Why should we care about a teapot? We care about God. He isn't a teapot. The teapot does not interest me.
Seems like there isn't much of a debate here-
Shrink- God doesn't exist!
Someone else- Spirituality?
Shrink- Spirituality doesn't exist!
Someone else- Souls?
Shrink- Souls don't exist!
Someone else- Prove it!
Shrink- No, YOU prove it!
Nodgene- Religion eats babies!
Botolf- *bible*
Nodgene- The Bible eats babies!
(wow, got a little carried away...)

hey guys... yes, all you saying "empirical evidence or nothing!"...
why?
you question religion... I question science. Why should we stop at the empirically proveable? What proof (lol) do you have that we must?

also, re: evolution. Can someone familiar with it explain lactic acid? birds? eyes?

Also, Darwin's book is bad. He got paid by the word, so he repeated himself for 400 pages. Lame.

Quote:

No. But probability weights remarkably heavily against God.

Quote:

Well, I strongly disagree.

Quote:

Nothing statement. I was drawing a valid comparison and rather than address the comparison I was making, you decided to attack the nature of the teapot.

Quote:

Quote:

Well, I'd read it before you insult what is effectively the basis of all modern science, particularly biology (though it's seeping into areas of physics and chemistry more and more).
If you did read Darwin's book, you'd know, for instance, that he explains the evolution of the eye in extraordinary detail.

Quote:

Because that's all we have. Anybody can believe in any strange fantasy they want, but it tends to be detrimental to society and human development and advancement.

Anyway, I'm done arguing here (unless something particularly interesting crops up). I'll simply recommend Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. Most people haven't read it - it explains evolution in a great amount of depth, and there's not one argument against evolution that Darwin did not deal with right from the beginning - pre-empting them, if you like - though people seem to happily ignore that.
Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion is also a pretty interesting read, and it goes into much more detail over all of my arguments here.

Quote:

It is impossible to prove God exists because you can't see him, and any explanation we give to you fools won't suffice you.

But science ultimately fails; it cannot explain ultimately why there are positive and negative charges that form neutrons, protons, and electrons in atoms. I DARE you to explain that one to me.

Quote:

There is evidence Jesus (or some supernatural power) exists; the Shroud of Turin is a negative image depicting Christ as he was just about to rise to heaven. Cameras weren't around in 30 AD, and it couldn't have been painted because when analyzed, it produced a 3D image similar to that of a body. (I got this information from a video, not from WIKI that I prescribed.)

But, of course, I don't expect scientific atheists to believe Christians, even when science proves existence of the supernatural. Then again, if you want a look:Shroud of Turin (wiki d00d)

Quote:

Again, I don't expect you to believe this,

but my own father told me that when he was just 6 years old, he drowned in a lake. He went to heaven in the blink of an eye (less than a second). He saw heaven. He described the feeling ( this is roughly paraphrased): "Think of the best moment of your life. That lasting forever, that's heaven." He sadi that there was a line or something that if you crossed it, you couldn't go back to earth.

However, he was told that he had to go back. A force pulled him back from the entry into heaven. He was real angry.

When he was next concious, he was coughing up water.

You may say "Oh, it was probably just a dream." But he really believes he went to heaven, and I believe me dad, cuz he's an honest man, and he's a God-fearing man (not that he isn't also 'smart' like you are).

[This message has been edited by HeroPatrick 111 (edited 10-26-2006 @ 11:10 PM).]

Zink made me laugh

Back on topic, I do believe there is evidence for God, in the form of what he created. It's different from finding a fossil and inferring an unknown animal lived long ago (ie we can't find something biologically linked to God, a "god-fossil"), but is it invalid? Let's say you find a flashlight on the ground. You can infer that someone exists/existed who created it. Now apply this to Christian beliefs. I infer that God was responsible for the creation of the world from my observations of it. Does my belief seem so illogical now?

"you question religion... I question science. Why should we stop at the empirically proveable?"

The thing is, science is always being questioned, Scientific theories are tested over and over again, and theories that keep surviving (like evolution wish is a damned strong one) are ones that keep passing the tests. By questioning science you strengthen it, unlike with religion you simply weaken it.

Botolf, argument from design. Flawed and illogical, sorry.

Quote:

Neither of those statments is an absolute.

Often times, science has been proven inaccurate and incorrect.

And often times, when a man's beliefs were questioned and he was executed for them, more people would flock to it; it someone is willing to believe in something so much that he's willing to die for it... it must be real!

Also, Christianity (at very least back in its hayday) was a religion about supporting the decrepit and the wretched. Christianity broke down social barriers, allowing everyone, rich and poor, Roman and Jew, criminal and citizen, Asian and European, to live together, and live well.

The people whom God has truly has inspired are able to live with anyone and tolerate anything; a real Christian will accept any man and teach him patiently how he should live. Society could not have ever concieved such ideas of social equality without radicals like Jesus Christ.

Any of the things the Bible tells us could have just happened. But neither society nor nature doesn't defy itself by itself. Something amazing must have been working within nature when the Red Sea parted, or when David killed Goliath with one stone to the forehead, or when Daniel entered the Lion's Den and came back out unscathed.

Something must have been going on that is beyond our comprehension.

God exists, even though we sometimes wonder and have doubts, even though we can't see Him, even though some people don't believe in Him. He is a jealous God, but he's fair. He created us with the choice to believe in Him or not to because he wanted us to praise Him because we really believe in Him. We should blindly trust in His presence; we shouldn't question Him.

It's not an issue of questions and answers all the time. God's like a teacher or a police officer. You should follow their rules even if you don't understand them because they will teach to to follow directions, or even extend your life. You should take a class test even if you don't know thing one about it. You should stop at the traffic light when it turns red even if no cars are there. Such the same should you do when God asks you to believe in Him. You can choose not to do these things, at your own risk.

Quote:

Why must you ignore my thought, that God exists in the minds of most because most want God to exist?

Quote:

It isn't irrational, it's just impatient. And impatient demands for an answer to an extremely difficult question do not produce good, solid results. As I have said "because it is" is an inferior conclusion, and does not merrit any paticularly competant understanding.

Religion asks you to "trust God" because "God knows everything", and "we can't understand God[everything]".
So why is it so hard to accept there are some things humans will have difficulty understanding - and some things we simply cannot explain competantly at the moment at all?

Quote:

Humans cannot understand everything - do not be so naive to assume we can. Especially at this technological level.

Quote:

Just because Jesus existed, doesn't make him the son of God. Of course, there's plenty of evidence to suggest he did.

Quote:

I think you simply underestimate the technical abilities of a group of programmers.

Quote:

I wonder... You know, I think such phenonimon could indeed be a natural response. When the body is very close to death there's no point to keep it feeling sensation normally. Perhaps this "best moment" experiance is a result of nearing death... That the body just responds with a final and natural "pain killer" experiance.
Who knows? Close proximity to death has no be studied extensively in labratory conditions, as trying to bring someone to death and back is just nasty.

Quote:

No, just short sighted.

Quote:

Use "quote"MESSAGE HERE"/quote". Replacing " with [ and ] respectively.

Quote:

No, scientific theories can be proven innacurate and incorrect. Solid and patient methodology can never be fundimentally wrong.

Quote:

Good lord man. Indoctrination works well, but it doesn't make anything especially real.

Quote:

Do not preach. Refer to my above statements, I feel they help to explain my point of view on the issues.

Quote:

It's a quote, by Terry Prachett I think.

Quote:

Yep, a lot of people want God to exist, can you explain how this invalidates the concept of God?

[qYou know, I think such phenonimon could indeed be a natural response. When the body is very close to death there's no point to keep it feeling sensation normally. Perhaps this "best moment" experiance is a result of nearing death... That the body just responds with a final and natural "pain killer" experiance. [/q]

Presumably mechanisms concerning death cannot be passed down genetically?

Quote:

When there's no evidence for it to exist under usual scientific scrutiny, under a veil of spirituality or not - a desire for it to exist would show that such a concept would have been created, and so would not have simply existed.

Quote:

I don't see why not. If it's a genetic trait then it'll be passed down. So if someone comes back from under a specific close-to-death experiance it would simply be some way of proving such a trait existed in the first place within a specific gene pool.

"When there's no evidence for it to exist under usual scientific scrutiny, under a veil of spirituality or not - a desire for it to exist would show that such a concept would have been created, and so would not have simply existed." (sorry I dont know how to quote with the button) It would show a possibility that it was created through man, not show absolutly. There are many things that people want to exist that dont, and things people dont want to exist that do. For instance, I wish Aristotle hadnt been born but, alas, all evidence I've seen shows he did.

Quote:

I can now pick up a flashlight and assume it was never built by anyone or anything. Thanks for improving my understanding of modern science.

[This message has been edited by Botolf (edited 10-27-2006 @ 03:50 PM).]

Quote:

A much better explaination to why the concept exists, rather than those who would say such a being exists because it is. But no, it isn't absolute.

Quote:

You will notice anything in regards to spirituality is assumed to exist by those who believe. They believe because they want it to exist, not because they have evidence to suggest their claims have basis in truth. I focus on spirituality for this point, as anything with any shred of real evidence in it doesn't apply, as you keenly point out.

You can't wish aristotle away, sure you could be indoctrinated to believe he didn't exist, though... The real difference is - that with faith, it doesn't require scientific or logical analyisis. It's based on what people want to hear, completely unsubstantiated. Spirituality is based on person experiance.

I just think it's absolutely bewildering that so many believe so strongly in something that they have no real proof could exist. They believe it does, however and so live their lives out with the aim of achieving goals that will "guarantee" them places in an afterlife.
I suppose when organised religion and spirituality have been around for so long, deeply questioning them for many is unthinkable.

Ultimately, people don't know everything. I don't know everything and niehter do any of you. But people have a distinct habbit of making something out of nothing, and throwing unsubstantiated superstition at a life that doesn't have an obvious reason or meaning to make it feel better seems a common and easy way of dealing with it. Hope and faith.

Here is my evidence that some higher power has (at least) modified us humans to be different from all the other creatures on earth:

Scientists say that all life started with simple single-cell animals in the water, and eventually evolved to fish and bugs, then reptiles, then dinosaurs, and ultimately mammals (not that some past evolution hadn't had some remainder).

Then scientists say that all life evolves over time to become better at living and eating. A more advanced version of an animal outlasts a more primitive version, which eventually dies out. This is called by us normal folk "survival of the fittest". To scientists, it's called evolution.

Finally, many scientists claim that humans evolved from monkeys and apes. The evidence of this can be found in Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species", which goes in detail on evolution.

However, when Darwin concluded we are descended from chimpanzees, we forgot to consider some important things: human emotion, human defiance of instinct, and technology. If you don't understand this, I will explain:

Human emotion is one of several distinct differences between humans and chimpanzees (or any other animals). Animals have no emotions. They merely seem so based off of common sense (explained later). Humans have many emotions or "phases of mind":

+ regret/remorse
+ sadness/sorrow
+ happiness/joy
+ fear
+ courage/bravery
+ determination
+ agreement
+ disagreement
+ anger/rage
+ irritation
+ confusion
+ curiosity

Some scientists confuse animal instinct as being emotion. However, animals only react from experience and from common sense. They cannot reason if something is dangerous or not unless they've already had run ins with it, or unless they've been "taught" with punishment or reward that something shouldn't be touched.

Humans, however, have the ability to reason wether or not something is good to touch or not, and even if they want to do something they know is wrong to do, they can resist the instinct to do that thing.

For instance, A man is sitting on a park bench drinking a Coke. He sets the Coke can down on the park bench and goes off to a nearby tree to take a piss.

If the monkey is thirsty and has been taught that Coke makes for a good drink, he will go over, and drink the poor sod's can of Coke without even bothering to ask him.

However, if another man (or woman) walks over and also feels thirsty, she will not pick up an opened Coke can even though she has been taught that Coke is a good drink, and agrees with that idea. Ratherly, she will quite simply pass the bench and Coke can by and buy a Coke from a nearby store. Or (less likely) she may see the fellow pissing behind a tree and ask him if she can have a drink (make your own assumptions).

Finally, technology is the human development of tools, shelters, and other things that influence our survival rate. Other than humans, no animals have discovered any technology other than what they began with.
Some animals have built-in survival techniques (for instance, a box turtle can hide in its protective shell it it is being attacked). But most animals have thusfar been unable to develop better techniques of survival other than the ones they currently have.

Humans, on the other hand, have developed their survival skills significantly. Had we stayed primitive in technology like the animals, we would probably not exist today. But since we can think, and since from the beginning we have been able to see what we are doing and anlyze the results of what we do, we have been continually been figuring out how to make things more efficient and comfortable.

For example, in the beginning, men could only live in caves (because they hadn't developed any kind of shelter yet). Then men messed around with some sticks, logs, and stones and came up with primitive architechture to create the first dwellings, allowing men to live in areas even where no caves were. More technolgy was developed to make these houses portable so they could follow the food they hunted.
When the Agricultural Revolution occured, people started building more stable and permanemt dwellings since they could stay in one place and farm. From there, society, cities, kingdoms, and eventually empires developed. Technology could flourish since people would stay sedentary and be able to think of something other than "oh no! the animals are running away! We gotta follow them or we'll starve to death!". Eventually, people even came write down what they were saying so as other people could get information at a late time.

Finally, according to "survival of the fittest", if we were descended from monkeys, should they not be extinct if we are their more advanced descendants?

These (emotion, resistance of instinct, and technology) are my main points that distinguish that we cannot simply be evolved from monkeys, and that at very least we are a separate race if not created specially by a higher power that cares for us.

Quote:

Not necessarily. Not all people die peacefully. Several people have died with their eyes wide open (sometimes in horror).

Some monkies and animals weep, I saw one on discovery channel do it when its kid died from a lion. To nodge, the evidence for an omnipotent god is that fact that it is omnipotent. No evidence - means no evidence was wanted. Evidence - its all around us. Not the car, but what makes up the car.

And to hero, animals do have rage, trust me, I met a dog once, boy sure it was pissed off.

Curiousity - my god, ever seen a kitten?

If I was all powerfull, and some kids were questioning whether or not I existed, I would watch, and LAUGH at there foolishness. "hahaha, haha *breath* hahaha... ad infinitum"

Quote:

Dogs bark rabidly whenever something foreign enters their smell or sight. Sometimes they sniff the hands of the foreign object, unless it is a guard dog, in which case it just eats the hands of a foreign human.

Quote:

They - and many baby animals - are naturally curious because they haven't seen bloody shit yet.

Quote:

That's rubbish. Animals can feel fear, anger, excitement... You just look at chimps as an example. They express a great range of statements and emotions through a limited range of howls and calls.
Besides, half the words on your list arn't emotions.

Quote:

Humans reason because they have experianced. A toddler who pees against a wall gets smacked or yelled at, so they know not to do it again. Similarly, in a simple biology class experiment I remember;
A bumble bee was brought to a toad, the toad tried to eat it and got stung. It obviously hurt, and so the toad didn't try to eat the same bee again. A few days later, a species of harmless insect which looks exactly like a bumblee bee was brought to the toad, it did not touch it - for it obviously has learnt that trying to eat bumblee bees (or things looking like them) hurts and does not result in a meal.

Differences between both? None. It's a simple learn-respond condition-effect.

Quote:

This results from the combination of two powerful inherant tools - language and the ability to use tools. Chimpanzees and even Gorillas have been documented picking up sticks and using them as tools to help pick insects out of holes and logs. That? There's using something as a tool. As I previously claimed also, chimpanzees have an effective but limited linguistic range. The development of such without written language can be a long time.

Your above responded to statements are no evidence of a divine intervention at all.

Quote:

No. The "survival of the fittest" often refers to competition inside of a given species, moreso than competition between species.

Simply, a small monkey in a tree isn't really going to bother or interfere with a gorilla at all, so no competition exists. Besides this - the two are completely different species and may have a common ancestor, but are very far apart genetically.

Humans may share a common ancestor with chimps, but the chimpanzee is a modern species. It hasn't remained chimp throughout the millions of years in which humans have developed.

Quote:

I have shown you the flaws in them all, furthermore. "Monekeys" and "Apes" are entirely different. Perhaps a common ancestor way-way-way back was a monkey, but for the most part, it's a bunch of Apes. The main differences is that monkeys have long tails, Apes do not.

Quote:

You misunderstand, perhaps I should try an analogy.

The human is a computer - it's fan breaks down and is overheating. When it crashes before the processor melts it displays a colourful screensaver.
I hope that notion helps understand my idea.

Quote:

You can't say the evidence for a being of superstition is that it is a superstitious entitity. That's like me saying Leprechauns exist because they are Leprechauns. But I'd be laughed at if I claimed that, the only difference is that the concept of a God is hugely popular, so it is automatically assumed to be factual as so many base their lives on it. But this is a common and flawed assumption.

[This message has been edited by theNodgene1 (edited 10-28-2006 @ 08:13 AM).]

Quote:

Don't be idiotic. Explain, please, how a flashlight is in any way analogous to the universe. A quick search for "Paley's watch" will direct you very swiftly to the many, many deficiencies of the design argument.

Quote:

I believe both were constructed.

What I perceive of the watchmaker argument is that it is a hypotheses, formed from observations. As for building it up into a theory, we have our personal interactions with spiritual matters and the harmony of nature.

(I apologize for acting sour with my last reply)

Quote:

Not quite following...
if you're saying those who die slowly release some sort of a calming or happy emotion or something, then perhaps you're right.

However, I still say, not everyone dies peacefully. In the scenario that you are instantly killed and know you will be so, you are not at peace in your last moments of life.

Specific example:

Say you are walking down an alleyway. You hear something. You turn around and see a man pointing a gun at you. You freeze in panic. Just as you turn around, he shoots and the bullet hits you directly in the head and infiltrates your skull and brain. You die instantly, and you die not with peace in your mind, but with panic.

Query: You lose all energy (you have electricity within you, y'know) when you die. So where does it go?

I apologize for interrupting the converstation so late into the thread, though I would like to give my $0.03 (yes, three cents, my opinion is worth more than yours ).

In my opinion, the existance of God is undeniable. From Rasputin to Saint Lucia to the Virgin Mary appearing in Damascus, Lourdes, and Yugoslavia (among many other areas) to the miracles of Holy Shrines, God is right in front of our faces! No, we do not have full understanding of any supernatural being, that does not mean that holding a, eh-ehm, "blind faith" is believing "superstitious fantasy". I don't think it is a coincidence that most scientists are atheists when most historians are Monotheists.

Maybe the earth was not created in six days. Maybe the earth is older than 6,000 years. Does that mean God does not exist? To propose such a prospect is ridiculous.

Quote:

I fail to see how that can be an argument as to why God does not exist. E=mc² unlocked the secrets to nuclear methods. It gave great confidence to the Americans in time of war...but led to the destruction of land and numerous lives. Nazism and Communism were both secular ideologies. Therefore, we can all safely conclude that all science and all atheistic beliefs are evil. *cough*

People are idiots. There is no denying that. Let's look at the conquistadors who slaughtered or enslaved thousands of "heathen Native Americans" in "the name of the Lord". Look at another direction to see the numerous preachers who use the "believe in God or burn in hell" argument. Turn around yet again and see people pressured into giving their lives (and destroying many others) to reach salvation. Religion per se is not evil (with exceptions, e.g., that of the Aztecs--which I believe was given from the devil, but that's just faith), it is man who makes it evil.

I apologize if I sound a little egotistical, but I felt it necessary to add my opinion.

[This message has been edited by MACHO oIlY maN (edited 10-28-2006 @ 11:33 PM).]

Quote:

What happens when a chicken gets beheaded?

Quote:

Yes, somewhat. Not as to what happens after death, but to those who would take long enough to die, or to come back from it - to talk about it may be able to speak of a heavenly encounter, or what they percieve as it.

Quote:

Earthed I guess. I'm no expert in the field you query, though.

Quote:

Indeed. Mainstream religious belief compliments science these days. If not towards a simplistic notion that what we cannot understand or comprehend gets labeled as "God" being the cause.

Quote:

It isn't. It's a comment on how blind faith does more harm than good.

Quote:

Not necessairly. What of the theory of Dark Matter?

Quote:

Blind faith does nothing bad--fanaticism does.

I should have mentioned in my previous post that I will never lose my faith, for my faith is not blind. My sister, whom is mentally ill, developed a mutation that made her right leg two inches longer than her left. A friend from church--who is also one of the most devout Christians I have ever met--said a prayer to my sister, and her leg grew right in front of me! Although I still question my beliefs almost everyday, it always gets reinforced whenever I look at her.

Well there is part of a cell, forget whats its called, starts with an L I think, that when a cell dies acts as a suicide pack. In using this pack it breaks itself down and it also uses all the cells energy. Now I think we have all been thinking of the christian god a lot (I know I have) but lets broaden ourselves here:

How can you prove an omnipotent god exists/doesnt?

I for one do not have an awnser. And to hero, monkies make little homes sometimes and beavers make dams.