Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

I get angry with 'religious' people that say atheists are stupid.

And I think that gives me the right to get angry with atheists that say people who are religious are stupid.

Don't you know that God planted all that evidence to test you? He's the best troll evar.

For the record, I don't think that any belief is stupid. I just can't get behind any of it. Still, I sure wish my life had meaning.

This post has been edited by Scotch: 04 January 2011 - 02:16 AM

Lycan, on 04 January 2011 - 02:10 AM, said:

I feel the same way. Calling people stupid is a pretty stupid thing to do.

Oh god I forgot about this completely.

Calling stupid people stupid is more a statement of fact if they really are stupid, but they don't seem to appreciate that point when you mention it. If they're really smart, they say stupid is a subjective term, and then your whole argument is screwed.

On the actual point of beliefs, I recommend reading the non-fiction works of C.S. Lewis. Wonderfully provocative works, all of them.

Serious boring-to-some theological talk in which I address ILB's counter point to my own and Starwatcher's point on evolution, GO!

This post has been edited by Gameking218: 04 January 2011 - 02:37 AM

Lycan, on 04 January 2011 - 02:10 AM, said:

<snooths> and so in this chapter of the bible: moses runs off to talk to a bush/ rivers turn to blood/ people turn to salt: hilarity ensues

religion is what we fall back on when life's floor collapses Beneath our feet, the last hope so to say, in the ever unstable world we live in

and i think no one is completely devout anything, right?

there is always the interpretation to the religion you follow.

Morals are abstractly contrived.

Quote

Not just. Perhaps many do, but generally the picture is far more nuanced.

Quote

Just like every politician ever, you mean?

Quote

I disagree. Now, let me say first that I am not a creationist, either, but I do not believe in evolution. There is evidence against the theory (like, for instance, that genetic material is scrambled and not created through mutations), just as there is evidence for it. However, I am prepared to accept Darwinism until a better hypothesis is put forward. ^_^

Quote

Ah, yes, I agree with you more on that.

ILB, on 04 January 2011 - 02:44 PM, said:

Would you be able to explain the evidence against? I am not too sure I understand.
Even if the genetics are just randomly scrambled, if any of those genes are favourable then doesn't that mean that creature is more likely to survive and pass on these genes to future generations?

Well, since the theory of evolution says that all life evolved from single-cell organisms, then new genetic material must have been created. The claim is that mutations has created this material, yet this goes against the nature of mutations - they scramble information, or reinforce what is already there (or, in some cases, weaken it. This rarely to never gets carried on, except in the case of fainting goats). We know that microevolution happens, but as far as we know it is impossible for a banana to become a bird.

But surely if microevolution is possible then full on evolution is also likely? it would just take a fair bit of time for it to happen, and given that time has been around for a while now...

Evolution is merely the end result of microevolutions, natural selection, and time.

Well, it is possible, yes. Problem is, we do not have any proof that it has happened that way, so we cannot say that evolution as theorised by Darwin (and later scientists) is a law of nature, or even infallible. In fact, the latter option speaks against the very nature of science itself. But as I said, I am prepared to accept it until a better option is brought forth, or until we have enough proof to say that all its implications are possible. ^_^

matty_batty0, on 04 January 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

Speaking as someone who flip-flops on the whole Evolution/Creationism thing a bit (*ahem* ), some of the arguments that most dissuade me from embracing evolution (or, at least, our current model of evolution) touch on that very subject and involve "irreducible complexity". I'll let you look it up for yourself (because I'm laaaaaaaaazy ).

That said, I'm no biologist--not by a long shot--and I may be in over my head here. It seems the concept of "irreducible complexity" has received more than a healthy dose of criticism, after all.

At any rate, "irreducible complexity" may be one reason someone has for rejecting evolution (or, as previously stated, our current understanding of it).

ILB, on 04 January 2011 - 04:09 PM, said:

This was dug up in africa, with several other individuals. It's name is au.afarensis, and it has been dated to 3.2 million years ago.



Her name is Lucy, and she is one of many australopithecines. The australopithecines all share some characteristics with us, but retain many features that you only find in apes. Lucy has a dental arcade that is 1/2 way between the U shaped dental arcade of an ape, and the parabolic shape of a human. It is a suspected chronospecies (one followed directly from the other) with Au.anamensis, which was more primitive and had a u shaped dental arcade.

After you find enough evidence like this, it becomes really difficult to argue against evolution.

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 04 January 2011 - 08:49 PM

Philosoraptor says

^ More or less what I said but indeed.

I don't believe anything to be inherently true until proved so, nor untrue for that matter.
This basically means I believe in possibilities, of gods, of the intelligent design of the universe, etc.

Someone said a while ago about "finding yourself" - such a silly wording, but there's nothing better for it. Do it. All it consists of is thinking of what you believe, stand for, blah. I have Christians in my family, they don't go around saying homosexuals are evil or whatever, I believe the term is "liberal", or better yet, "accepting".

All give all of you three guesses as to MY religion. (hint: if the name dosent give it away I also wrote the answer on my profIle thingy.)

Godless, on 05 January 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

Um um um you believe in Buddhism?

Rawrdinosaur, on 04 January 2011 - 09:33 PM, said:

Well this is (for lack of a better word) stupid let's say I have an invisable cat and it is your job to prove that I don't if you try to touch the cat in order to prove that it is, in fact, not real I can just say "aw you sacred him off." and continue to make up excuses on the spot to refute any of your evidance

this is not unlike Rusells teapot which I'm not going to get into now because I have other things to do mabey somtime in the near future I will edit my post and add an explanation

I have a bit of a philosophy about these things: to you, your beliefs and to me, mine. As long as neither of ours are doing any harm, I'm totally cool.

Godless, on 05 January 2011 - 02:23 AM, said:

I could put you under a lie detector or take you to a psychic ward to see if you are just imagining it. That would thus prove the cat fake.

Rawrdinosaur, on 05 January 2011 - 02:45 AM, said:

You don't get it, he can just deny that evidence too.

He's trying to say that you can't inherently prove anything to the fullest extent. Through the power of idealism, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE! WHOOOOOO

Iapetus, on 04 January 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

I did look up irreducible complexity, yes it does recieve a fair bit of criticism, one quote "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
But yeah it is a possible flaw in the whole evolution thing, but much like religion, it has no strong evidence to back it up.
I admit evolution does have its flaws but it seems a more likely option to creationism any day. Speaking of which anyone know of any other half decent theories besides evolution and creationism?

This post has been edited by matty_batty0: 05 January 2011 - 04:55 AM

My choice is what I choose to do
And if I'm causing no harm
It shouldn't bother you
Your choice is who you choose to be
And if you're causin' no harm
Then you're alright with me

If you don't like my fire
Then don't come around
Cause I'm gonna burn one down
Yes I'm gonna burn one down

Also to all athiests you should join the no god blog

CaptainBaconMan, on 05 January 2011 - 04:02 AM, said:

I imagine reading the No God Blog must be something akin to following Pat Robertson on Twitter.

matty_batty0, on 05 January 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

Ouch.

just to join in the debate.

it doesn't really count as a religion but i would say i practice secular jewdeisem.

Quote

You misunderstand the point. Even though she lies somewhere between modern humans and modern apes, that does not mean that she must be a mid-stage in an evolution. The diversity of animals in the world is so great that many animals have such similarities. Also, we have no proof that her species was what became humans - it may have died out instead.

Of course, I am not saying that what you say is impossible, not at all. Just that it is dubious, and the picture is more nuanced than "look at similarities and prove evolution". ^_^

Iapetus, on 05 January 2011 - 11:26 AM, said:

I guess that did sound a bit harsh, didn't mean to come out that way sorry, I could have left religion out of it. Just that at the time of writing it, it was sounding very familiar to some other post which were defending religion based on faith, just as I was defending evolution based on faith to some extent.

This post has been edited by matty_batty0: 05 January 2011 - 04:46 PM

ILB, on 05 January 2011 - 04:36 PM, said:

The opposite of the ghost cat.

ILB, on 05 January 2011 - 04:36 PM, said:

The only other possibility is that she, and many like her, appeared literally out of nowhere sequentially as many millions of years ago.

Taken by itself, I might concede that Lucy could be a coincidence. The problem is that half formed beings of all descriptions appear in the archaeological record all the time, and that they all fit together coherently. If you don't like the idea that she could be one of our ancestors, then look ahead to the last 300,000 years or so at the development of modern humans. You find human remains at many sites together with tools and animal bones, but the human remains have a mix of primitive and derived traits. As you look at remains later and later in the record, they appear more and more like us.

Quote

Yes, there is no "proof". Proofs belong in mathematics, that's their domain. You are right, Lucy may or may not have been a human ancestor. I posted her here as an example of how species can and do change with time. We do know for sure that she was a chronospecies with au.anamensis of about 1/2 a million years earlier.

The only heavily supported human anscestors that we can trace appear with homo erectus, at about 1 million years ago.

Quote

I see the evidence, and it points towards evolution. Can you give me evidence to the contrary? I don't have to be sure about anything (outside of mathematics that is), but I do have to supply some good reasons for my claims.

Anyway, I'm not knocking religion here - for all I know God put these things in the ground and adjusted the carbon 14 levels to fool me into thinking that they're millions of years old when they're not.

The fact of the matter is that when I dig one of these things up and put a sample through a mass spectrometer, the ratio of C14 to C12 comes back as a number on my screen. Unless god invites me over for tea some day, I'm compelled to go with the evidence that I have.

Edit - this may sound a bit sharp, that wasn't my intention when I was writing it.
Anyways, it's an interesting thing to talk about.

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 05 January 2011 - 09:24 PM

You like debates doncha?

I dunno... it's just kinda hard to resist. Besides, the post by ILB was well considered and deserved a response.

Relevent:

I believe in the invisible pink unicorn! :trollface:

But seriously look it up, mildly amusing.

Cloud, on 05 January 2011 - 09:10 PM, said:

heathen !
all hail flying spaghetti monster !

Dramas dramas everywhere!!!!!!!!

This post has been edited by Rawrdinosaur: 05 January 2011 - 09:52 PM

matty_batty0, on 05 January 2011 - 04:41 PM, said:

Ah. It's alright, then.

this whole thread

"Jewdeisem" Please tell me that's not how you actually spell it.

We need to have a crazy christian and a crazy negative nancy battle it out

Also I enjoy that picture hahahahaha

Scotch: You must be new. Oddish can't really spell for shit

whf, on 05 January 2011 - 11:11 PM, said:

PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW HOW WRONG THEY ARE DAMMIT

I am atheist. HYPOCRITICAL YOU SAY?! YES! IRONIC?! YES! BUT I STILL LOVE YOU ALL!!

Quote

You missed it. Science destroys faith, because it removes any reason to be religious. Religion was used as a shitty explanation for how things worked and why they were the way they were. Once we got science, religion became a hinderance rather than a useful social tool.

Quote

No, the Bible was written by people. "Men got it wrong" is a copout answer. The correct answer is "God does not exist."

Why believe in God?

TL;DR

This post has been edited by Titanium Dragon: 06 January 2011 - 09:08 AM

What about Santa Claus? That guy's the muthafuckin' best. I don't see how his existence applies to this conversation.

I'm....Hindu-Confucian.
but I kinda believe in evolution and stuff like that, though.

Well, "nuff said.

Quote

I did not say that. As I said, I would be prepared to accept evolution if it was not for the fact that there is considerable evidence (I say considerable, but what I mean is just the literal meaning - proof that has to be taken into consideration) against the theory. Perhaps there are only parts of it that are flawed, and that we need to make adjustments. Perhaps the whole premise is mistaken, and we need another theory to replace it. Perhaps the evidence that speaks against it is what is mistaken.

You are correct in saying that science (apart from mathematics) can never come up with definite proof - the only thing we can do, is to conclusively disprove something. But then, if it is true that mutations never actually change genetic material, evolution as we know it has been conclusively disproved. Also, all the things we today see as evidence for it, has been revealed as wrong. Do not mistake me when I say this - I merely try to explain my reason for mentioning "proof" and "evidence".

Now, since there has been a continuous line of what we think to be human ancestors, that raises a few questions that we cannot answer. Was this micro-evolution (evolution within a species, such as the fact that Western humans have been getting taller as of late), is it just freak chance that made these different types appear consecutively (highly unlikely, yes), or is it actual proof for macro-evolution? We cannot be sure, and definitely not so sure as many appear to be. The concept that the strongest survive, however, is true - with some exceptions. Fainting goats being one of them.

Quote

Well, the fact that all observable mutations so far have proven to be scrambling of genetic material, should be one such example. Otherwise, I must admit that I myself have insufficient knowledge of genetics to provide further evidence, although I am aware that there are people out there who try to refute the theory on the basis of scientific discovery. Problem is, I do not remember any of their names at the moment. This sounds like a feeble protest, yes, but I assure you that they exist. ^_^

Quote

You are wrong, I am afraid. Suffice to say; the majority of scientists - at all times, until the last century - have been religious, and religiously motivated (for instance: "God created the Earth, let us understand the wonders that he created"). Science has existed, and has been supported and driven forward by religion, for thousands of years. In fact, atheism's greatest achievement until the eighteenth century was Attila the Hun. ^_^

And I hope I do not need to remind you that religion is still very much alive? Saying that "once we got science" is to fatally disregard the continuous progress that has been made ever since centuries before the birth of Jesus, and the vast majority of this has been perpetrated by religious figures.

Quote

Correct, the Bible was written (down) by people. May I just add that the same can be said about any part of science, and any scientific theory? And that "we got it wrong" is a very silly thing to say in any case? ^_^

Right!
For those of you who insist on arguing against the existence of a God or gods in this thread: I urge you to read and carefully consider the essays linked below before continuing your arguments. You don't have to read all of them, though I would very much like you to. :I If you must, feel free to just read a few of them. Don't just skim through 'em, though--this topic is an important one and it deserves your full attention.

For those of you who have been kind and respectful toward those here who believe in the existence of God: Thank you for being...er...kind and respectful. I appreciate it, and hope that I would show the same respect to you in the future, should our situations be reversed. You shouldn't feel obligated to read the linked essays. Though...you know...I'd love it if you did. *hinthint*, *nudgenudge*, *i'm-trying-to-convert-you-in-a-tactful-and-respectful-way*


Note: These essays may not prove the existence of God, but they do give strong evidence for it, and I think they will at least convince the reader that belief in God is reasonable, and that the existence of God is possible. Also, IIRC, these essays are specifically meant to give evidence supporting the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God (I'm sure you're all shocked :I)

Can You Prove God Exists?
Argument from Design
Argument from First Cause
Argument from Conscience
Argument from History
Argument from Pascal's Wager
Argument from Desire
The Divinity of Christ

All these links come from this page.

A lecture given by Dr. Kreeft covering most/all of these arguments can be found on Youtube here. I don't think it's as good as the essays, though. They seem to contain more information, and many more arguments.

Minor edit: Ach! It's "Dr. Kreeft", not "Mr. Kreeft".

This post has been edited by Iapetus: 06 January 2011 - 03:31 PM