Darwin's theory

Brian Shanahan

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

So far is just been me defending my argument

How have you been defending your argument, first you put up a baseless assertion, then you embarras yourself by constantly posting the same nonsense while contradicting yourself with every new word. That is not a defence that is idiocy.

while the atheists have provided no logical or a rational reason why a god does not exist because simply the atheist cant produce a logical reason why a god does not exist

I provided two, a) there is no evidence for the existence of any god, and b) the gods we "know" are clearly human constructs. You have not managed to show how they don't apply or are wrong. May I remind you that just because you don't like an argument against your view doesn't mean that it either doesn't exist nor is it not valid. You have provided no logical reason for existence in god (because as we currently understand the universe there is none, "because it makes me feel better" is not a logical reason), in fact you do not understand logic even at its most basic meanings, you couldn't comprehend what a logical argument was if it bit you on the arse.

J C

floggg wrote: »

I dot believe either are organs.

Again, I think it might be a good time to remind us of yoir scientific qualifications. Im going to assume it's not biology.

Quote:-
(List of) Organs
The respiratory apparatus
The larynx
The trachea and bronchi
The pleurae
The mediastinum
The lungs

The digestive apparatus
The mouth
The fauces
The pharynx
The esophagus
The stomach
The small intestine
The large intestine
The liver
The pancreas

The mouth is classed as an organ within the digestive apparatus and it encompasses the vestibule that is bounded by the cheeks and lips as well as the oral cavity proper.
I was speaking figuratively and pointing out that I can use my mouth to speak while 'turning the other cheek' ... which is also a metaphor.
You guys are such literalists ... it's no wonder ye take a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible ... while I take a plain reading.:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Quote:-
(List of) Organs
The respiratory apparatus
The larynx
The trachea and bronchi
The pleurae
The mediastinum
The lungs

The digestive apparatus
The mouth
The fauces
The pharynx
The esophagus
The stomach
The small intestine
The large intestine
The liver
The pancreas

The mouth is classed as an organ within the digestive apparatus and it encompasses the vestibule that is bounded by the cheeks and lips as well as the oral cavity proper.
I was speaking figuratively and pointing out that I can use my mouth to speak while 'turning the other cheek' ... which is also a metaphor.
You guys are such literalists ... it's no wonder ye take a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible ... while I take a plain reading.:)

By plain reading you mean you decide the bits you like are literal and the rest is metaphoric? :pac:

J C

Grayson wrote: »

The first reason is referred to as the cosmological argument. It's most common form is the one supplied by Thomas Aquinas. It's basic premise is that each effect can be related to a previous cause. And that cause has a previous cause etc and we can regress back to the original cause. Aquinas referred to God as the Unmoved Mover. That which created the universe but was not created himself.
There's two problems with this. lets first of all say that we can trace everything with a domino effect back to the beginning, ie God. Well where did god come from? the logic which supports this argument says that something can't come from nothing, there has to be an ultimate cause. God solves that, but then using the same logic we have to ask where did god come from? Religious people can't supply an answer there. they use logic to get to that point and then abandon it.

A transcendent ultimate cause is a logical conclusion from the chain of cause and effect that we observe.

Grayson wrote: »

The second problem is that there can be an infinite regress. mathematically it's been proven that an infinite regress can exist. That means there doesn't have to be what Aristotle would refer to as an efficient cause.

All effects have an equivalent or greater cause ... so even an infinite regress will still end up with a cause equivalent in power to the entire Universe ... and I call that God.

Grayson wrote: »

Your second argument is looping. You're using the content of the bible to prove the contents of the bible. If you accept that the bible is accurate about Jesus and Moses (and there's no evidence Moses existed, there's only a little for Jesus) then you also have to accept that Jephthah (who killed his innocent daughter because God told him to) and the fate of the Midianites (who were all killed except for the virgins who they raped) were real too. that God is evil. There's many examples of genocide in the old testament.

Evil people behaving badly ... not God.

Grayson wrote: »

This is the maddest bit.
Elisha Is Jeered
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.yep.
God killed or maimed 42 boys for calling someone Baldy.

... God didn't do this ... Elisha called down a curse on them ... another example of a person behaving badly ... not God.

Grayson wrote: »

But if you want to say that there were men who were great and that we can assume that since they were great, they must have been telling the truth, then you're wrong. It's a kind of argument similar to an appeal to authority. Just because the source is great does not mean they were right. It's quite possible they were well meaning but had a mental disorder and heard voices (that's if they weren't lying. it's not like anyone has ever lied and started their own cult/religion). If that were the case i would have to say that scientology might be right.

The veracity of the Bible is indicated by its 'warts and all' approach ... it doesn't spare anybody's blushes and tells it like it was ... not some sanitized (untrue) version of events.

Grayson wrote: »

I'm a soft atheist. i don't believe in God. I don't think God exists. I will admit that i may be wrong, but I'm pretty damn certain I'm right. It's like the Russell teapot argument. He said you could tell me there's a teapot floating in orbit between the earth and moon. I can't disprove it, but I have absolutely no reason to believe it's there. (He said this before space travel)

The Ultimate Cause, the requirement for an omnipotent transcendent creator and the requirement for the intelligent design of the CFSI in life all point towards a God of effectively omnipotent power.
The use of an orbiting teapot is a trivial analogy that doesn't bear comparison with the substantial reasons for believing that God exists.

Roger Hassenforder

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

That's a very ignorant statement your saying that the followers of Jesus and those of Moses or in fact of any prophet throughout history were unable to judge whether a person is sane or not? based on what? because you my friend said so? what makes you the mentally fit individual to judge that such individuals who had more influence in this world then any scientist or philosopher ever had were mentally retarded?

That's a very lazy way to escape the argument that such men were sincere and did receive orders and revelation from god that were corrupted over time.

If you encountered a person today, claiming some divine revelation and they're a messenger from some god, would you not view them as either insane/deluded or some form of a scam artist, or would you be asking for seconds at the kool-aid bar? Why are these any different? There is no evidence, other then faith, that these men received orders/revelation from some god. Claiming its logical only demonstrates either you don't know what logic means, or you're deluded.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

"Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss"

if you're basing your faith on Pascal's wager, why not apply it to any and every god. Why not spread your bets, and believe in the lot of them, you've nothing to lose... hedging on the Abrahamic one could seriously piss Odin off, and he isn't to be f**ked with. Also throw a few bob to the Scientologists and Church of All Worlds...we know they're loons, but just in case like...

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

By plain reading you mean you decide the bits you like are literal and the rest is metaphoric? :pac:

I take a plain reading ... reading historical accounts as accounts of historical events, poetry as poetry, Human law as law, prophecy as prophecy, people behaving badly as people behaving badly and parables as parables.

You guys seem to take everything literally.:)
... because it suits your purpose to attribute the evils that people did, as recorded in the Bible ... to God.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

You guys seem to take everything literally.:)

They would when they are debating someone who has the beliefs you have.

Roger Hassenforder

J C wrote: »

... God didn't do this ... Elisha called down a curse on them ... another example of a person behaving badly ... not God.

But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof.
(1 Samuel Chapter 5, vs. 6)

He's a nasty god. Hemorrhoids? In the days before Preparation H was begat?
In fairness...

Defender OF Faith

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I provided two, a) there is no evidence for the existence of any god, and b) the gods we "know" are clearly human constructs. You have not managed to show how they don't apply or are wrong. May I remind you that just because you don't like an argument against your view doesn't mean that it either doesn't exist nor is it not valid. You have provided no logical reason for existence in god (because as we currently understand the universe there is none, "because it makes me feel better" is not a logical reason), in fact you do not understand logic even at its most basic meanings, you couldn't comprehend what a logical argument was if it bit you on the arse.

Oh god the sheer level of ignorance in this post and your lack of insight along with your poor choice of words makes me really think who's really the ignorant one among us.
A) Before 1928 little evidence was present to prove that an bacteria could be killed effectively but the lack of evidence that this couldn't happen did not stop penicillin from being discovered.
there are plenty of logical and rational evidence that point toward god existence which I have listed before hand in my previous post which you clearly haven't read nor bothered to discuss where is the flaw in the arguments I presented.

I found this one funny you claim that I couldnt comprehend what a logical argument is and yet you present a flawed logical argument. What you presented my friend is called a genetic fallacy which I mentioned earlier in my post which is an illogical argument for or against an idea based on the origin of the idea. You claim that god doesn't exist(Conclusion) because people invented him out of their own imagination(origin) is a poor argument that doesn't support your claim that god does not exist.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You have provided no logical reason for existence in god (because as we currently understand the universe there is none, "

Your clearly dont understand the universe so hence you speak only for your self.
"A fool is quick-tempered, but a wise person stays calm when insulted"

J C

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If you encountered a person today, claiming some divine revelation and they're a messenger from some god, would you not view them as either insane/deluded or some form of a scam artist, or would you be asking for seconds at the kool-aid bar? Why are these any different? There is no evidence, other then faith, that these men received orders/revelation from some god. Claiming its logical only demonstrates either you don't know what logic means, or you're deluded.

I encounter people all the time claiming this insight or that revelation.
I listen respectfully to them and I weigh up the evidence and decide whether they have a valid point or not.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

if you're basing your faith on Pascal's wager, why not apply it to any and every god. Why not spread your bets, and believe in the lot of them, you've nothing to lose... hedging on the Abrahamic one could seriously piss Odin off, and he isn't to be f**ked with. Also throw a few bob to the Scientologists and Church of All Worlds...we know they're loons, but just in case like...

There is only One God who says that He will Save us ... so Paschal's Wager can only logically apply to Him.:)

J C

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof.
(1 Samuel Chapter 5, vs. 6)

He's a nasty god. Hemorrhoids? In the days before Preparation H was begat?
In fairness...

He has certainly had some nasty people claiming to follow Him ... and claiming that He was responsible for their nastiness ... all very Human actually.

Roger Hassenforder

J C wrote: »

I encounter people all the time claiming this insight or that revelation.
I listen respectfully to them and I weigh up the evidence and decide whether they have a valid point or not.

There is only One God who says that He will Save us ... so Paschal's Wager can only logically apply to Him.:)

thats what i like about you JC, you're not a bit biased.

J C

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

thats what i like about you JC, you're not a bit biased.

Facts are facts and logic is logic ... they help me to avoid bias.:)
The fact that I love my fellow man and I respect their right to hold an alternative opinion, also helps.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

Facts are facts and logic is logic ... they help me to avoid bias.:)

Or reality.. :P

Roger Hassenforder

J C wrote: »

Facts are facts and logic is logic ... they help me to avoid bias.:)
The fact that I love my fellow man and respect them all also helps.

you're sure you know what those words mean?

Defender OF Faith

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If you encountered a person today, claiming some divine revelation and they're a messenger from some god, would you not view them as either insane/deluded or some form of a scam artist, or would you be asking for seconds at the kool-aid bar? Why are these any different? There is no evidence, other then faith, that these men received orders/revelation from some god. Claiming its logical only demonstrates either you don't know what logic means, or you're deluded.

I would ask him for a miracle to prove his claim, since all prophet of god had some sort of a supernatural miracle to support that in in fact god spoken to them.
However I do not understand how do you compare such an individual to the likes of Jesus,Moses or Solomon and countless other individuals that claimed to have received revelation from god, and to this day people speak of their excellent character,honesty and sincerity.
If one person claimed he's a prophet we might say he's insane but there was 48 prophets mentioned in the Bible alone 24 in the Quran, their life and stories have been described in detail, and it does not make sense for somebody to sit down and write a book in which he invents 48 people giving them each a distinctive personality and trait and talk in detail about their origin and the events in their life.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

if you're basing your faith on Pascal's wager, why not apply it to any and every god. Why not spread your bets, and believe in the lot of them, you've nothing to lose... hedging on the Abrahamic one could seriously piss Odin off, and he isn't to be f**ked with. Also throw a few bob to the Scientologists and Church of All Worlds...we know they're loons, but just in case like...

My comments on Pascal's wager was directed toward Grayson as having studied philosophy I was interested in his thoughts regarding it.

J C

Saganist wrote: »

Or reality.. :P

I have found that facts and logic help me to accept realities ... like the existence of a Creator God ... who can Save you and has Saved me.:)

J C

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

you're sure you know what those words mean?

Are you sure you know ... yourself?!!:)

Thargor

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

and it does not make sense for somebody to sit down and write a book in which he invents 48 people giving them each a distinctive personality and trait and talk in detail about their origin and the events in their life.

Ummm, yeah it does, ever heard of money? Influence over others because you speak for a God that only you can hear? The odds are slightly higher that those were the basis for religion than an actual God that created billions upon billions of galaxies then hangs around one planet in one of them disapproving of homosexuals and divorce and making sure that one guys camel cavalry beats another?

Frank Bullitt

My oh my, where the hell are all these crazies coming from?

Those making a claim that there is a god, need to provide some form of evidence, its that simple. Atheists do not say that there is no god, the doctrine is that there is no reason to believe that there is such a thing as a god.

How do we get to this position? The evidence that there is now for the fact of evolution, the still lack of evidence for any type of god, divine intervention, miracles, or any fairytale crap that these holy books are filled with.

We are on page 158 now of this thread, and JC hasn't supplied one single shred of evidence to any of his arguments, so that says a lot (expect him to say he has), I am also calling him a fraud along with that, as he is very clearly not a scientist in any form, and I would severely doubt he even has a degree related to any science.

As for the position taken up by others who would be somewhat on the side if JC, I say this, very clearly. We would be far better off without religion, or any type of belief in some celestial power that has control over us. The blood that has been shed throughout society because of peoples beliefs is easily the blackest mark on our species, and it is all self-inflicted or brought about by religious bigots who think they can tell us how to live according to a primitive and evil text.

Nothing about religion is moral, I submit it is utterly immoral, and is clearly a manmade fallacy that needs to be eradicated from any type of influence from society, politics and day to day life.

The sooner this happens, we might then begin to reach the higher status that mankind deservers to be at.

Defender OF Faith

Thargor wrote: »

Ummm, yeah it does, ever heard of money? Influence over others because you speak for a God that only you can hear? The odds are slightly higher that those were the basis for religion than an actual God that created billions upon billions of galaxies then hangs around one planet in one of them disapproving of homosexuals and divorce and making sure that one guys camel cavalry beats another?

Thanks for your input, the bible may have been written by individuals however among these 48 prophets are the likes of Jesus who was know at this time for his honesty,truth and sincerity, Mohammed the prophet of Islam lived and died in poverty there are narrations by his companions that say that he would wrap a stone around his stomach from hunger in fact at the start of his massage his tribe came and offered him money until he become the richest and the most beautiful women in Quraish at that time yet he refused. I find it hard to believe that such people were after money fame and influence.
Being a student of comparative religion the Quran speaks about those who did in fact attempt to use their influence for money and fame:

"Indeed, they who conceal what Allah has sent down of the Book and exchange it for a small price - those consume not into their bellies except the Fire. And Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them. And they will have a painful punishment."{2/174}

Now for someone to be seeking money and kingship why would he include this verse in his own book? and why would someone write a book and threaten him self in his own book by saying

"And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings,We would have seized him by the right hand;Then We would have cut from him the aorta.And there is no one of you who could prevent [Us] from him." {69/44-47}

the similar massage can be said about both Jesus and Moses in the bible.

kingchess

Joseph smith is another" prophet " you forgot to mention,and some of his teaching do not agree with the Bible,and the Bible teaching is not in agreement with the Koran.So who do we believe ?,Jesus was the son of God- NO- Jesus was not the son of God but was a prophet and Mohammed was the last ,NO- Joseph Smith was the last. Hell -maybe Tom Cruise is on the right path with his beliefs or the Dalai Lama.who knows ????

Thargor

Some people will forgo luxury for power, influence and ego massage, some do it for the money, some do it for access to underage children (Mohammed included in the latter by the way), some are just batsh1t insane. None of this amounts to even a grain of sands worth of the evidence towards anything supernatural which you claim it to be.

Defender OF Faith

kingchess wrote: »

Joseph smith is another" prophet " you forgot to mention,and some of his teaching do not agree with the Bible,and the Bible teaching is not in agreement with the Koran.So who do we believe ?,Jesus was the son of God- NO- Jesus was not the son of God but was a prophet and Mohammed was the last ,NO- Joseph Smith was the last. Hell -maybe Tom Cruise is on the right path with his beliefs or the Dalai Lama.who knows ????

Thats what I spent that past 4 years trying to figure out and understand by studying and comparing the different religions to see which one really is the closest to being god true word.

kingchess

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Thats what I spent that past 4 years trying to figure out and understand by studying and comparing the different religions to see which one really is the closest to being god true word.

and which version of God are you leaning towards??

Defender OF Faith

kingchess wrote: »

and which version of God are you leaning towards??

what the Abrahamic religions are saying in other words Monotheism.

kingchess

Well two of those faiths deny that Jesus was the son of God,does that narrow it down a small bit more for you??

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

My oh my, where the hell are all these crazies coming from?

That's no way to talk about Atheists ... or indeed Theists either.

Gintonious wrote: »

Those making a claim that there is a god, need to provide some form of evidence, its that simple. Atheists do not say that there is no god, the doctrine is that there is no reason to believe that there is such a thing as a god.

... and I have given you some of the reasons to believe there is a God here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

... and here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92762061&postcount=2346

Gintonious wrote: »

We are on page 158 now of this thread, and JC hasn't supplied one single shred of evidence to any of his arguments, so that says a lot (expect him to say he has),

See above.

Gintonious wrote: »

I am also calling him a fraud along with that, as he is very clearly not a scientist in any form, and I would severely doubt he even has a degree related to any science.

Of course I'm a scientist ... that is obvious from my posts ... and the fact that I have single-handedly invalidated M2M Evolution and provided the basis and argued the details of ID.:)

Gintonious wrote: »

As for the position taken up by others who would be somewhat on the side if JC, I say this, very clearly. We would be far better off without religion, or any type of belief in some celestial power that has control over us. The blood that has been shed throughout society because of peoples beliefs is easily the blackest mark on our species, and it is all self-inflicted or brought about by religious bigots who think they can tell us how to live according to a primitive and evil text.

... to say nothing about the blood spilled by the Atheistic Communists, Maoists, Stalinists, Marxists, Leninists ... and more other ...'ists' and 'isms' than I could shake a stick at!!:(
We can all point to atrocities committed by Theists and Atheists ... and where does this get us?

Gintonious wrote: »

Nothing about religion is moral, I submit it is utterly immoral, and is clearly a manmade fallacy that needs to be eradicated from any type of influence from society, politics and day to day life.

The sooner this happens, we might then begin to reach the higher status that mankind deservers to be at.

That smacks of self-righteous intolerance of diversity of opinion and pluralism of belief!!!
BTW, I agree with you that religion is a man-made construct ... but so too is science ... and Atheism, for that matter.

Defender OF Faith

kingchess wrote: »

Well two of those faiths deny that Jesus was the son of God,does that narrow it down a small bit more for you??

This is becoming more of a personal discussion which I don't mind having via Pm & not in this thread as I dont want to veer the direction of this thread again having done so twice so far, but to answer this final question no it doesn't narrow it down for me while it might sound simple but it's much more complex then what you think.

Doctor Jimbob

This thread's gone off the rails altogether.