result of teaching (Rom. 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God. Historical faith is the apprehension of and assent to certain statements which are regarded as mere facts of history. Temporary faith is that state of mind which is awakened in men (e.g., Felix) by the exhibition of the truth and by the influence of religious sympathy, or by what is sometimes styled the common operation of the Holy Spirit. Saving faith is so called because it has eternal life inseparably connected with it. It cannot be better defined than in the words of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism: "Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel." The object of saving faith is the whole revealed Word of God. Faith accepts and believes it as the very truth most sure. But the special act of faith which unites to Christ has as its object the person and the work of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 7:38; Acts 16:31). This is the specific act of faith by which a sinner is justified before God (Rom. 3:22, 25; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9; John 3:16-36; Acts 10:43; 16:31). In this act of faith the believer appropriates and rests on Christ alone as Mediator in all his offices. This assent to or belief in the truth received upon the divine testimony has always associated with it a deep sense of sin, a distinct view of Christ, a consenting will, and a loving heart, together with a reliance on, a trusting in, or resting in Christ. It is that state of mind in which a poor sinner, conscious of his sin, flees from his guilty self to Christ his Saviour, and rolls over the burden of all his sins on him. It consists chiefly, not in the assent given to the testimony of God in his Word, but in embracing with fiducial reliance and trust the one and only Saviour whom God reveals. This trust and reliance is of the essence of faith. By faith the believer directly and immediately appropriates Christ as his own. Faith in its direct act makes Christ ours. It is not a work which God graciously accepts instead of perfect obedience, but is only the hand by which we take hold of the person and work of our Redeemer as the only ground of our salvation. Saving faith is a moral act, as it proceeds from a renewed will, and a renewed will is necessary to believing assent to the truth of God (1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:4). Faith, therefore, has its seat in the moral part of our nature fully as much as in the intellectual. The mind must first be enlightened by divine teaching (John 6:44; Acts 13:48; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 1:17, 18) before it can discern the things of the Spirit. Faith is necessary to our salvation (Mark 16:16), not because there is any merit in it, but simply because it is the sinner's taking the place assigned him by God, his falling in with what God is doing. The warrant or ground of faith is the divine testimony, not the reasonableness of what God says, but the simple fact that he says it. Faith rests immediately on, "Thus saith the Lord." But in order to this faith the veracity, sincerity, and truth of God must be owned and appreciated, together with his unchangeableness. God's word encourages and emboldens the sinner personally to transact with Christ as God's gift, to close with him, embrace him, give himself to Christ, and take Christ as his. That word comes with power, for it is the word of God who has revealed himself in his works, and especially in the cross. God is to be believed for his word's sake, but also for his name's sake. Faith in Christ secures for the believer freedom from condemnation, or justification before God; a participation in the life that is in Christ, the divine life (John 14:19; Rom. 6:4-10; Eph. 4:15,16, etc.); "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1); and sanctification (Acts 26:18; Gal. 5:6; Acts 15:9). All who thus believe in Christ will certainly be saved (John 6:37, 40; 10:27, 28; Rom. 8:1). The faith=the gospel (Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5; Gal. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:9; Jude 1:3).
> 
> Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
> 
> Acronym Finder - Cite This Source
> 
> FAITH
> 
> FAITH: in Acronym Finder
> 
> Acronym Finder, © 1988-2007 Mountain Data Systems


In the all English definitions, the only definition with anything close to rationality says



> Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.


Now, if this is really the dictionary that you used, can you explain to everybody how you came up with your single definition?


> faith is the suspension of logic and rationality in order to believe in something irrational.


----------



## OGIGA

> wrong. i've told you before, if you do not understand logic, then don't pretend you do.http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWE...en-of-Proof.htm
> 
> it's a negative. end of argument.


This is getting more and more fun. Thank you for demonstrating that you can't understand what you read (assuming you read what you recommend others to read). I just read what you showed us all and it supports your logic, halfway. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt that you skimmed too fast and skipped this part:



> The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise or that it is false unless proven otherwise.


Now I'm interested in seeing if you'll discredit Sagan or modify your logic (I'm dreaming).

Again, let me repeat: Claiming that something does not exist is also an affirmative claim. Like you said, AFK, the burden of proof is on the affirmative. If you don't want to listen to me, you can listen to Sagan or yourself. Deal?


----------



## robo mantis

I'll pray for you AFK


----------



## Asa

Darwinism is based on the fact that little bits add up, right? Well consider the fact that evolutionary text writers and journalists made up ridicuous statements and false evidence for Darwin. Christians have also made these mistakes, such as the case in new radical ideas. Such as the earth revolving around the sun.

As assertion is not baseless than mercy and justice are also not baseless. Using your example of the Loch Ness monster. There has been multiple videos made on the subject, claiming they saw it. People can choose to believe this or not, no matter how strong the evidence. Convinced they are right, people ignore however strong the evidence is, so they can be comfortable in their delusion of immortality. But the truth is, people die. I know I will be prepared. One of my jobs as a Christian is, through peaceful means, let others be too.


----------



## robo mantis

Yes but others are very stubborn.


----------



## jmac27

> and to attack those that do believe in God.
> 
> 
> 
> this is a discussion forum, not to mention that this thread is specifically titled as a DEBATE, so i'm just starting a discussion/debate. granted, i may have injected some emotion into my approach, but i genuinely feel that way - that it's a social problem, but again, i'm focusing on another topic at the moment, i.e. whether creationism or god exists. if my emotions offends, i don't think it's that difficult to ignore.
Click to expand...

Whether you think your statement was offensive or not, I could've told you that it would offend a Christian. I think you could've presented your argument in a better fashion.



> I also think it's wrong to spew forth unfounded arguments and statements.
> 
> 
> 
> show me one single unfounded argument/statement of mine. in fact, i'm the one who's preaching about providing evidence to an assertion.
Click to expand...

I wasn't directing that statement towards you. That one was for the creationists making things up about Darwin. I.e. "Darwin said his life's work was a lie."



> AFK, if you're going to criticize religion, do so in a less offensive manner. It makes us non-believers look as bad as those that push the religions on us.
> 
> 
> 
> as i said above, my approach may have been emotional, but it's not really that overbearing that it needs to become melodramatic. also, i don't think anyone will associate all non-believers being the same as me.
Click to expand...

I don't think they would treat you with so much hostility if you didn't label them as having a mental disorder for having a faith. People believe these things for many reasons. You need to consider that. Although I'm sure a lot of people just blindly follow religions out of fear or just shear ignorance, there are those that have an empirical stance on religion, arguing that it's illogical that God doesn't exist.



> You can't prove that God exists and you can't prove he doesn't; we'll just never know.
> 
> 
> 
> exactly. there is just simply no logical reason to believe (i dare anyone to bring up pascal's wager lol). and no, fear is not a logical reason.
> 
> also, the burden of proof rests on the positive, not the negative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think science and religion both have completely far out and ridiculous assumptions. You think it's crazy that somehow we're positioned in _exactly_ the right place by complete chance and that somehow conditions were perfect in a primordial earth for the right organic compounds to come together and create the phenomenon we call life? I'd agree with you, it sounds crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. just become something is "strange" doesn't mean it's false. also, things are ONLY "strange" because we are not accustomed to the newness of a seemingly radical idea/discovery, e.g. just 100 years ago, jets would be stranger than fiction. i think what happens is that people often think more by their emotions than by rationality. people of power; e.g. governments, the media, corporations, etc.; are aware of this human weakness and capitalize on it by creating propaganda, political campaigns that focus more on sensationalism rather than facts, commercials that persuade emotionally, etc. etc. etc. if we want a chance, we have to rise above this and stop being so intellectually lazy/dishonest.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's false because it's "strange," I just said it _sounds_ crazy. I don't deny the possibility that science could be completely right. I have many radical ideas and thoughts that you and creationists both would disagree with. They're just ideas, though, not beliefs.

Science is full of assumptions and theory that many scientists base a lot of their work around. For example, many scientists believe that evolution is really how we got here although it's never been proven. Look, science holds slightly more value to me than religion because science has led to results that I can see and experience. I just personally think there are no absolute truths, be it science or not. There are endless possibilities and I just choose not to _believe_ any one of them. And I agree with your stance much more than a creationist's stance, by the way. I just don't follow that one path as what I take as true. I consider and speculate on everything. You are far less close-minded than some of those arguing in favor of Christianity on this forum.


----------



## robo mantis

When you guys eventually figure out that our God is true don't say i didn't warn you. I tried everything in my power to get you to beleave God will eventually prove himself!


----------



## jmac27

> Yes but others are very stubborn.


You're just as stubborn if not more so than any atheist. Don't take that as an insult, I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy.



> When you guys eventually figure out that our God is true don't say i didn't warn you. I tried everything in my power to get you to beleave God will eventually prove himself!


I don't believe in truths, my naive friend. What gets me about Christianity is that you could be the most morally sound person and if you simply don't believe in this one particular faith out of thousands, you go to "heck." Yet if I commit countless sins, as defined by your faith, and simply accept God as my own and ask forgiveness, I go to "Heaven." If, in death, I go to heck then God is a megalomaniacal bully.


----------



## robo mantis

No if you follow his laws and ask for forgiveness then yes.


----------



## jmac27

If you follow his laws, then what are you asking forgiveness for?


----------



## robo mantis

No one is perfect so you won't always obey the laws and when you break them ask God for forgiveness.


----------



## OGIGA

We're getting a tad off topic. I endorse discussions about Christianity, but this thread may get locked. Perhaps we should make a thread called, "Ask questions about God and Christianity here."


----------



## Asa

Okay. robomantis, jmac27, OGIGA, I'll start off the first post where we left off on.


----------



## AFK

> I want to know the forgiving love of Jesus.


What the heck? I NEVER posted this (along with others). Who is editing my posts???


----------



## AFK

> Bob, a villager of a small village in Ghana says to Jill, "I think AFK lives in America."Jill replies, "If you can't prove that, AFK does not live in America."
> 
> Bob helplessly states, "Look, I have no money. I have no computer to go to. I can't use a telephone. How can I ever find out?"
> 
> Jill concludes, "Okay then. Problem solved. Our default conclusion, then, is that AFK does not live in America."


never did i use the logical fallacy of negative proof, e.g. "If you can't prove that, AFK does not live in America."

thus, this is a false analogy.



> I assert that Jill's conclusion that you don't live in America is "affirmative."


this assertion commits 3 logical fallacies:

1. false analogy (see above)

2. negative proof (see above)

3. straw man (NEVER did i even talk about affirmative statements. you're confusing affirmative statements with positive statements)


----------



## AFK

> that doesn't show anything other than people disagreeing with me. some people just simply become so emotionally and personally invested in a belief that if it gets challenged, they feel threatened/insulted. i think that's what's happening to you, hence you obsessively following me around. i'd appreciate it if you stop it and get over it. it's becoming a little annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself for once. You yourself even said that your approach may have been emotional. When you think you are beginning to threaten or insult somebody's beliefs, that's when you should focus on respect. Apparently, you miserably failed at that so instead of talking to you like a Mr. Nice Guy, I'm just treating you the way you treat others. That's the only way you've influenced me so far. Thank you.
Click to expand...

what is your point? if you want to annoy me by stalking me, that's your choice of how you want to spend you time.


----------



## AFK

> dictionary.comeither way, even your preferred dictionary shows multiple definitions. it still stands that you referring to a different definition (with your dictionary, it would be definition 2b1) proves/disproves nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a problem with multiple definitions? Aren't you the one who gave "faith" a single definition?
> 
> Dictionary.com gave multiple definitions and from different sources. I normally wouldn't put such a long segment of text in a forum post, but for the sake of being extra verbose, here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 14 results for: faithDictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
> 
> faith /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> 
> –noun
> 
> 1.	confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
> 
> 2.	belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
> 
> 3.	belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
> 
> 4.	belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
> 
> 5.	a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
> 
> 6.	the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
> 
> 7.	the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
> 
> 8.	Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
> 
> —Idiom
> 
> 9.	in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
> 
> [Origin: 1200–50; ME feith &lt; AF fed, OF feid, feit &lt; L fidem, acc. of fidés trust, akin to fīdere to trust. See confide]
> 
> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
> 
> Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
> 
> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
> 
> Faith /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> 
> –noun
> 
> a female given name.
> 
> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
> 
> Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
> 
> American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
> 
> faith (fāth) Pronunciation Key
> 
> n.
> 
> 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
> 
> 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
> 
> 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
> 
> 4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
> 
> 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
> 
> 6. A set of principles or beliefs.
> 
> [Middle English, from Anglo-Norman fed, from Latin fidēs; see bheidh- in Indo-European roots.]
> 
> (Download Now or Buy the Book)
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
> 
> Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
> 
> Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
> 
> faith
> 
> c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885.
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
> 
> WordNet - Cite This Source
> 
> faith
> 
> noun
> 
> 1. a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" [syn: religion]
> 
> 2. complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
> 
> 3. an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" [syn: religion]
> 
> 4. loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"
> 
> WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
> 
> American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms - Cite This Source
> 
> faith
> 
> see act of faith; in bad (good) faith; leap of faith; on faith; pin one's hopes (faith) on.
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
> 
> Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
> 
> Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source
> 
> faith1 [feiθ] noun
> 
> trust or belief
> 
> Example: She had faith in her ability.
> 
> Arabic: ثِقَه
> 
> Chinese (Simplified): 信任
> 
> Chinese (Traditional): 信任
> 
> Czech: důvěra
> 
> Danish: tillid; tiltro
> 
> Dutch: vertrouwen
> 
> Estonian: usk
> 
> Finnish: usko, luottamus
> 
> French: confiance
> 
> German: das Vertrauen
> 
> Greek: πίστη, εμπιστοσύνη
> 
> Hungarian: bizalom
> 
> Icelandic: trú; traust
> 
> Indonesian: keyakinan
> 
> Italian: fiducia
> 
> Japanese: 信頼
> 
> Korean: 믿음, 신뢰
> 
> Latvian: ticība; paļāvība
> 
> Lithuanian: (pasi)tikėjimas
> 
> Norwegian: tillit, (til)tro
> 
> Polish: wiara
> 
> Portuguese (Brazil): confiança
> 
> Portuguese (Portugal): fé
> 
> Romanian: încredere
> 
> Russian: вера
> 
> Slovak: dôvera
> 
> Slovenian: zaupanje
> 
> Spanish: confianza
> 
> Swedish: tro, tillit
> 
> Turkish: güven
> 
> faith2 [feiθ] noun
> 
> religious belief
> 
> Example: Years of hardship had not caused him to lose his faith.
> 
> Arabic: إيمـان
> 
> Chinese (Simplified): 信仰
> 
> Chinese (Traditional): 信仰
> 
> Czech: víra
> 
> Danish: tro; religion
> 
> Dutch: geloof
> 
> Estonian: usk, usund
> 
> Finnish: usko
> 
> French: foi
> 
> German: der Glaube
> 
> Greek: πίστη
> 
> Hungarian: hit
> 
> Icelandic: (guðs)trú
> 
> Indonesian: iman
> 
> Italian: fede
> 
> Japanese: 信仰
> 
> Korean: 신앙, 믿음
> 
> Latvian: ticība
> 
> Lithuanian: tikėjimas
> 
> Norwegian: tro(sretning), religion
> 
> Polish: wiara
> 
> Portuguese (Brazil): fé
> 
> Portuguese (Portugal): fé
> 
> Romanian: credinţă
> 
> Russian: вера
> 
> Slovak: viera
> 
> Slovenian: vera
> 
> Spanish: fe
> 
> Swedish: tro
> 
> Turkish: inanç
> 
> faith3 [feiθ] noun
> 
> loyalty to one's promise
> 
> Example: to keep/break faith with someone
> 
> Arabic: وَعْد، إخْلاص، ثِقَه
> 
> Chinese (Simplified): 信义
> 
> Chinese (Traditional): 信義
> 
> Czech: slovo
> 
> Danish: troskab
> 
> Dutch: erewoord
> 
> Estonian: ustavus
> 
> Finnish: lupaus
> 
> French: parole
> 
> German: das Versprechen
> 
> Greek: τήρηση υπόσχεσης
> 
> Hungarian: ígéret
> 
> Icelandic: tryggð, trúnaður
> 
> Indonesian: kepercayaan
> 
> Italian: parola
> 
> Japanese: 誓約
> 
> Korean: 성실, 충성
> 
> Latvian: uzticība; solījums
> 
> Lithuanian: ištikimybė
> 
> Norwegian: troskap
> 
> Polish: słowność
> 
> Portuguese (Brazil): fidelidade
> 
> Portuguese (Portugal): promessa
> 
> Romanian: cuvânt
> 
> Russian: обещание
> 
> Slovak: dodržanie slova
> 
> Slovenian: obljuba
> 
> Spanish: palabra
> 
> Swedish: förtroende
> 
> Turkish: sözüne sadık kalma
> 
> See also: faithful, in (all) good faith, Yours faithfully
> 
> Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.
> 
> Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
> 
> Main Entry: faith
> 
> Function: noun
> 
> 1 a : allegiance or loyalty to a duty or a person b : sincerity or honesty of intentions —see also BAD FAITH, GOOD FAITH
> 
> 2 : fidelity to one's promises and obligations
> 
> Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
> 
> U.S. Gazetteer - Cite This Source
> 
> Faith, SD (city, FIPS 20980) Location: 45.02588 N, 102.03643 W
> 
> Population (1990): 548 (249 housing units)
> 
> Area: 3.2 sq km (land), 0.0 sq km (water)
> 
> Zip code(s): 57626
> 
> Faith, NC (town, FIPS 22600) Location: 35.58806 N, 80.46123 W
> 
> Population (1990): 553 (234 housing units)
> 
> Area: 1.9 sq km (land), 0.0 sq km (water)
> 
> U.S. Gazetteer, U.S. Census Bureau
> 
> Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary - Cite This Source
> 
> Faith
> 
> Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests. Faith is the result of teaching (Rom. 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God. Historical faith is the apprehension of and assent to certain statements which are regarded as mere facts of history. Temporary faith is that state of mind which is awakened in men (e.g., Felix) by the exhibition of the truth and by the influence of religious sympathy, or by what is sometimes styled the common operation of the Holy Spirit. Saving faith is so called because it has eternal life inseparably connected with it. It cannot be better defined than in the words of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism: "Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel." The object of saving faith is the whole revealed Word of God. Faith accepts and believes it as the very truth most sure. But the special act of faith which unites to Christ has as its object the person and the work of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 7:38; Acts 16:31). This is the specific act of faith by which a sinner is justified before God (Rom. 3:22, 25; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9; John 3:16-36; Acts 10:43; 16:31). In this act of faith the believer appropriates and rests on Christ alone as Mediator in all his offices. This assent to or belief in the truth received upon the divine testimony has always associated with it a deep sense of sin, a distinct view of Christ, a consenting will, and a loving heart, together with a reliance on, a trusting in, or resting in Christ. It is that state of mind in which a poor sinner, conscious of his sin, flees from his guilty self to Christ his Saviour, and rolls over the burden of all his sins on him. It consists chiefly, not in the assent given to the testimony of God in his Word, but in embracing with fiducial reliance and trust the one and only Saviour whom God reveals. This trust and reliance is of the essence of faith. By faith the believer directly and immediately appropriates Christ as his own. Faith in its direct act makes Christ ours. It is not a work which God graciously accepts instead of perfect obedience, but is only the hand by which we take hold of the person and work of our Redeemer as the only ground of our salvation. Saving faith is a moral act, as it proceeds from a renewed will, and a renewed will is necessary to believing assent to the truth of God (1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:4). Faith, therefore, has its seat in the moral part of our nature fully as much as in the intellectual. The mind must first be enlightened by divine teaching (John 6:44; Acts 13:48; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 1:17, 18) before it can discern the things of the Spirit. Faith is necessary to our salvation (Mark 16:16), not because there is any merit in it, but simply because it is the sinner's taking the place assigned him by God, his falling in with what God is doing. The warrant or ground of faith is the divine testimony, not the reasonableness of what God says, but the simple fact that he says it. Faith rests immediately on, "Thus saith the Lord." But in order to this faith the veracity, sincerity, and truth of God must be owned and appreciated, together with his unchangeableness. God's word encourages and emboldens the sinner personally to transact with Christ as God's gift, to close with him, embrace him, give himself to Christ, and take Christ as his. That word comes with power, for it is the word of God who has revealed himself in his works, and especially in the cross. God is to be believed for his word's sake, but also for his name's sake. Faith in Christ secures for the believer freedom from condemnation, or justification before God; a participation in the life that is in Christ, the divine life (John 14:19; Rom. 6:4-10; Eph. 4:15,16, etc.); "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1); and sanctification (Acts 26:18; Gal. 5:6; Acts 15:9). All who thus believe in Christ will certainly be saved (John 6:37, 40; 10:27, 28; Rom. 8:1). The faith=the gospel (Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5; Gal. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:9; Jude 1:3).
> 
> Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
> 
> Acronym Finder - Cite This Source
> 
> FAITH
> 
> FAITH: in Acronym Finder
> 
> Acronym Finder, © 1988-2007 Mountain Data Systems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the all English definitions, the only definition with anything close to rationality says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, if this is really the dictionary that you used, can you explain to everybody how you came up with your single definition?
> 
> 
> 
> faith is the suspension of logic and rationality in order to believe in something irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

you are trying to disagree with basic debate procedure. most words in the english language have multiple meanings. in order to go forward in any discussion, the context and syntax gives clues as to which meaning is prescribed. the text that you are arguing against is me defining which definition of "faith" i am using. thus, you are saying that i am not allowed to clarify which definition of a word i can use. this is at the least silly, not to mention self-contradictory.

this commits 2 logical fallacies:

1. arguing semantics (which is a junior high tactic, analogous to changing the topic/creating a red herring)

2. contradiction


----------



## AFK

> wrong. i've told you before, if you do not understand logic, then don't pretend you do.http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWE...en-of-Proof.htm
> 
> it's a negative. end of argument.
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting more and more fun. Thank you for demonstrating that you can't understand what you read (assuming you read what you recommend others to read). I just read what you showed us all and it supports your logic, halfway. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt that you skimmed too fast and skipped this part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise or that it is false unless proven otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now I'm interested in seeing if you'll discredit Sagan or modify your logic (I'm dreaming).
> 
> Again, let me repeat: Claiming that something does not exist is also an affirmative claim. Like you said, AFK, the burden of proof is on the affirmative. If you don't want to listen to me, you can listen to Sagan or yourself. Deal?
Click to expand...

i don't care if something is an affirmative claim. it still stands as a negative statement.

this commits the following logical fallacy:

1. straw man


----------



## AFK

> what constitutes a negative and positive statement is fundamental logic and philosophy. you refusing to accept the foundations of philosophy tells me that the socratic method does not work on you, thus you are unfit for logical discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Here you going again with that. I didn't study philosophy, but if you're arguing what you call "fundamental logic and philosophy" by Socrates, then I will have to disagree with both of you. Sorry, I deny your verdict on whether or not somebody is fit for logical discussion.
> 
> If you don't think a negative statement is [sometimes] affirmative, then I'll say that you are unfit for logical discussion. Thank you very much.
Click to expand...

i never made any claims regarding affirmative statements.

considering the countless logical fallacies i've pointed out and the number of times you prematurely cry "victory" over straw man arguments (even if straw man arguments are effective propaganda tools used by lying, unethical politicians), it's very clear you do not understand logic enough to have a logical discussion.


----------



## AFK

> When you guys eventually figure out that our God is true don't say i didn't warn you. I tried everything in my power to get you to beleave God will eventually prove himself!


When you guys eventually figure out that there is no God, don't say we didn't warn you. At that point, you will realize you've wasted your life on a lie and did not direct your time, money, and energy towards more beneficial things in life.

Nice try with Pascal's Wager though!


----------



## AFK

> Darwinism is based on the fact that little bits add up, right? Well consider the fact that evolutionary text writers and journalists made up ridicuous statements and false evidence for Darwin. Christians have also made these mistakes, such as the case in new radical ideas. Such as the earth revolving around the sun. As assertion is not baseless than mercy and justice are also not baseless. Using your example of the Loch Ness monster. There has been multiple videos made on the subject, claiming they saw it. People can choose to believe this or not, no matter how strong the evidence. Convinced they are right, people ignore however strong the evidence is, so they can be comfortable in their delusion of immortality. But the truth is, people die. I know I will be prepared. One of my jobs as a Christian is, through peaceful means, let others be too.


i wasn't talking the loch ness monster. i was talking about the specific line of reasoning.


----------



## Sparky

How is it God??? God didnt exist until we did... Humans are god... hek, WE MADE GOD!!!

Jesus wasn't god until we said so.

Buddah wasn't god until we said so.

Anything can be god, ITS UP TO US!!!

I can say that little rock is god because it fell from the sky when someone

actually just kicked it to me.


----------



## AFK

> and to attack those that do believe in God.
> 
> 
> 
> this is a discussion forum, not to mention that this thread is specifically titled as a DEBATE, so i'm just starting a discussion/debate. granted, i may have injected some emotion into my approach, but i genuinely feel that way - that it's a social problem, but again, i'm focusing on another topic at the moment, i.e. whether creationism or god exists. if my emotions offends, i don't think it's that difficult to ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether you think your statement was offensive or not, I could've told you that it would offend a Christian. I think you could've presented your argument in a better fashion.
Click to expand...

i think we're all mature enough to not overreact to inevitable emotions. we're all mature enough to be able to accept criticism.



> AFK, if you're going to criticize religion, do so in a less offensive manner. It makes us non-believers look as bad as those that push the religions on us.
> 
> 
> 
> as i said above, my approach may have been emotional, but it's not really that overbearing that it needs to become melodramatic. also, i don't think anyone will associate all non-believers being the same as me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think they would treat you with so much hostility if you didn't label them as having a mental disorder for having a faith. People believe these things for many reasons. You need to consider that. Although I'm sure a lot of people just blindly follow religions out of fear or just shear ignorance, there are those that have an empirical stance on religion, arguing that it's illogical that God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

i was not exaggerating when i said that religion is a mental disorder. i truly believe it is. i don't know why people get so defensive about that. we all have mental disorders of varying degrees. my point is that religion is NOT benign, and it's definitely NOT beneficial (except for a few outstanding cases, but i'm speaking very generally here). religion fosters irrationality, fanaticism, etc. we have people playing planes into buildings and people fighting wars over religion. it's disgusting, and for the same reason that religious people preach to others because they think they are helping, i'm urging people to examine their faiths rationally. i feel they aren't thinking rationally (it's called "compartmentalization" - they might try to think rationally in most areas of life, but when it comes to religion, they don't want to or they block rationale out).



> You can't prove that God exists and you can't prove he doesn't; we'll just never know.
> 
> 
> 
> exactly. there is just simply no logical reason to believe (i dare anyone to bring up pascal's wager lol). and no, fear is not a logical reason.
> 
> also, the burden of proof rests on the positive, not the negative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think science and religion both have completely far out and ridiculous assumptions. You think it's crazy that somehow we're positioned in _exactly_ the right place by complete chance and that somehow conditions were perfect in a primordial earth for the right organic compounds to come together and create the phenomenon we call life? I'd agree with you, it sounds crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. just become something is "strange" doesn't mean it's false. also, things are ONLY "strange" because we are not accustomed to the newness of a seemingly radical idea/discovery, e.g. just 100 years ago, jets would be stranger than fiction. i think what happens is that people often think more by their emotions than by rationality. people of power; e.g. governments, the media, corporations, etc.; are aware of this human weakness and capitalize on it by creating propaganda, political campaigns that focus more on sensationalism rather than facts, commercials that persuade emotionally, etc. etc. etc. if we want a chance, we have to rise above this and stop being so intellectually lazy/dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think it's false because it's "strange," I just said it _sounds_ crazy. I don't deny the possibility that science could be completely right. I have many radical ideas and thoughts that you and creationists both would disagree with. They're just ideas, though, not beliefs.
> 
> Science is full of assumptions and theory that many scientists base a lot of their work around. For example, many scientists believe that evolution is really how we got here although it's never been proven. Look, science holds slightly more value to me than religion because science has led to results that I can see and experience. I just personally think there are no absolute truths, be it science or not. There are endless possibilities and I just choose not to _believe_ any one of them. And I agree with your stance much more than a creationist's stance, by the way. I just don't follow that one path as what I take as true. I consider and speculate on everything. You are far less close-minded than some of those arguing in favor of Christianity on this forum.
Click to expand...

this sounds like being selective with what you want to believe. as for the epistemological question of how do we know something is true: things are reasonable to believe when there is good evidence. this truism, of course, requires self-honesty to work.


----------



## AFK

> How is it God??? God didnt exist until we did... Humans are god... hek, WE MADE GOD!!!Jesus wasn't god until we said so.
> 
> Buddah wasn't god until we said so.
> 
> Anything can be god, ITS UP TO US!!!
> 
> I can say that little rock is god because it fell from the sky when someone
> 
> actually just kicked it to me.


in my original terms of engagement, i wanted to only respond to arguments. i'm compelled, however, to make a proactive statement here now (in concordance with your post, sparky):i think attributing things to god is the modern day equivalent of believing in magic. if something isn't understood, it must be magic; thus it is of god. it sounds and FEELS good because it SEEMS so convenient. (over)simplification is a psychological coping mechanism.


----------



## Asa

I moved these discussions over to another post, could you post them there please? Thanks  .

Unfortunately AFK, It seems it is impossible to have a real discussion with you. You are being offending, any logical person could see that. I am not easily offended and do not mind as much, but other people do. To tell the truth, I don't think by acting like you are, you will gain any atheistic following. You are being disruptive and in all conceivable manner, rude. I apologize to anyone who thinks this sounds harsh, but it is regretfully true. I think it's time this topic became locked, so we can move on to more friendly peaceful discussions, that have a meaning, rather to carry on a futile banter. No true philosopher can consider mistreating others to get his opinion made.


----------



## AFK

does it look like i'm concerned about popularity here?

i'm only concerned about speaking the truth. from the looks of it, no amount of tact will make the truth palatable, but palatability does not = respect.

i'm concise and laconic because i trust the reader to be intelligent enough to not require flowery tactful disclaimers.


----------



## Sparky

> in my original terms of engagement, i wanted to only respond to arguments. i'm compelled, however, to make a proactive statement here now (in concordance with your post, sparky):i think attributing things to god is the modern day equivalent of believing in magic. if something isn't understood, it must be magic; thus it is of god. it sounds and FEELS good because it SEEMS so convenient. (over)simplification is a psychological coping mechanism.


Im not going to offend you in any way.. so im just going to say that a few people think a force of something powerful just created everything. Its so magical, we refer it to "god"

Of course, i don't believe in any of this.


----------



## Asa

> does it look like i'm concerned about popularity here?i'm only concerned about speaking the truth. from the looks of it, no amount of tact will make the truth palatable, but palatability does not = respect.
> 
> i'm concise and laconic because i trust the reader to be intelligent enough to not require flowery tactful disclaimers.


Concise and laconic is not the word for it, if you truly do not care about tact. By constantly insulting people, it doesn't seem to me, you think they are very intelligent. This has become a mindless debate that will only result in loss of good will. I bear you no grudge.


----------



## AFK

i don't hold you any grudge too, but i don't think disproving someone is necessarily an insult...unless the recipient chooses to interpret it as such. i think that's what it means by "not taking it so personally." some people just simply aren't capable of a debate without feeling like they are personally attacked, and as i've said before, if one is unfit for debate, then that's fine...just don't pretend you are and dive right in.

p.s. a concise and laconic message is considered clinical as opposed to tactful. the former is conducive to and aims for logical resolution. the latter is conducive and aims for emotional resolution (regardless if a logical resolution is reached). both are effective forms of communication...*at the right place and time.*

Do you think you can argue the love of Jesus into me? When I stand before him on the Last Day I'll simpy explain to him that he doesn't really exist.


----------



## Orin

AFK- If I spent the time to explain where you're logic is in error would that really make a difference? If I explained to a hamburger how it should taste would it make it wamer or have more mustard? I think if you read the gospels that might change your heart.


----------



## robo mantis

Buy a bible and read it. Also on judgement day you will be trembling and you won't have a smart mouth.


----------



## Asa

> i don't hold you any grudge too, but i don't think disproving someone is necessarily an insult...unless the recipient chooses to interpret it as such. i think that's what it means by "not taking it so personally." some people just simply aren't capable of a debate without feeling like they are personally attacked, and as i've said before, if one is unfit for debate, then that's fine...just don't pretend you are and dive right in.p.s. a concise and laconic message is considered clinical as opposed to tactful. the former is conducive to and aims for logical resolution. the latter is conducive and aims for emotional resolution (regardless if a logical resolution is reached). both are effective forms of communication...*at the right place and time.*
> 
> Do you think you can argue the love of Jesus into me? When I stand before him on the Last Day I'll simpy explain to him that he doesn't really exist.


What do you truly think will happen on the last day? Nothing?


----------



## AFK

> AFK- If I spent the time to explain where you're logic is in error would that really make a difference? If I explained to a hamburger how it should taste would it make it wamer or have more mustard? I think if you read the gospels that might change your heart.


orin, if you can explain where my logic is faulty, it *could *make a difference. the *ONLY *sure-fire way to make a difference though is to *PROVE *that there is a god. until then, i just simply have no reason to believe in one.p.s. i was a christian for about the first 21 years or so of my life. i was a church leader, taught sunday school, and read the bible.


----------



## AFK

> Buy a bible and read it.


as i've just told orin, i already have.



> Also on judgement day you will be trembling and you won't have a smart mouth.


why and prove it will happen. i could just as much say that you would tremble on judgment day at the feet of Zeus, but until i prove to you that Zeus exists, there is no reason for you to *fear*.


----------



## AFK

> i don't hold you any grudge too, but i don't think disproving someone is necessarily an insult...unless the recipient chooses to interpret it as such. i think that's what it means by "not taking it so personally." some people just simply aren't capable of a debate without feeling like they are personally attacked, and as i've said before, if one is unfit for debate, then that's fine...just don't pretend you are and dive right in.p.s. a concise and laconic message is considered clinical as opposed to tactful. the former is conducive to and aims for logical resolution. the latter is conducive and aims for emotional resolution (regardless if a logical resolution is reached). both are effective forms of communication...*at the right place and time.*
> 
> Do you think you can argue the love of Jesus into me? When I stand before him on the Last Day I'll simpy explain to him that he doesn't really exist.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you truly think will happen on the last day? Nothing?
Click to expand...

i don't know what will happen for sure on "the last day" (assuming you're referring to death). most likely, nothing.

p.s. if you're setting up pascal's wager, it's not going to work.


----------



## Asa

What do you think will happen when we all die? Reincarnation? Just a black screen?


----------



## robo mantis

True christians will be in heaven with God you should know that. It says that in the bible.


----------



## AFK

> What do you think will happen when we all die? Reincarnation? Just a black screen?


i thought i've already answered this question? again, i don't think anything happens. you just cease to exist.


----------



## AFK

> True christians will be in heaven with God you should know that. It says that in the bible.


yes, but that is circular reason. you assume that christians go to heaven because the bible is true. but this line of reasoning is only true as long as the assumption (that the bible is true) is true. so this begs the question, "how do you know the bible is true?"can you answer this question? without resorting to circular reasoning of course.


----------



## Asa

> True christians will be in heaven with God you should know that. It says that in the bible.


I was asking AFK  .

Cease to exist huh? I'd rather believe that a loving caring God is here to rescue me. What would be your explanation of all the miracles Saints have done?


----------



## Orin

> p.s. i was a christian for about the first 21 years or so of my life. i was a church leader, taught sunday school, and read the bible.


What happened? Did you ever have a strong prayer life?

You are familiar with the Tokyo sarin gas attack. They did it because they were bored. It's hard to pretend a logical arguement when you think muslims running planes into a building has to do with Christianity. Universalism isn't Christianity.


----------



## AFK

> True christians will be in heaven with God you should know that. It says that in the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Cease to exist huh? I'd rather believe that a loving caring God is here to rescue me.
Click to expand...

i would like to believe that too, but i don't believe in things SIMPLY because they are more appealing. i believe in things because there is good reason (i.e. evidence) to do so.

according to your line of reasoning, i should believe that i'm a god myself and that i have neo-from-the-matrix-like powers because i'd rather believe in that than in believing that i'm a mortal.



> What would be your explanation of all the miracles Saints have done?


i don't see any reason to believe that any of the miracles actually happened.


----------



## robo mantis

AFK you are looking at things from a worldly point of veiw that since we are not perfect no one can be.


----------



## AFK

> p.s. i was a christian for about the first 21 years or so of my life. i was a church leader, taught sunday school, and read the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> What happened? Did you ever have a strong prayer life?
Click to expand...

i don't think one can blame me falling away from my faith to a "not strong enough" prayer life without resorting to circular logic. i also think my reasons for falling away is irrelevant to whether god exists. sounds like you might have a line a reasoning i'm not seeing, so i'd like to hear more about it if this is the case. tangentially though, i don't think prayer has any effect in the real world. i think it's a placebo effect, and yes, "miracles" do happen, but not because of divine intervention, but simply because it's statistically bound to happen 100%. in other words, it's a numbers game - given enough tries, XYZ will happen. when it finally happens, it appears to be miraculous/coincidental ONLY when you forget the countless other prayers that were NOT answered. in yet other words, prayer is a numbers game where it is statistics dictate that at least some prayers will be answered; and the frequency in which these prayers are answered are directly related to how likely they are to occur by chance.



> You are familiar with the Tokyo sarin gas attack. They did it because they were bored. It's hard to pretend a logical arguement when you think muslims running planes into a building has to do with Christianity. Universalism isn't Christianity.


i'm not familiar with the tokyo sarin gas attack. from what i understand, it was done by a religious cult. whether it was done out of boredom or religious reason seems irrelevant to me. and yes, universalism isn't christianity. i was only making a statement about religion in general since i don't know everyone's religions here. it's cool if we only want to focus just on christianity though, and if so, i would point to the christian crusade wars.


----------



## AFK

> AFK you are looking at things from a worldly point of veiw that since we are not perfect no one can be.


i am not understanding your point here. elaborate?


----------



## Orin

> i don't think one can blame me falling away from my faith to a "not strong enough" prayer life without resorting to circular logic. .


I was asking if the seeds fell on rocky ground where there was little soil and the sun burned up the plants because the roots were shallow. I didn't say your belief or disbelief would affect the existence of God but you might not know I existed if you never talked to me.


----------



## robo mantis

Since you can't see the circle logic, you resort to trying to get technical. Also pray that God strengthens your faith. It works every christian does it and it works out.


----------



## AFK

> i don't think one can blame me falling away from my faith to a "not strong enough" prayer life without resorting to circular logic. .
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking if the seeds fell on rocky ground where there was little soil and the sun burned up the plants because the roots were shallow. I didn't say your belief or disbelief would affect the existence of God but you might not know I existed if you never talked to me.
Click to expand...

okay, i think i may finally understand what you're getting at lol.  see, this is why i think tact can sometimes get in the way of communication when straight, cold facts are more important, e.g. in a non-social debate setting.if i understand you correctly (so correct me if i'm wrong), you're basically questioning whether i was truly a christian. if so, i still fail to see the relevance of this regarding the existance of god and/or creationism.


----------



## AFK

> Since you can't see the circle logic, ...


circular logic is not a type of logic. it's a type of logical fallacy.



> ...you resort to trying to get technical.


"getting technical" with logic isn't optional. it's THE and ONLY proper way to debate.



> Also pray that God strengthens your faith. It works every christian does it and it works out.


i don't see a reason to believe that prayer works.


----------



## robo mantis

When you see a building, how do you know there was a builder? If you see a painting, do you doubt there was a painter if he isn't prsent? If a building requires a builder or a painter for a painting, then creation requires a creator. Want to hear a theory of where the soda can came from? Billions of years ago, a bubbly brown liquid formed and sat on a rock. Then over billions of years, liquid metal formed around the object and completed itself with a pull tab. Then colored pigment formed the words 12 fl. oz. Does this sound ridiculous ? Then consider the "Atheist's Nightmare", the banana. It has three grooves on one side and two on the other that fit the human hand, better than a soda can. It has an outer casing that tell you the expiration date like a can, green too early, yellow just right, brown too late. It also has a pull tab and is biodegradable. It also fit the human mouth exactly. If you would like to truly challenge your doubts then I suggest you go to www.wayofthemaster.com


----------



## Orin

> if i understand you correctly, you're basically questioning whether i was truly a christian. if so, i still fail to see the relevance of this regarding the existance of god and/or creationism.


'I may have all knowledge and understand all secrets but if I have no love I am nothing.'

You said that you were a Christian and I was wondering if you were or if you just happened to grow up in a Christian family. I don't believe the creation of the universe hinges on your acceptance of God, I'm asking out of concern.

What is your ultimate logical falling back point? At some point you have to believe in an infinite universe or something. Believing in the big bang isn't an ultimate falling back point since there had to be some (zero and negative numbers do exist) reason for it. Besides, the big bang follows the first few verses of genesis whereas an always present universe would not.


----------



## AFK

> When you see a building, how do you know there was a builder? If you see a painting, do you doubt there was a painter if he isn't prsent? If a building requires a builder or a painter for a painting, then creation requires a creator.


this commits 2 logical fallacies:

1. tautology

2. begging the question

these incorrectly used tautologies begs the question, "does this line of reasoning apply to everything?" the answer is, "no."

does a building require a builder? yes.

does a painter require a painter? yes.

does a rock require a rocker? no.

does a turntable require a turntabler/turntablist? no.

does a cloud require a clouder? no.

does water require a waterer? no.

so if the begged question (does this line of reasoning apply to everything?) is false, then what does this line of reasoning apply to? things that we all agree are DESIGNED.

thus, to say that creation requires a creator is ASSUMING that creation is designed. once again, this falls back to the original challenge - prove to me that there is an intelligent designer (creationism) without resorting to circular logic (or begging the question).



> Want to hear a theory of where the soda can came from? Billions of years ago, a bubbly brown liquid formed and sat on a rock. Then over billions of years, liquid metal formed around the object and completed itself with a pull tab. Then colored pigment formed the words 12 fl. oz. Does this sound ridiculous? Then consider the "Atheist's Nightmare", the banana. It has three grooves on one side and two on the other that fit the human hand, better than a soda can. It has an outer casing that tell you the expiration date like a can, green too early, yellow just right, brown too late. It also has a pull tab and is biodegradable. It also fit the human mouth exactly.


while this is not a tautology, this once again begs a question(s). one question it begs is, "what about all the other fruits that aren't nearly as accommodating to humans?" another two logical fallacies this commits is stacking the deck and correlation does not imply causation. just because a banana HAPPENS to be so accommodating and convenient for humans does not necessarily mean it was intelligently designed. in fact, out of the millions of different types of fruit out there, it would be unusual if there wasn't at least ONE fruit that just HAPPENS to be as accommodating as the banana. statistics dictates that out of the millions of different types of fruits, at least one will be as convenient. this is a type of i_ntellectual dishonesty and/or laziness_ where you give only the evidence that supports your premise, while disregarding or withholding contrary evidence. and believe me, i'm well aware that christian apologetics stack the deck ALL THE TIME. that was the only way i could have taught my sunday school class on apologetics while i was a christian after all - i willingly ignored evidence to the contrary.



> If you would like to truly challenge your doubts then I suggest you go to www.wayofthemaster.com


haha, no thanks.  actually, i suggest that you find better apologetics. Way Of The Master was brutally raped by the Rational Response Squadwithin the first 5 minutes of this nationally televised christianity vs. atheism debate on ABC:

part 1 of 2

part 2 of 2

for the sake of christians, they should have picked a better team than way of the master. of course, that wasn't possible because ABC picked the teams (from what i understand).

way of the master teaches you how to effectively employ propaganda tactics, NOT logic.


----------



## AFK

> if i understand you correctly, you're basically questioning whether i was truly a christian. if so, i still fail to see the relevance of this regarding the existance of god and/or creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 'I may have all knowledge and understand all secrets but if I have no love I am nothing.'
Click to expand...

you can't invoke the bible to someone who doesn't believe in the bible in the first place without resorting to circular reasoning.



> You said that you were a Christian and I was wondering if you were or if you just happened to grow up in a Christian family. I don't believe the creation of the universe hinges on your acceptance of God, I'm asking out of concern.


my family is either "agnostic" or buddhist.



> What is your ultimate logical falling back point? At some point you have to believe in an infinite universe or something. Believing in the big bang isn't an ultimate falling back point since there had to be some (zero and negative numbers do exist) reason for it.


this is diving into advanced physics and astronomy, and i won't pretend i know much of the numerous theories physicists and astronomers have proposed regarding the "origin" (if there is an origin) of the universe and the big bang. bottomline is that unless you are familiar with physics and astronomy, you'll likely be *stacking the deck*, as would i. but out of curiosity, i did consult with my non-religious physics/astronomy expert friends for some referential material (so stay tuned). i just remember reading that material and recalling how the big bang and the "infinite" universe in no way WHATSOEVER definitively suggests anything divine.



> Besides, the big bang follows the first few verses of genesis whereas an always present universe would not.


that is still far from adequate evidence that the bible is true. in fact, EVERY religious book can boast parallelisms with the real world, including fulfilled prophecies. this is nothing unusual considering that out of the thousands or millions of statements made in ANY religious book, it is statistically likely that at least some will be "true."


----------



## robo mantis

I could go on to say that all fruits appear to be the right size to be consumed, but that doesn't appear to be the real issue here. I'm just amazed of people who can make the assumption there is no God. To make such a statement says you possess absolute knowledge of the entire universe, hardly something a true seeker of scientific knowledge can realistically and rationally say. But that is another issue, that again clouds the real concern and that is, what if you are wrong? Mathematician Blaise Pascal made his famous wager that if, as a christian, he were wrong about about God then he lost nothing but if he right he had gained everything. The issue for you is to consider that if you were to die this day and had to face the God you currently deny, where would you eternal destiny be? You're placing your hopes on a belief system (evolution) that requires more faith to believe in than christianity. I would really encourage you to listen to your conscios on this one and what God may be trying to tell you.


----------



## AFK

> I could go on to say that all fruits appear to be the right size to be consumed, but that doesn't appear to be the real issue here.


right size? that's a tautology. yes, of course, if something is consumable, then it is the "right" size, whatever "right size" means. what about fruits that aren't consumable and/or not the "right size?" now that means there is no intelligent design. once again, this is stacking the deck and begging the question.



> I'm just amazed of people who can make the assumption there is no God. To make such a statement says you possess absolute knowledge of the entire universe, hardly something a true seeker of scientific knowledge can realistically and rationally say.


atheists do NOT make any assumptions. the concept of god is TAUGHT. to not accept an idea is NOT an assumption.



> But that is another issue, that again clouds the real concern and that is, what if you are wrong? Mathematician Blaise Pascal made his famous wager that if, as a christian, he were wrong about about God then he lost nothing but if he right he had gained everything. The issue for you is to consider that if you were to die this day and had to face the God you currently deny, where would you eternal destiny be? You're placing your hopes on a belief system (evolution) that requires more faith to believe in than christianity. I would really encourage you to listen to your conscios on this one and what God may be trying to tell you.


i've already addressed pascal's wager in this thread. look for it.

it's famous because it's so fundamentally illogical yet christians still try to use it. i'm not going to go into detail AGAIN of all the reasons why pascal's wager is plain goofy, but you can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

i personally think this is the best and simplest disproof:



> *Ignores benefits/losses while alive*Pascal here takes what may be called an "eternal perspective." That is, his wager is not concerned with the lifetime of the person before death. At the very least, it assumes that belief and non-belief are of equal value before death. This ignores the time, money, and effort spent upon worship required to establish belief that could be redirected to other, more beneficial pursuits. Thus, a life spent on belief when there is no god results in a loss while a life spent on non-belief when there is no god results in a gain. I.e. If there is no god, life ends at death. This means that the only gain possible is during life, and before death. If one lives as if there is a god when there is in actuality not a god, then one's life before death (the only life one has) is wasted.


if there is no god, you've just waste all your time, money, and effort on worshiping a lie when you could have spent all that time, money, and effort on more beneficial and fun things in life. that's a HUGE gamble likewise. therefore, trying to get people to believe out of a false fear is totally irrational.

even pascal later admitted his wager was flawed, but of course, no pastor or priest wants to tell you that (STACKING THE DECK). even then, pascal's opinion is irrelevant without appealing to authority (yes, appeal to authority is another popular logical fallacy christians love to employ...it's another propaganda tactic).


----------



## robo mantis

If there are any others out there who share the questions or doubts of the debate on intelligent design. You may want to check out the works of the following:

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D, Ph.D

Stephen Meyer, Ph.D

Guillermo Gonzalez, Ph.D

William Lane Craig, Ph.D

Robin Collins, Ph.D

Jay Wesley Richards, Ph.D

Michael Denton, Ph.D

In conclusion, if I had to bet my eternal destiny, I would rather take Pascal's Wager any day.


----------



## AFK

> If there are any others out there who share the questions or doubts of the debate on intelligent design. You may want to check out the works of the following:Jonathan Wells, Ph.D, Ph.D
> 
> Stephen Meyer, Ph.D
> 
> Guillermo Gonzalez, Ph.D
> 
> William Lane Craig, Ph.D
> 
> Robin Collins, Ph.D
> 
> Jay Wesley Richards, Ph.D
> 
> Michael Denton, Ph.D
> 
> In conclusion, if I had to bet my eternal destiny, I would rather take Pascal's Wager any day.


all of their work have been debunked. i also hope this isn't an attempt at appealing to authority.i (and the rest of the philosophical community) just debunked pascal's wager, and yet, you still accept it. that makes no logical sense whatsoever. pascal's wager is KNOWN for being false. you have been taught to not know this (thus, your teachers are intellectually dishonest and/or lazy).


----------



## Asa

Why exactly do you think Saint's miracles do not exist? You can see them all the time. :? Curing of incurable diseases...


----------



## robo mantis

I wasn't aware that philosophical wagers, like Pascal's, could be debunked. However, you have demonstrated the religious fervor and desperation that the religion of the evolutionist must adhere to. You claim the authors listed have been debunked, plesase site YOUR sources for your informed conclusion, oh but wait, that would mean citing authority, sorry. In fact, several of them were former evolutionists. I know that for the evolutionist, in this age of knowledge, that many evidences are now threatening your faith. But aside from this internet bantering, the question remains where will people spend their eternal destiny. As I have said earlier, you are going to have to face a holy and righteous God on judgement day, whether you believe in Him or not. If He judges you by His standard will you be innocent or guilty? The Bible says "the wages of sin is death", if you die in your sins you will spend an eternity in heck. But do you know what this God you deny did? He sent His son Jesus, to die to pay your fine for your sins and mine. If you believe in Him, confess your sins, and trust in Him to give you a new heart you will be saved. The last authority I'm going to claim to you on this matter for now is again the Bible, who refers to atheism in saying "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Considering what you are placing your faith in to explain all things, please consider your cost.


----------



## Asa

Before it's too late AFK. :wink: I'll feel like a failure if I don't see you in Heaven. You probably didn't get a very good religious background if you turned away from Christianity. An eternity in heck doesn't sound too pleasant if you know what I mean.


----------



## Rick

> Why exactly do you think Saint's miracles do not exist? You can see them all the time. :? Curing of incurable diseases...


Which incurable diseases have been cured lately?


----------



## Asa

> Why exactly do you think Saint's miracles do not exist? You can see them all the time. :? Curing of incurable diseases...
> 
> 
> 
> Which incurable diseases have been cured lately?
Click to expand...

I don't keep up with current stuff anymore, but there was one instance in the case of cancer recently. And of course, AFK, what do you think of exorcism?


----------



## Rick

> Why exactly do you think Saint's miracles do not exist? You can see them all the time. :? Curing of incurable diseases...
> 
> 
> 
> Which incurable diseases have been cured lately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't keep up with current stuff anymore, but there was one instance in the case of cancer recently. And of course, AFK, what do you think of exorcism?
Click to expand...

Cancer is not an incurable disease.


----------



## Kriss

Also voted for the first choice. :wink:


----------



## Asa

> Why exactly do you think Saint's miracles do not exist? You can see them all the time. :? Curing of incurable diseases...
> 
> 
> 
> Which incurable diseases have been cured lately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't keep up with current stuff anymore, but there was one instance in the case of cancer recently. And of course, AFK, what do you think of exorcism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cancer is not an incurable disease.
Click to expand...

It is if you wait too long to get treatment. I should've been more clear.


----------



## Rick

> Before it's too late AFK. :wink: I'll feel like a failure if I don't see you in Heaven. You probably didn't get a very good religious background if you turned away from Christianity. An eternity in heck doesn't sound too pleasant if you know what I mean.


Wow.


----------



## Asa

> Before it's too late AFK. :wink: I'll feel like a failure if I don't see you in Heaven. You probably didn't get a very good religious background if you turned away from Christianity. An eternity in heck doesn't sound too pleasant if you know what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
Click to expand...

What is that supposed to mean :? ?


----------



## Rick

> Before it's too late AFK. :wink: I'll feel like a failure if I don't see you in Heaven. You probably didn't get a very good religious background if you turned away from Christianity. An eternity in heck doesn't sound too pleasant if you know what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is that supposed to mean :? ?
Click to expand...

Don't want to turn this into a religious debate. Let's just say I don't believe the same way you do.


----------



## Asa

C'mon, it's a religious topic  . If you're good, go to purgatory, then Heaven. If you're bad, go to heck. It sounds very, very harsh on the outside, but isn't life? When you go deeper into the faith, it starts to make sense.


----------



## Rick

> C'mon, it's a religious topic  . If you're good, go to purgatory, then Heaven. If you're bad, go to heck. It sounds very, very harsh on the outside, but isn't life? When you go deeper into the faith, it starts to make sense.


It doesn't make sense to everyone, including me. Science makes more sense. I believe the bible is a work of fiction that was written a long time ago so that people could make sense of things they didn't understand. Furthermore I don't believe in any God. I think that when you're dead, you're dead and that's it.


----------



## Asa

Any theories about your being when it dies? Their are saints that you can see their preserved bodies through the years...


----------



## Rick

> Any theories about your being when it dies? Their are saints that you can see their preserved bodies through the years...


When I die? Will be no different than anything else when it dies. My body can be preserved just like them but I don't believe there is a soul or anything like that that will live on and go to a heaven or a heck.


----------



## Asa

What is the essence of concience then? Don't tell me you have never felt guilt?!


----------



## AFK

> Why exactly do you think Saint's miracles do not exist?


Please remember that the burden of proof rests on the positive, not the negative. You're asking me to prove a negative, when in fact, it is Christians' responsibility to give us a reason to believe that these miracles exist(ed). It's really an invalid question.



> You can see them all the time. :? Curing of incurable diseases...


If we can see them all the time, please show me one such case.This is also begs the questions "why doesn't this happen all the time?" and "what about the times that these incurable diseases aren't cured?"


----------



## AFK

> I wasn't aware that philosophical wagers, like Pascal's, could be debunked.


I'm not sure if you're conceding, but yes, Pascal's Wager IS debunked. And quite thoroughly. It is just simply FUNDAMENTALLY flawed; the wager is built around a logical fallacy.



> However, you have demonstrated the religious fervor and desperation that the religion of the evolutionist must adhere to.


Evolutionists do not adhere to a religion. There is no religion if there is no god. This is propaganda-ish use of semantics to rouse emotional/appeal to emotion (I point this out because it sounds like you are regurgitating what your Christian teachers taught you, as opposed to your own personal findings).



> You claim the authors listed have been debunked, plesase site YOUR sources for your informed conclusion,


That's impossible to do without writing a novel. Cite any one claim of your authors, and I will attempt to debunk it.

Also note that my original objection was to highlight the "absurdity" of proving anything by simply posting a list of Christian apologetics. You get what you give.  



> ...oh but wait, that would mean citing authority, sorry.


You do not understand what "appeal to authority" means. Appeal to authority is NOT arguing about authority. It's basing the veracity of your argument simply by the status of your source. Do not take this the wrong way, but you continue to confuse and misuse logic; if you know you are not apt in logic, please step down.



> In fact, several of them were former evolutionists.


Now, this is an example of appeal to authority. The status of your source has no effect whatsoever on the argument's veracity.



> I know that for the evolutionist, in this age of knowledge, that many evidences are now threatening your faith.


You keep repeating this assertion over and over again, but where are the examples/evidence?



> But aside from this internet bantering, the question remains where will people spend their eternal destiny. As I have said earlier, you are going to have to face a holy and righteous God on judgement day, whether you believe in Him or not. If He judges you by His standard will you be innocent or guilty?


You conceded to Pascal's Wager being debunked at the top of your post, and yet you resume using it. STOP THE MADNESS.



> The Bible says "the wages of sin is death", if you die in your sins you will spend an eternity in heck. But do you know what this God you deny did? He sent His son Jesus, to die to pay your fine for your sins and mine. If you believe in Him, confess your sins, and trust in Him to give you a new heart you will be saved.


You can not invoke the Bible to someone who doesn't accept it. To do so is circular reasoning.



> The last authority I'm going to claim to you on this matter for now is again the Bible, who refers to atheism in saying "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Considering what you are placing your faith in to explain all things, please consider your cost.


Again, you conceded to Pascal's Wager being debunked at the top of your post, and yet you continue to use it. STOP THE MADNESS.


----------



## AFK

> Before it's too late AFK. :wink: I'll feel like a failure if I don't see you in Heaven. You probably didn't get a very good religious background if you turned away from Christianity. An eternity in heck doesn't sound too pleasant if you know what I mean.


You're using Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager has already been *thoroughly *addressed in this thread.


----------



## Asa

If a incurable sickness was not cured, it was because God thought it was necessary that that man's time on earth was done.

Also, there is also the question of exorcism. What do you think of that?


----------



## AFK

> Why exactly do you think Saint's miracles do not exist? You can see them all the time. :? Curing of incurable diseases...
> 
> 
> 
> Which incurable diseases have been cured lately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't keep up with current stuff anymore, but there was one instance in the case of cancer recently.
Click to expand...

You need to be reasonably aware of the reasons and sources of your beliefs, otherwise, how can you be reasonable confident in them? Of course, you can't...without being reasonable. In other words, this is why I think theists are only able to believe in god because they are willing to be unreasonable when it comes to their faith.



> And of course, AFK, what do you think of exorcism?


Exorcism is more of a paranormal subject than anything. For those who do believe in it, there are both religious and non-religious explanations. So there's two hurdles for religious people to overcome to cite exorcism as religious evidence:

1. That exorcism is real.

2. If #1 can be proven, then it must be proved that exorcism is religious in nature.


----------



## AFK

> Why exactly do you think Saint's miracles do not exist? You can see them all the time. :? Curing of incurable diseases...
> 
> 
> 
> Which incurable diseases have been cured lately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't keep up with current stuff anymore, but there was one instance in the case of cancer recently. And of course, AFK, what do you think of exorcism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cancer is not an incurable disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is if you wait too long to get treatment. I should've been more clear.
Click to expand...

I'd still like to read a case. Hearsay has little persuasive effect.

And EVEN if there is an unusual case, I've already addressed how prayer is NOT divine intervention. Please go back to my points regarding prayer and address them.


----------



## Asa

That does not answer my question. What do you think of exorcism?


----------



## AFK

> What is the essence of concience then? Don't tell me you have never felt guilt?!


Coincidence is the fulfilling of statistics. I've ALREADY addressed this multiple times (especially regarding prayer). Coincidence MUST MUST MUST occur in order for statistics to be true.

Guilt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt#Causes_of_guilt

As I've said before, just because one doesn't understand something does not make it divine. That is the modern day equivalent of believing in magic to explain things one can't explain otherwise.


----------



## AFK

> If a incurable sickness was not cured, it was because God thought it was necessary that that man's time on earth was done.


This is a cop out in the form of circular reasoning. Logically, the cop out MAY be true GIVEN that God exists, but the argument once again falls back on the question: What evidence is there that God exists in the first place.


----------



## Asa

No one is saying that. The Catholic Church practices exorcisms. And it does work. Obviously it has do with something more spiritual.


----------



## AFK

> That does not answer my question. What do you think of exorcism?


It does answer the question.My thoughts on exorcism is that it is not evidence of God.


----------



## AFK

> No one is saying that. The Catholic Church practices exorcisms. And it does work. Obviously it has do with something more spiritual.


Paranormal experts that explain exorcism scientifically abound. You saying that these scientific explanations do not exist sounds like an "argument from ignorance."

It works? I would like to see evidence.


----------



## Asa

Then please explain how the Church drives out demons from people with success?


----------



## AFK

> Then please explain how the Church drives out demons from people with success?


This question assumes 2 things:

1. That demons exist.

2. If demons exist, then these people who were supposedly exorcised were acting crazy because of demons as opposed to psychological disorders, attention, or whatever other non-demonic/non-religious reason.

So in order for me to answer this question, you will have to prove #1, and then #2.

*The question is also an example of CIRCULAR REASONING,* as I've just detailed above *(I did so, because given the reoccurring use of circular logic here, it seems like people don't understand what circular reasoning is)*.


----------



## Johnald Chaffinch

*this idea of a loving god is very seductive, it can make people happy if they really start to believe in it.*

it makes me sad to read people saying things about how a god will let them into heaven, when they've died. i wonder if that's 100% faith that it will really happen, or just a strong hope?

on the other hand the more rational atheism, comes pre-loaded with nihilism - you have to dig deep to find reasons for doing anything if it's really not going to matter to you when you're dead.

it's very sad that when people die they really are no more, but look on the bright side - at least they were born! in more cases than not life is a very harsh thing - we're the lucky ones! so make the most of it while you can.



regarding this debate please could you watch this video. it's one of my favourite talks ever and it's on the very subject of this debate :

http://www.videosift.com/video/Sam-Harris-...ious-moderation


----------



## OGIGA

Wow, I left for about two days and this thread just got humongous. I don't think I'm going to analyze everything post-by-post so I'll leave it up to all of you guys. Anyway, looks like AFK isn't understanding his flawed logic but that's okay. As long as the rest of the world does, I'm satisfied.


----------



## Asa

> Then please explain how the Church drives out demons from people with success?
> 
> 
> 
> This question assumes 2 things:
> 
> 1. That demons exist.
> 
> 2. If demons exist, then these people who were supposedly exorcised were acting crazy because of demons as opposed to psychological disorders, attention, or whatever other non-demonic/non-religious reason.
> 
> So in order for me to answer this question, you will have to prove #1, and then #2.
> 
> *The question is also an example of CIRCULAR REASONING,* as I've just detailed above *(I did so, because given the reoccurring use of circular logic here, it seems like people don't understand what circular reasoning is)*.
Click to expand...

Give me a @$#% break! You're just avoiding my questions, simply because you cannot answer them. By the Church driving demons out of a person, proves demons exist. No circular reasoning there buddy. If a person gets a demon thrown out of him by religious means, it means that there was either a demon, or that prayer truly does work, not coincedintly, which means that there truly is a God, completly disproving Atheism without using any blasted 'circular reasoning'!


----------



## Orin

AFK only attacks the weakest points and refuses to acknowledge important questions because he/she is just playing a game (sort of like Beavis and Butthead saying "uh, uh, he said hard" as though that was the original intent or context).


----------



## Asa

Well, I'm not playing anymore 8) .


----------



## AFK

> Then please explain how the Church drives out demons from people with success?
> 
> 
> 
> This question assumes 2 things:
> 
> 1. That demons exist.
> 
> 2. If demons exist, then these people who were supposedly exorcised were acting crazy because of demons as opposed to psychological disorders, attention, or whatever other non-demonic/non-religious reason.
> 
> So in order for me to answer this question, you will have to prove #1, and then #2.
> 
> *The question is also an example of CIRCULAR REASONING,* as I've just detailed above *(I did so, because given the reoccurring use of circular logic here, it seems like people don't understand what circular reasoning is)*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me a @$#% break! You're just avoiding my questions, simply because you cannot answer them. By the Church driving demons out of a person, proves demons exist. No circular reasoning there buddy. If a person gets a demon thrown out of him by religious means, it means that there was either a demon, or that prayer truly does work, not coincedintly, which means that there truly is a God, completly disproving Atheism without using any blasted 'circular reasoning'!
Click to expand...

That's absurd, both you getting mad and claiming that I'm avoiding your question. Your question is also absurd too, but out of respect, instead of just flat out saying it, I explained why.

You wanna know why your question is both absurd and circular?

It's like me asking, "Then please explain how the U.S. drives out aliens from Area 51 with success?" and then saying that that is proof that aliens exist. ABSURD.

The logical response would be to elicit the questions begged...

This question assumes 2 things:

1. That aliens exist.

2. If aliens exist, then Area had aliens driven out as opposed to top secret military planes.

So in order for me to answer this question, you will have to prove #1, and then #2.

You guys want to have a logical debate, then obey the laws of logic.


----------



## Asa

I think it's okay to back out of an arguement if your faith in completly being blasted.


----------



## Kriss

What ever your beliefs are, whatever your religion or god, there is no excuse for being rude to another person on any side of a debate.

Or am I wrong and there is cause to be rude?

I find the idea of a god a beautiful thing. I envy those who have real faith and more than this draw strength from that faith everyday.

I unfortunately have no faith in a god. I have said the occasional prayer (mostly for selfish reasons I'm afraid), and have looked around me and seen the beauty of this world and often wondered could there be? But I always have my doubts. It seems far to incredible to me.

I would love to beleive. Maybe I will find my faith one day when I truly need it.


----------



## spawn

Asa, that's the kind of thing that divides our world. We should be willing to discuss everything openly. Otherwise, there will never be peace between the West and the East. Sam Harris is right, and articulates it perfectly in the video Johnald posted. I recommend everyone go back to page 11 and watch the 23 minutes. If you don't want to watch it, you shouldn't be quick to argue in the thread. If you (I don't mean you specifically Asa) have time to formulate a post here to bash someone, you have time to see the video. It's a great video. Sometimes you need someone whose life's work revolves around thinking about why things happen the way they do to say what you were always thinking but afraid to say in order to be completely content with what you truly believe in.

/End passionate rant.


----------



## Rick

Great points AFK. I wish I could put my thoughts into text the way you do.


----------



## Asa

> What ever your beliefs are, whatever your religion or god, there is no excuse for being rude to another person on any side of a debate.Or am I wrong and there is cause to be rude?
> 
> I find the idea of a god a beautiful thing. I envy those who have real faith and more than this draw strength from that faith everyday.
> 
> I unfortunately have no faith in a god. I have said the occasional prayer (mostly for selfish reasons I'm afraid), and have looked around me and seen the beauty of this world and often wondered could there be? But I always have my doubts. It seems far to incredible to me.
> 
> I would love to beleive. Maybe I will find my faith one day when I truly need it.


Now Kriss, that is something I need to hear.  

Yeah, spawn, I did look at the video a while ago. It is good. I apologise for my outburst earlier. AFK, you're right, I am being hypocritic. Perhaps we will never reach a mutual understanding, but I go away from this discussion with respect for all religious debates, regardless whether I consider if this is right or wrong or not.


----------



## robo mantis

Its done we said all we can say for now lets all be friends lol


----------



## colddigger

man... i read all of this and the entire time i was thinking of AFK as that crazy basterd the Hamburglar, hehehe

and now, a moment of silence..........

:lol: 

i can't help it....


----------



## Way.Of.The.Mantis

> religion is a mental disorder. seriously.i invite any religious person to prove that there is a god or that creationism is true (without using circular reasoning)' date=' and i will quickly debunk each argument.  [/quote']
> 
> Ok, if you are serious, then read 'Darwin's Blackbox' - Michael J. Behe, an absolute must for any cynic, evolutionist....very famous book, blows Dawkin out of the water. Available at all good bookshops
Click to expand...


----------

