191 replies to this topic

[ZanetheWolf]

I'm not blaming you. And Faith is the belief in something that's hard to believe, really. So, In the end, I'll respect what you think. I will not say you are wrong, I won't say that I'm right. I have faith because it can't be proven. As weird as that is, that's how I am. So, basically, I'm happy that you have made a decision on what you think. Good on you.

[Alextendo]

I'm not blaming you. And Faith is the belief in something that's hard to believe, really. So, In the end, I'll respect what you think. I will not say you are wrong, I won't say that I'm right. I have faith because it can't be proven. As weird as that is, that's how I am. So, basically, I'm happy that you have made a decision on what you think. Good on you.

Finally someone that can be cool and make sense without being close-mind! You rock, buddy!

[ZanetheWolf]

Thanks, Alex.

[FinInfinite]

Is not religion a belief that somehow, someday, we will have all the answers?  That we may find them out in whatever afterlife a man may believe in, or that mankind itself will find all truth eventually?

It seems to me that you believe that science will eventually provide every answer - that through hard work and a great amount of genius, that we may someday find all of the truth in this universe.

 

I say that a religion is a (wo/)man's belief in what he thinks is truth.

[chief]

Okay here is one.. You attack someone again like how you have been and I'm going to temp ban you, Alextendo.    You have created far too many issues on this site because..frankly you get way too heated during any discussion.  I'm actually getting sick of opening reports and having you the cause of some problem.

 

And no I'm not some religious person out to get you.  Or whatever else.  I'm not religious.  I don't have any grudge against you or what you do here.  Don't care.  But when you keep on getting dragged up in reports and people even my mods coming to me asking what to do..It gets annoying.   Especially when I read through everything and see that - simply put - you are just a ass hole.  Or at least coming across as a huge ass hole.  

 

Now I'm not ban happy, I hate coming across on people cause I always figure everyone can calm down and sort its self out.  Without calling people closed minded and so on.  But apparently that cant happen here.  Yes it is a heated topic, but I at least hoped for some sort of good chat.

 

Any you know what as well? You ignore me or you attack this post you are banned for good.  You have had enough warnings from other mods and I'm sick of it.  Especially that I'm being called into this now.  

 

So either cool it.  Stop fully attacking people, have a good conversation or leave this topic.   You can't do that then we will have a problem.

 

 

 

PS.. I have only banned like 2 people in 5 years.   I don't like even talking about it.  

 

 

 

This is your last warning. 

[furrykef]

I'm only loosely following this thread now because so much has been said in it recently, so apologies if I miss some things. I'm just addressing what sticks out to me in a quick scan through the more recent posts.

By Occam’s razor alone any form of intelligent design be it theo-evolution or creationism is infinitely more credible than atheistic abiogenisis.

Wrong. Who designed the designer? If God needs no designer, I don't see why life on earth should either. Occam's Razor favors abiogenesis if you ask me, by removing a variable (i.e. God).

"DNA is an incredibly detailed language, revealing vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell - design which could not have arisen by purely naturalistic means. In every other area of our world, we recodnize that information requires intellgigence and design requires a designer. With our present-day knowledge of DNA, this presents a formidable challange to Darwinian evolution."

Richard Dawkins wrote an entire book to refute this point. It's called The Blind Watchmaker. I've yet to see a creationist or, uh, intelligent designist actually refute the arguments made in that book. (Do note that I only have a passing familiarity with them myself, but what I have seen seems solid.) Most seem to resort to attacking Dawkins as a person or ignoring these points in favor of ones they find easier to attack.

Funny how the religious get defended and the non-religious one are always the one who get blamed.

No, you just don't have any tact. I'm an atheist and I'm with acstrife on this one.


And now here's a new thought that as far as I'm aware has not been brought up in this thread (at least, not in exactly this form). Those of you who believe in a religion... how many of you have studied religions other than your own? Supposing you're a Christian, have you read, say, the Qur'an? Have you tried to figure out why, exactly, many Muslims hold their beliefs so fervently if you believe they must be mistaken?

[Reed Teran]

So I'm not the only one who bothered to read all the books...even though I am not said "christian"?

[Uncle Ben]

Might be best if we just pull the plug on this topic

[furrykef]

What, 'cause of one guy?

[brmsort]

Supposing you're a Christian, have you read, say, the Qur'an? Have you tried to figure out why, exactly, many Muslims hold their beliefs so fervently if you believe they must be mistaken?

 

I don't want to get dragged into the chaos again or get too far off topic, but I would like to try to answer your question.

 

I have not done this as of yet, but I do have a Qur'an in my personal library that I want to read at one point. However, as much as it might surprise those outside of the Christian circle, the Bible is a large book with much information. Whole libraries of systematic theology delineate the interworkings of Scripture from many different points of view even among Christians. I am busy trying to work out the truths of my own faith.

 

And I am sure this complexity is true of other religions as well. Therein is the biggest danger in reading any large, complex work like the Qur'an without a teacher, you can come away with ridiculous ideas about what it says. Still it is worth doing.

 

It is not so much I think Islam is wrong as much as I am convinced Jesus is the Lord.

 

And I agree we should not have to close a topic. I am not mad; I know when to back away.

[Uncle Ben]

What, 'cause of one guy?

 

No but its gotten outta hand before

[furrykef]

Yes, mainly because of that same guy.

[TheRedStranger]

acstrife, on 06 Sept 2013 - 8:50 PM, said:

Alright guys, seriously lets try to keep the personal attacks to a minimum.

 

Alextendo, you are way out of line.  You need to cool down.

 

Indeed, argumentum ad homenum (argument agains the man, not the argument: eg. You are a stupid meany head, and therefore wrong in your cosmology) will only cloud our minds on this important issue and be counterproductive overall.

 

 Alex and Reed, if you have personal problems with me take them up with me personally like civilized young men. I'd rather you cuss me out and call me names in private than offend the rest of this community with your bullying, playground antics.

 

So far I have seen only seen insults and assertions from my opponents - neither careful nor considerate explanations, sources, evidence, or any simulacrum to rational argumentation. If they can't take the heat on one issue they just flee to the next.

 

I believe they need little more logical rope to which to hang their own ethos and logos within the boundries of this issue... It seems they have already done most of the work for me.  I think I have proven my point (especially within my former qoutes of great scientific men and evidential discussion of my most carefully studied field of science as both a student and journalist: biology)  that "religious" people can be rational, scientific, and loving; and, that "irreligious" people can be the opposite, even to the level of ideological inquisition and intellectual imperialism. Ultimately these labels are always in some way imperfect, for faith and science are a forever concatenated: every formulated hypothesis, every notion, every move we make is not made in the absolute trust of our own intellect but a reaching out beyond it in order to learn more. It's based in our prime presupossitions as paticular persons.

 

"From a knowledge of God's work we shall know Him."

 Robert Boyle, founder of modern chemistry.

 

 As for those who defended me thank you.

 

As for those who have tried to offend me, I forgive you.

 

 As for those who have personal questions about this topic but don't want to get in a flame war, well, all you have to do is PM me. I will either awnser these questions to the best of my abilities, or lead you to writing from professionals that specialize in the inquired subject.

 

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:31, Jesus.

 

 God bless, Fellow Freedom Fighters.

[furrykef]

So far I have seen only seen insults and assertions from my opponents - neither careful nor considerate explanations, sources, evidence, or any simulacrum to rational argumentation.

Erm, what about mine?

[Reed Teran]

Sir Stranger,
I only argued with you about your bit on Absolute Truth. I applauded your way of dealing with alex, where are the insults?

Also, MAJOR SPOILERS, the Qur'an is just the bible with a few skewed words. They have the same stories (Moses's bit is EXACTLY THE SAME), same commandments but worded differently, and basically all the same bits. Only difference is, the Qur'an says christians, jews, AND muslims go to heaven, no questions asked.

[furrykef]

Reed just sparked mass riots in the Middle East.

[Reed Teran]

ANARCHY! ANARCHY! ANARCHY!

Excuse me gentlemen while I go blow things up.

[ZanetheWolf]

I don't really read anything biblical really. I can't really tell you a whole lot about the bible, other than what most people might know.

 

But i mean, i think that Christians, Muslims, and Jews go to heaven. I even think that people who don't have any religion to follow get there, no questions asked. But that's just what I think.

[TheRedStranger]

FurryKef, let me first say thank you for your respectful manner.

 

   Let’s just say, like a game of chess I deliberately let that door open for this…

 

 In the end you have to have something with aseity when it comes to an ontological argument, lest you fall into infinite regression, which is a largely disproven doctrine throughout physics and cosmology, especially given the second law of thermodynamics for example, which I can simplify with an analogy:  Imagine the universe is a car and that car has a finite amount of gas (useable energy) if the car itself was eternal (timeless) the car would be out of gas already an eon ago! This is just one common sense argument against this, now for some observational evidence.

 So far the eternality of the universe alone has been confirmed as non-credible. It is a common scientific knowledge that Edwin Hubble discovered the universe had an origin in the early 1900's by observing the expansion of the universe and discovering Hubble's Law and Constant. This verified The Catholic priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre's theories on a cosmic genesis (a.k.a  to many this is called the Big Bang). Einstein later helped verify this, though he at first disagreed with him as did many others (http://www.astronomy...cosmolgy/s2.htm). Given this general revelation there has to have been something before there was an universe and by proxy time itself. Seeing how time is the progression of events within the universe, there has to be something that has eternality (something that is above the influences of the progression of events) there in order to create the universe.

 

“…almost everyone now beliefs of the universe and time itself, had a beginning…” Stephen Hawking and Robert Penrose, The Nature of Time and Space, (Princeton University press, 1996, pg. 20.)

  Therefore, since the universe is proven finite, and the laws of physics and mere probability cannot create the information and order necessary for life, we must scientifically deduce it was from an intelligent source, which is the only tested and proven creator of information and order of said information (common sense example: you see a building, you know there is a builder). Abiogenesis remains speculatory in nature, and its impossible probabilities are more than absurd. But don’t just hear my word for it:

 

“We have this very solid conclusion that the universe had an origin… That implies that before that there was nothing. I can’t imagine how by nature, in this case universe, could have created itself. And that very fact universe had a beginning implies that someone was able to begin it. And it seems to me that had to be outside of nature [supernatural].” – Dr. Francis Collins, ex-atheist/now evangelical Christian and physician-geneticist on the Human Genome Project, in his book Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press 2006, pg. 75).

 

 

 Occam's Razor still favors biogenesis despite the perception of your mere preference.  If you study the evidence, by removing an impossible series of variables (i.e the purely happenstantial formulation of complex proteins into organic mechanisms capable of reproduction, ingestion, digestion, consumption, healing and metabolic regulation through said consumption, excretion, mobility, adaptation, and a series of primary defenses against possible hostilities one's environment  in a said environment that geochemists long since the disproval of the Stanley Miller experiment in 1953 deem as a series of impossible conditions in light of the early earth’s supposed atmosphere , and a gradual and random series of chance mutations to create irreducibly complex structures).

 

  As for your comment about The Blindwatch Maker how can one say they have not truly studied a certain series of arguments properly then claim to say they have never been refuted?  How do you know, if you don't – well - know? What is this series of unbeatable arguments you speak of?  This is an argument from authority (which is always a potential fallacy when the said authority is fallible men, which thus demands from us the judging/peer review of their evidences and arguments).  Moreover, I decided to fact check you on the publication of the work, Michael Behee’s Darwin’s Black Box could never have been critiqued by Dawkin’s In The Blind Watchmaker. Why? Well for one the publication dates on Black Box: 1996; Watch Maker: 1986... How does Dawkin’s directly counter Behee’s book if he hasn’t written it yet and the current date of publication? That’s a ten year gap! Are we assuming Dawkins is a Time Lord? . Actually Behee does the opposite of what you claim in his book, countering Dawkin’s arguments to random chance mutation and a gradual, selection only progression of the species.

 Even if it was a counter, I don't see how bringing in just one book into this discussion brings any furtherance to this debate, unless of course you actually promise to do what is called a syntopical/synthetical reading, a reading of the arguments made by Dawkins and then research and read responding works that rebuttal against his series of arguments, and prove to us all that there is not fault within them. Are you up for that challenge? If so, so am I, we can learn and work together. We can compare notes and PM overtime. Afterall, mere heresay has no place in this debate, and for now I am compelled to doubt that this one supposedly panceal, irrefutable book against the questions of macroevolution vs microevolution, irreducible complexity, and the overarching development of complex and functionally ordered organic compounds into  survivable, reproducible, and adaptive biological mechanisms and how they advanced into the gambit of species we know today (which I discuss in a prior post above - to any other reader reading this).

“The odd against a universe like out emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications…”  Stephen Hawking, who also says. “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to created beings like us.” (Quoted in the above source from Dr. Schafer.)

 By the way, I have studied these supposedly iron-clad arguments through my schooling, reading, and interviews, and I can tell you there are indeed multiple scientific works that do counter act Dawkin's ideas contained with this said unrefuted book. Dr. Werner Gett, In The Beginning was Information would be a a good started starter. Again Behee's work still stands when it comes to irreducible complexity vs. Gradualism in the context of our debate so far thus I recommend Darwin's Black Box. Biophyscist Allistar Mcgrath wrote the Dawkins Delusion, and that's been quite the zinger. Some other authors, ranging from Astrophysicists to Biophysists, to Journalists to Historians, and to Philosophers to Cosmologists who have all discuss Dawkin's ideas and offer brilliant counter-arguments (as well as a summary on the whole issue of atheism and theism as a whole) are:

 

 The Reason For God, by Dr. Timothy Keller (I especially prescribe this one given your current questions about Christianity).

 The Death of Evolution, Jim Nelson Black Ph.D.

 The Case for The Creator, Lee Strobel.

 Green Eye of The Storm, John Rendle-Short.

 A Shot of Faith to The Head, Mitch Sotkes, Ph.D

 Questioning Evolution , Kevin Logan

Origin of Species 150th Anniversary Edition with Comentary by Ray Comfort.

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist, Norman L Gieser/Frank Turek.

The Sources I have already used.

And more…(Jason Lisle’s work is always good perspective).

 

 Also Dawkin's work has been peer-reviewed by many fellow evolutionary scientists. Harvard Geneticist Richard Lewontin in his critique "Billions and Billions of Demons" in the New York Review of Books, (Jan, 9, 1997) gives  E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Lewis Thomas's work (all noted for their popularity with the public at the time of writing) a honest critique...

"…each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market. Wilson’s Sociobiology and On Human Nature rest on the surface of a quaking marsh of unsupported claims about the genetic determination of everything from altruism to xenophobia. Dawkins’ vulgarizations of Darwinism speak of nothing in evolution but an inexorable ascendancy of genes that are selectively superior, while the entire body of technical advance in experimental and theoretical evolutionary genetics of the last fifty years has moved in the direction of emphasizing nonselective forces in evolution. Thomas, in various essays, propagandized for the success of modern scientific medicine in eliminating death from disease, while the unchallenged statistical compilations on mortality show that in Europe and North America infectious diseases . . . had ceased to be major causes of mortality by the early decades of the twentieth century."

 This is just a few. Note there are much more. And these are just books and writings.  If you would like references to other material or have other questions we can discuss it via PM. And note this was just one argument against Atheism. I haven't even delved into Fine-Tuning, The Regularity of Nature, The Clue of Astetics, The Clue of Desire, or the impossible task of proving a universal negative in light of a particular piece of positive evidence, and still then we even haven't pulled out all good ones yet.

 

  Well I gotta fly guys! Don't let this thread burn you out too much, and remember to take a break and cool down if gets to heated or stressful. As for me I am going to enjoy the rest of the forum and until I have to part ways. Bye!

 

 Oh and Kef: when I am done with discussing atheism, scientism, and naturalism, I will get around to other Relgions...patience Grasshopper.

[Reed Teran]

....AND THEN THE FIRE NATION ATTACKED.

I'm a bit spent, I've said my piece thrice already, so I'm waiting for the argument to move much further forward.