NationStates Jolt Archive

I was once posting a poll on how would you choose to die. I was told to do a "nice religion post." well here it is. And please excuse me that I refered to God as "he." I upset someone...I hate this stupidity.

There really should be a stickied post of common poll results, so that people don't keep doing the same polls over and over again.

I don't believe in Pappa Legba, Zeus, or Ahura Mazda, why would I believe in Allah, Jehova, or Jesus?

Im 100% atheist. No god, ever, never!

As long as you refer to God as He, it doesn't exist. But God as an it does exist, as far as I can tell.

There really should be a stickied post of common poll results, so that people don't keep doing the same polls over and over again.
I think some time soon I'll have to write my own scripture. It would be so much handier to just give other people a copy/link and point to the relevant section rather than answering the same questions over and over again.

I don't believe in Pappa Legba, Zeus, or Ahura Mazda, why would I believe in Allah, Jehova, or Jesus?

Testify! :)

As a Discordian, there is no God, only Eris, the Greco-Roman Goddess of chaos, confusion, helter-skelter, hodge podge, and bureaucracy.

HOLY MOLY!!! There are a lot of atheists out there. Now guys, let's debate self-awareness shall we?

HOLY MOLY!!! There are a lot of atheists out there. Now guys, let's debate self-awareness shall we?
So what's to debate? It's something that's not fully understood.

So what's to debate? It's something that's not fully understood.
If it was fully understood, one would need not debate it.

If it was fully understood, one would need not debate it.
I'm not sure, but I think it would be alot like debating whether or not there's life on other planets. Both sides could present their arguments, but in the end we don't have any idea which side is actually right.

HOLY MOLY!!! There are a lot of atheists out there. Now guys, let's debate self-awareness shall we?
I am self-aware. I cannot know that you are, so why should I talk to you? Since one can only proove that oneself is self-aware, we are our own god.

BOW TO ME!
Yes sir...

I'm not sure, but I think it would be alot like debating whether or not there's life on other planets. Both sides could present their arguments, but in the end we don't have any idea which side is actually right.
Yes you are correct. I guess every person who believes in a soul would simply say "Cogeeto ergo sum."

It seems atheism is much more common than I thought.

It seems atheism is much more common than I thought.

Lets just say this is an educated forum. ;)


What I spend my time contemplating, rather than if God exists. What will happen after I die. I mean my mind has difficulty accepting I'd be gone forever with nothing else ever happening... gone in darkness.

As a Discordian, there is no God, only Eris, the Greco-Roman Goddess of chaos, confusion, helter-skelter, hodge podge, and bureaucracy.
I know that it's a great song, but I didn't realize it even had a Goddess and all.

When I get to the bottom
I go back to the top
of the slide
where I stop and I turn
and I go for a ride
'til I get to the bottom
and I see you again.

Yes, and doesn't it just a wee bit strange life could just appear on the face of earth, I mean we evolved from apes, who evolved from rodents.......................................who evolved from bacteria. How did plants and bacteria just "grow" outta nowhere before they could reproduce?

Yes, and doesn't it just a wee bit strange life could just appear on the face of earth, I mean we evolved from apes, who evolved from rodents.......................................who evolved from bacteria. How did plants and bacteria just "grow" outta nowhere before they could reproduce?
Actually, it was the ability to reproduce first and then bacteria and plants.

How did plants and bacteria just "grow" outta nowhere before they could reproduce?
*sigh* Look in any decent biology textbook (not one from Kansas). Or read anything by Richard Dawkins.

Lets just say this is an educated forum.

Good point.

What I spend my time contemplating, rather than if God exists. What will happen after I die. I mean my mind has difficulty accepting I'd be gone forever with nothing else ever happening... gone in darkness. You know that you are self-aware. You can't accept the possibility that the self-awareness will disappear - not through fear, but because you've got nothing to compare it to.

I can't imagine there being nothing after death. We're self-aware, and it just seems impossible to me that that could be destroyed, if it is a tangible "thing" at all. Or is the self-awareness of others something that is experienced, therefore it doesn't matter if our own… damn. I can't articulate. Fucking language.

*sigh* Look in any decent biology textbook (not one from Kansas). Or read anything by Richard Dawkins. Abiogenesis is unproved and generally thought to be impossible. I've always subscribed to some form of Deism.

Abiogenesis is unproved and generally thought to be impossible.
Unfortunately we don't have a billion years to sit looking at a test tube. What we can observe is that the basic components of life do spontaneously form (for example, astronomers have discovered that many interstellar gas couds are full of amino acids). And what do you mean by 'generally thought to be impossible'?

Minuta']Im 100% atheist. No god, ever, never!

Not to be rude, but isn't vehemently denying there is a god just as illogical as vehemently declaring that there is a god?

How can anyone really be an atheist? To be one, wouldn't you have to be able to conclusively prove there isn't a god?

I'm not saying there is one, I'm just saying it's impossible to prove or disprove.

How can anyone really be an atheist? To be one, wouldn't you have to be able to conclusively prove there isn't a god?

I'm not saying there is one, I'm just saying it's impossible to prove or disprove.

Would that mean that you can't be religious unless you can prove god? Interesting point...

I´ld rather say I´m not convinced by what scarce evidence there is for the existence of gods of any kind.

Not to be rude, but isn't vehemently denying there is a god just as illogical as vehemently declaring that there is a god?

i'm technically an agnostic, but...

"A boss in heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore if god did exist, he would have to be abolished."
-Mikhail Bakunin

How can anyone really be an atheist? To be one, wouldn't you have to be able to conclusively prove there isn't a god?

I'm not saying there is one, I'm just saying it's impossible to prove or disprove.
I don't see any evidence that there is a god, just like I don't see evidence of dragons or unicorns. I don't believe in dragons or in unicorns, although I find them to be less fantastic that the idea of a god.

As I understand it, few religions if any require a logical proof of a diety. That's where faith comes into it.

But atheists, who are generally creatures of logic, seem to illogically claim that god definitively does not exist.

Agnosticism makes more sense to me since you can really never be sure (unless you go the faith route).

As I understand it, few religions if any require a logical proof of a diety. That's where faith comes into it.

But atheists, who are generally creatures of logic, seem to illogically claim that god definitively does not exist.

Agnosticism makes more sense to me since you can really never be sure (unless you go the faith route).

So, as believing in something is an act of faith, not believing in something is either faith in itself or else needs to be grounded in irrefutable logic? Very good point indeed.

To believe in unicorns requires faith, but to not believe in them requires proof?

I may not be able to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being, but I (or rather people much smarter than I) can prove evolution. Good enough for me to call myself an atheist.

And that´s the fallacy. You don´t go sure if you take the faith route.
Because if there are not gods, you wasted a lot of your life to (then) stupid beliefs, obeying nonsensical rules and commandments.

i beleive in God, but also know that most science is true (i.e. as true as science can get untill we find more evidence). i have no "reason" to believe in God except that i believe (that doesnt make sence but oh well).

Really badly explained but oh well

Gods existence or non-existence is of little concern to me.ill worry about the next world when i get to it.for now,i still have this one to conquer.
MWAHAHAHA

i'm technically an agnostic, but...

"A boss in heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore if god did exist, he would have to be abolished."
-Mikhail Bakunin

You're an anarchist, too?

Abiogenesis is unproved and generally thought to be impossible. I've always subscribed to some form of Deism.

It isn't generally thought to be impossible. Not by science, at least. Perhaps by deists, but, then that's circular, because you choose to believe in some wizard in the sky for a reason.

I was once posting a poll on how would you choose to die. I was told to do a "nice religion post." well here it is. And please excuse me that I refered to God as "he." I upset someone...I hate this stupidity.


ARGH! I voted yes to "Atheist" only to find out Yes = Believe in god!
Grmbl grmbl, poll skewered, rigged questions, trickery, cheating...
Grmbl grmbl

I was once posting a poll on how would you choose to die. I was told to do a "nice religion post." well here it is. And please excuse me that I refered to God as "he." I upset someone...I hate this stupidity.

Nice way to die... Hmmm.... standing next to a nuke as it detonates, instant carbonisation, your brain won't ever know what hit it :cool:

ARGH! I voted yes to "Atheist" only to find out Yes = Believe in god!
Grmbl grmbl, poll skewered, rigged questions, trickery, cheating...
Grmbl grmbl
Welcome to the believers my friend!

Yes, and doesn't it just a wee bit strange life could just appear on the face of earth, I mean we evolved from apes, who evolved from rodents.......................................who evolved from bacteria. How did plants and bacteria just "grow" outta nowhere before they could reproduce?

What's life but a electrical/chemical reaction of monecules?

Nice way to die... Hmmm.... standing next to a nuke as it detonates, instant carbonisation, your brain won't ever know what hit it :cool:Saaaaaaay did you do that poll?

What's life but a electrical/chemical reaction of monecules?

Magic, apparently.

All who are interested in it can look it up in my posts. Look for Hitler vs. Stalin mockery. I was parodying someone's poll of: Hitler vs. Stalin.

Not to be rude, but isn't vehemently denying there is a god just as illogical as vehemently declaring that there is a god?

I dunno, the idea of a deity of god is just wrong to me, it's not logical at all, because it leaves a bigger question unawnsered, if god created us, who created god?

A deity or god doesn't solve the puzzle, it just moves it a nodge further away

How can anyone really be an atheist? To be one, wouldn't you have to be able to conclusively prove there isn't a god?

I'm not saying there is one, I'm just saying it's impossible to prove or disprove.

You can't disprove god (how do you prove something never existed?) but it can't be proven there is one neighter, absence of proof to me is proof enough that there ain't one

I'm atheist. Alot of the current generation I'm in is, as well. :)

I do enjoy watching "Jesus Talk," a self produced and directed show that airs weekly by a woman that lives near me.

I get a laugh out of it. :)

As I understand it, few religions if any require a logical proof of a diety. That's where faith comes into it.

But atheists, who are generally creatures of logic, seem to illogically claim that god definitively does not exist.

Agnosticism makes more sense to me since you can really never be sure (unless you go the faith route).

What's so illogical to claim god doesn't exist? The consept of God itself is illogical.
And the lack of any proof whatsoever doesn't aid his cause neighter.
The idea of a heaven & hell, or an afterlife is also illogical to me, why would such a thing exist? Other then to make you afraid to sin/not affraid to die.

Welcome to the believers my friend!

Noooo!!!!!!! *runs out flapping his arms*

Saaaaaaay did you do that poll?

What poll?

*sigh* Look in any decent biology textbook (not one from Kansas). Or read anything by Richard Dawkins.
Better still, read everything by Richard Dawkins!

Keep going, you might take off and fly one day :p

huzah! up atheism!..theres more atheists then i thought

HOLY MOLY!!! There are a lot of atheists out there. Now guys, let's debate self-awareness shall we?

Yeah there are alot of atheists, but they can believe however they like, i'm very conservative, but as well as open minded, i respect other religions as well as mine.
And i truly believe in my heart God does exisit, no way can any one tear that from me, and i wouldn't like to get into a fight over what is right or wrong:)

Yeah there are alot of atheists, but they can believe however they like, i'm very conservative, but as well as open minded, i respect other religions as well as mine.
And i truly believe in my heart God does exisit, no way can any one tear that from me, and i wouldn't like to get into a fight over what is right or wrong:)
I endorse your way of thinking entirely!! I share your views 100%!

I would strongly, advise that yu don't mock other's religions, i 100%;) respect yours even though i believe oppositely of you.

I get a laugh out of it. :)[/QUOTE]

What poll?
Look up my nation's posts. Find the "Hitler vs. Stalin Mockery" Series.

Keep going, you might take off and fly one day :p

huzah! up atheism!..theres more atheists then i thought

Is there a study somewhere that shows the percentage of atheists/country?

Yeah there are alot of atheists, but they can believe however they like, i'm very conservative, but as well as open minded, i respect other religions as well as mine.
And i truly believe in my heart God does exisit, no way can any one tear that from me, and i wouldn't like to get into a fight over what is right or wrong:)

Fair enough, can i ask why you believe?

Keep going, you might take off and fly one day :p

huzah! up atheism!..theres more atheists then i thought

i know how you feel, but we ust respect this way of thinking, unfortunately, because people don't think the same, this fourm, or what i get out of it is not to debate what is right and back it up with facts, but to reply to a survey on whether or not do most people believe in a religion.

As I understand it, few religions if any require a logical proof of a diety. That's where faith comes into it.
But what is faith, other than convincing oneself of something without any sound basis for believing it?

Whether or not a sentient entity created the universe is an objective question about what actually happened long before any of us existed. What we choose to believe doesn't change the reality, and since faith produces hundreds or thousands of different and opposed answers, it is obviously useless in determining what did actually happen.

But atheists, who are generally creatures of logic, seem to illogically claim that god definitively does not exist.
Not strictly speaking. "A-theism" is simply the absence of theism, of a positive belief in God. It is not necessarily the positive belief in no God, although most atheists feel that the evidence is overwhelming against his existence.

Agnosticism makes more sense to me since you can really never be sure (unless you go the faith route).
The faith route doesn't make you sure - it only makes you believe you are sure!

I upset someone...I hate this stupidity.
Upset? Not at all. If you refer to God in personal Pronouns - that is, some dude in the sky - then "he" doesn't exist. But God the idea? It does exist. And God the force? I reckon it exists. Which pronoun you use changes the answer to the question. It's not an aggrievance; just a remark.

I would strongly, advise that yu don't mock other's religions, i 100%;) respect yours even though i believe oppositely of you.

I get a laugh out of it. :)[/QUOTE]
I don't. Infact, although I TRUELY believe in God, I have yet to have a religion. I guess i'm a christian by default, though i'm totally open to change. I think God does not favour any paticular religion after all. Though I certainly don't think he s suicide bombers.

And i truly believe in my heart God does exisit,
Well, there's your problem! The heart's job is to pump blood. It's your brain which should be deciding what to believe :)

Not to be rude, but isn't vehemently denying there is a god just as illogical as vehemently declaring that there is a god?

Not at all. There is actually proof to support the fact that he doesn't exist (Either that or he does exist and he's just a sick twisted bastard)

And before someone asks me what proof...hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, general panic, chaos, and pandamonium. What kind of god lets that happen to his "children." Certainly not one I want to believe in.

well basically both sides can argue as much as they want but at the end of the day we're never gonna know the answer.

god can't be proven to exist

yet there is no way we can prove he doesnt exist (apart from the obvious "because we havent proven that he DOES exist" argument)


i have thought long and hard about this subject and listened to other people and the only thing i have ever learnt is that science explains how things work, not why they work, and to explain why things work we must resort to things such as philosphy or theology and thus we can not scientifcially prove anything for definate and we are still stuck at square one, none the wiser on what the truth actually is.

basically our whole lifes are a learning experience and us humans try and learn the truth (but ultimately we will never find out, and if we could ever find out it will be after we die).

hence one of the reasons why i dont think that organised religions are the best way to go about this - because instead of people being given the individual freedom to learn things for themselves (spiritually wise) they are merely been told what to do by an authority from above (for example the pope).

but then again i suppose the one of the reason why religions were formed in the first place was so that people with similair ideas could come together and help each other learn and support each other (like a family)

well basically the only winner i see in the religion v atheism argument are actually agnostics - they have the best idea on what the truth is which is: we dont actually know - which after centures of arguing is the only real conclusion we can reach.

if anyone is wondering what my beliefs are, I am a christian (yes a dirty good for nothing christian) but who is very much open to the ideas of god not existing (i used to be an athiest). but the way i see it it doesnt matter too much if god exists or not (well actually it does matter quite a bit) because to me my religion isnt just about the existance of god or not it is actually a lot deeper than that it helps me with the way i live my life and helps me in my releationships with other people and at the end of the day even if the whole god idea does turn out to be bullshit, i dont feel i've wasted my life as i feel i would of lead a pretty decent life (however i wouldnt be able to say the same for fundamentalists who revolve their lifes completely round god).

i think these debates are a good and healthy thing - just as long as other people are prepared to listen to others with reason (not just ignore them cos they are a dumb christian or an evil athiest). im not saying people should reject their beleives - far from it - but i feel that both sides can learn a lot by listening to the other side and the world would be a better place if people at least understood why other people beleive or dont beleive in a god or whatever.

this is why i cant stand the following:

fundamentalists who go round telling everyone that they are correct and people who dont beleive in them are evil and will burn in hell

and

die-hard athiests who go round saying that they are correct and that a god could never exist and that religious people are stupid and religion is an evil thing






well sorry about the rant and allh

Fair enough, can i ask why you believe?
I'm Christian, but not at all Catholic, i'm Protestant, and around baptist, i confess my sins only through God, and pray that he guides me through life and belive you have to earn you faith to be baptized, and i vote for the president whom wears his faith on his sleeve democract or republic or some where far b/w but usually those two.

I guess i'm a christian by default, though i'm totally open to change. I think God does not favour any paticular religion after all.
If you think that, then you're not a Christian, Muslim or Jew. Theirs gods believe that their religions are the only correct and favoured ones.

Not at all. There is actually proof to support the fact that he doesn't exist (Either that or he does exist and he's just a sick twisted bastard)

And before someone asks me what proof...hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, general panic, chaos, and pandamonium. What kind of god lets that happen to his "children." Certainly not one I want to believe in.
A mean, cruel, vindictive God would let those things happen, but that isn't proof that such a god doesn't exist. If he does exist, that fact that lil ol' you (or lil ol' me) doesn't want to believe in him is immaterial. Reality is what reality is, not what we want it to be.

As I understand it, few religions if any require a logical proof of a diety. That's where faith comes into it.

That's where faith would pretty much have to come into it if you want people to believe in something they have no rational reason to conclude exists. How else are you going to get someone to believe in it if not by convincing them they just need to "have faith"?

But atheists, who are generally creatures of logic, seem to illogically claim that god definitively does not exist.

Atheists don't believe God exists. That's what atheism is. Some atheists claim definitively that God, as specifically described to them by various religious doctrines and holy books, definitively does not exist when the description provided flies in the face of observed reality.

Agnosticism makes more sense to me since you can really never be sure (unless you go the faith route).

Agnosticism is not an alternative to atheism or theism.

Is there a study somewhere that shows the percentage of atheists/country?
I don't remember figures for all countries, but in the USA it's between 10 and 15%. In the UK it's between 15 and 30%, but over 50% of under-25s.

Well, there's your problem! The heart's job is to pump blood. It's your brain which should be deciding what to believe :)


:sniper: I wasn't Speaking on literal terms

i think these debates are a good and healthy thing - just as long as other people are prepared to listen to others with reason (not just ignore them cos they are a dumb christian or an evil athiest). im not saying people should reject their beleives - far from it - but i feel that both sides can learn a lot by listening to the other side and the world would be a better place if people at least understood why other people beleive or dont beleive in a god or whatever.

this is why i cant stand the following:

fundamentalists who go round telling everyone that they are correct and people who dont beleive in them are evil and will burn in hell

and

die-hard athiests who go round saying that they are correct and that a god could never exist and that religious people are stupid and religion is an evil thing

Excellent post, even though i might fall in the die-hard atheist class, i have no beef with open minded people, even if they believe, nor do i constantly remind them of my opinion (unless they themselves bring up the subject :D )

Let's take the 10 commandments*, one of them is "do not to others what you wouldn't do to yourself", now, this might be a commandment, but even as a stand alone way of life, it's pretty damned decent way to live :)

In my opinion, religion, as seen in christianity & catholism etc etc should be more viewed as a set of morals to live by, not as a literal book to live by.

* This is actually the only one i know.... :eek:

I'm Christian, but not at all Catholic, i'm Protestant, and around baptist, i confess my sins only through God, and pray that he guides me through life and belive you have to earn you faith to be baptized, and i vote for the president whom wears his faith on his sleeve democract or republic or some where far b/w but usually those two.

Not really the awnser i was looking for, i meant, why do you believe the things you believe, not what do you believe

Let's take the 10 commandments*, one of them is "do not to others what you wouldn't do to yourself", now, this might be a commandment, but even as a stand alone way of life, it's pretty damned decent way to live :)

In my opinion, religion, as seen in christianity & catholism etc etc should be more viewed as a set of morals to live by, not as a literal book to live by.

* This is actually the only one i know.... :eek:

You may be displeased to know then that that is technically not one of the ten commandments--it's the "golden rule"

I am self-aware. I cannot know that you are, so why should I talk to you? Since one can only proove that oneself is self-aware, we are our own god.

BOW TO ME!
Yes sir...
I agree and since athiests have a majority vote here for a change all the bible thumpers get no vote because they were stupid enough to believe in what a church says that molests little boys and relies on very old, senile men for answers(pope ect) then what makes people think that they are qualified to cast a vote at all? I say athiests are the only truely sane people and the ideots that are so blind as to follow a church should be openly made fun of indiscrimately.:sniper:

You may be displeased to know then that that is technically not one of the ten commandments--it's the "golden rule"

LOL, well, the name suits it i guess, so what are they?

)

Let's take the 10 commandments*, one of them is "do not to others what you wouldn't do to yourself", now, this might be a commandment, but even as a stand alone way of life, it's pretty damned decent way to live :)

In my opinion, religion, as seen in christianity & catholism etc etc should be more viewed as a set of morals to live by, not as a literal book to live by.


same here mate

to me that is why relgions isnt neccessarily the evil thing people portray it as - it can be a tool for good

what really annoys me is when im in one of these religious arguments at college with my mates (most of them athiest) no matter how hard i try to show christianity as a decent down to eart kind of thing - i will have some fundamentalist guy go on about 'the literal truth of the bible' and how 'non-beleivers will go to hell' then i just feel like my entire argument has been undermined :headbang:

i remember at my old school i joined the christian union only to find it was run by fundamentalists and that they hated me for my 'liberalness' - this was mainly because i said i didnt think the bible was meant to be taken as the literal truth and that i said i really like marilyn manson (as opposed to saying he's evil).

as much as i love my religion - a lot of its members actually make me embarresed to be one of them. i will gladly admit to worshipping god and going to church most sundays and not be at all embarressed but as soon as one of these fundamentalists speak (and quite a few non-fundamentalists to be fair) then that is when i am ashamed to be a christian.

if what the fundamentalists are saying is true - then all i know is that i'm not a christian

There is a God, an almighty who created this world, and infos await you there:
http://www.venganza.org/


Behold, a picture of him, creating the mountains, the forests and a midget:
http://www.venganza.org/him2.jpg

Seriously, since it was written somewhere, it has as many chances of being true as catholicism.

i know how you feel, but we ust respect this way of thinking, unfortunately, because people don't think the same, this fourm, or what i get out of it is not to debate what is right and back it up with facts, but to reply to a survey on whether or not do most people believe in a religion.

lol, i don't think there is a 'right' or 'wrong' view and hence respect what other people think. i was being childish - its fun sometimes :p

im very happy (but surprised) with the poll results here. I knew this forum was educated but not this much!

:sniper: I wasn't Speaking on literal terms
I know (hence the smiley), but the idea stands. The heart, or feelings, are incapable of determining what exists beyond the confines of this universe, or how it began. That's a job for the rational mind, after which the heart can feel awe-struck by what the mind discovers, if it is so inclined.

I don't. Infact, although I TRUELY believe in God, I have yet to have a religion. I guess i'm a christian by default, though i'm totally open to change. I think God does not favour any paticular religion after all. Though I certainly don't think he s suicide bombers.[/QUOTE]

the one where it says i get a laugh of it, was part of an original quote, but it did quite make it into a quote just made it part of mine.

I agree and since athiests have a majority vote here for a change all the bible thumpers get no vote because they were stupid enough to believe in what a church says that molests little boys and relies on very old, senile men for answers(pope ect) then what makes people think that they are qualified to cast a vote at all? I say athiests are the only truely sane people and the ideots that are so blind as to follow a church should be openly made fun of indiscrimately.:sniper:


Just so you know, not all Christians are part of a church that was involved in the sex abuse scandals, and not all of us "rely on old, senile men for answers." I was born and raised Christian, but I went through a period when I questioned the beliefs I'd been raised on. In the end, after doing some soul-searching and research into the different belief systems, I realized that what I'd been taught was really what I believed. It's not just a blind faith that we only have because we're idiots. For the majority of us, it's something we've really thought out.

As an aside, your response refers only to Christians and atheists. What about all the other religions? They aren't associated with what you said, but are you saying they're all insane too? They're certainly not Bible thumpers.

I don't. Infact, although I TRUELY believe in God, I have yet to have a religion. I guess i'm a christian by default, though i'm totally open to change. I think God does not favour any paticular religion after all. Though I certainly don't think he s suicide bombers.[/QUOTE]

another person i like

Huzzah! Atheist Majority! Become an Atheist today! we're really synical and we have nice clothing and we can all be unified in our laughing at religion!
ATHEISM. You know you want to.

Of course G-d exists...G-d is a whore...he "revealed" himself to tons of people...that makes you wonder.

Regardless which, there is no difference in intelligence between Atheists and Theists of any kind.....

I agree and since athiests have a majority vote here for a change all the bible thumpers get no vote because they were stupid enough to believe in what a church says that molests little boys and relies on very old, senile men for answers(pope ect) then what makes people think that they are qualified to cast a vote at all? I say athiests are the only truely sane people and the ideots that are so blind as to follow a church should be openly made fun of indiscrimately.:sniper:

I am an athiest, but you can't call people who believe in God stupid. It is impossibile to know for sure whether or not any supreme being exists, so it is premature judgement say religious people are wrong. It all comes down to personal beliefs.

I am an athiest, but you can't call people who believe in God stupid. It is impossibile to know for sure whether or not any supreme being exists, so it is premature judgement say religious people are wrong. It all comes down to personal beliefs.
Yeah, I agree. I'm atheist because without evidence I can't bring myself to believe in god, but without evidence to the contrary I can't say that theists are definately wrong. I'm not agnostic because I do believe that god doesn't exist. You and I are what is called "weak atheist".

I am among the minority here. I feel like I'm posting on the A.C.L.U forums here but I am a fervent believer in god, hardcore right winger and lead singer in the band "Fall to the Blade".

Shameless plug time:
Hardcore black metal style band, semi-christian lyrics (not the annoying worship/gospel style lyrics...apparently that's semi-christian), local to annapolis, MD. However, my friend on lead guitar convinced me to cover gemini and raining blood so we'll be covering those.

Yeah, I agree. I'm atheist because without evidence I can't bring myself to believe in god, but without evidence to the contrary I can't say that theists are definately wrong.

Which theists? I can say a lot of them are definitely wrong (and the rest I can dismiss as making pointlessly unverifiable claims).

I'm not agnostic because I do believe that god doesn't exist. You and I are what is called "weak atheist".

Having a positive belief that God doesn't exist is not weak atheism. Lacking belief that he does exist is weak atheism.

<pet peeve>And whether you are agnostic or not has nothing to do with whether you believe God doesn't exist. Agnosticism is a description of your state of belief about the "knowability" of a deity, not its existence.</pet peeve>

Which theists? I can say a lot of them are definitely wrong (and the rest I can dismiss as making pointlessly unverifiable claims).



Having a positive belief that God doesn't exist is not weak atheism. Lacking belief that he does exist is weak atheism.

<pet peeve>And whether you are agnostic or not has nothing to do with whether you believe God doesn't exist. Agnosticism is a description of your state of belief about the "knowability" of a deity, not its existence.</pet peeve>
A weak atheist believes that god doesn't exist but not that god can't exist. Like believing that your neighbor isn't a lottery winner, but there exists the possibility that he might be.


You can't disprove a supernatural being. It's not subject to the natural laws you would use to check. Therefore, you can't prove anyone's concept of god wrong if it's supernatural.

You're wrong on both counts. One cannot prove or disprove a supernatural being.

But one can demonstrate the necessary falseness of claims made about them. I cannot say "undefined supernatural being does not exist with 100% certainty" but I can most certainly say "the God who turns my hair purple every Thursday at 3pm does not exist with 100% certainty"... cause that don't happen.

Just as an example of course.

So I most certainly can say a lot of theists are definitely wrong, by virtue of them associating demonstratably false properties with the existence of their deity of choice.

Also here's wikepedia's take on weak atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism

Good for wikipedia, of course it requires you accept the interpretation of the author of the entry. it isn't exactly an entry on a more objectively factual subject, like the atomic weight of boron.

This can be no better demonstrated than by the fact that the section on weak and strong atheism in the wikipedia main entry for atheism contradicts this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Weak_and_strong_atheism

Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist.

It is clear to me that the entry you referenced is incorrect, since it claims weak atheism is contrasted with a claim of knowledge rather than a state of belief. Atheism has to do with belief, not knowledge. Subsets of it (both strong and weak) must do the same.

Strong atheism is the positive belief no gods exist, not the claim to know that they don't exist.

Weak atheism is simply the lack of belief that they exist without going further.

same here mate

to me that is why relgions isnt neccessarily the evil thing people portray it as - it can be a tool for good


While I'll agree Religion at its heart puts forward ideas such as "treat others like you would want to be treated" and "Do not steal" but frankley I don't need to waste an hour a week or time reading "stories of the bible" to understand that not stealing is something I should do.

Fair play with some people who feel better when they prey, or need the threat of eternal hell to behave, ultimatly though, I do think religion has lost many of its meaning and frankly wars between Protestants and Catholics and tensions we all have against Muslims FAR outweigh any small benefits some people may have gained through religion.

I am self-aware. I cannot know that you are, so why should I talk to you? Since one can only proove that oneself is self-aware, we are our own god.

BOW TO ME!
Yes sir...


The Roman Emperor Caligula being a rather prominent example of this. The rest of the Emperors had to die before they became a god, but oh no not Caligula.

I believe in God (with capital G), but i don't follow him. Doesn't mean i don't believe in 'him' though.

Zeus on the other hand, he, i follow.

I am an athiest, but you can't call people who believe in God stupid. It is impossibile to know for sure whether or not any supreme being exists, so it is premature judgement say religious people are wrong. It all comes down to personal beliefs.
True - religious people per se can't be called stupid (some are extremely intelligent), but they can be called misguided :)

I don't like the word athesist. Do we have a special name for someone who dosen't beleive in ghosts or fairies?

I don't like the word athesist. Do we have a special name for someone who dosen't beleive in ghosts or fairies?
Yeah, they're called sane.

*Yawn*

For the 9th time in the last month, I do believe in God.

Non-abrahamic agnostic.:D

I agree and since athiests have a majority vote here for a change all the bible thumpers get no vote because they were stupid enough to believe in what a church says that molests little boys and relies on very old, senile men for answers(pope ect) then what makes people think that they are qualified to cast a vote at all? I say athiests are the only truely sane people and the ideots that are so blind as to follow a church should be openly made fun of indiscrimately.:sniper:


I believe a christian poster mentioned something about being embarrassed to be christian when certain fundementalists speak.
I think I just became embarrassed to be an atheist.
Furthermore atheism doesn't mean instant brains. Lets not forget Einstein the father of relativity loved him some God. And above quote shows that many atheists are just angsty teens with an over abundance of hormones and most likely a lack of love.

My main complaint involves the incorporation of religious doctrine into government. Secularism can be fair to all, where a government guided by religious ideals tends to be biased towards its own religion.
In other words keep fanatics out of office. This includes those who believe religion should be abolished.

I believe a christian poster mentioned something about being embarrassed to be christian when certain fundementalists speak.
I think I just became embarrassed to be an atheist.
Furthermore atheism doesn't mean instant brains. Lets not forget Einstein the father of relativity loved him some God. And above quote shows that many atheists are just angsty teens with an over abundance of hormones and most likely a lack of love.

My main complaint involves the incorporation of religious doctrine into government. Secularism can be fair to all, where a government guided by religious ideals tends to be biased towards its own religion.
In other words keep fanatics out of office. This includes those who believe religion should be abolished.

Your up for segregation?

Yes, let us deny political rights to people based on religious beliefs.

Great idea. :rolleyes:

Wait what now? I think something I said might have been misconstrued.

I'm for a secular government because i believe in seperation of church and state. This includes atheism.

For example I think governments that outlaw the practice of religion are as wrong as governments that dictate laws that are related to its religious dogma. Like gay marriage for instance: if you allow some people to marry, governemnt should then allow all consenting adults to marry, it should however not force a church to marry peoples it doesnt want to. It should be seperate and tolerant of eachother.
Fanatic and tolerant rarely go together.

What's so illogical to claim god doesn't exist? The consept of God itself is illogical.
And the lack of any proof whatsoever doesn't aid his cause neighter.
The idea of a heaven & hell, or an afterlife is also illogical to me, why would such a thing exist? Other then to make you afraid to sin/not affraid to die.

I agree that the concept of god is illogical, but if when try and prove to people that god DOESN'T exist, it's still just a string of hypothetical thoughts, not proof. I agree that there's no such thing as heaven and hell, but I can't prove to anyone that that is true. There's just no way to do it. That's why atheism is a belief as well. It isn't based on anything but an individual's opinion. Sure, it's a belief that god DOESN'T exist, but it's still a belief. Agnosticism is really much more logical than atheism.

Not at all. There is actually proof to support the fact that he doesn't exist (Either that or he does exist and he's just a sick twisted bastard)

And before someone asks me what proof...hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, general panic, chaos, and pandamonium. What kind of god lets that happen to his "children." Certainly not one I want to believe in.

NO, THAT IS NOT PROOF. That is your belief of what a god should be like. For all we know, there is a god who causes these things for it's own amusement, or just does nothing at all about it. God does not necesarily = protector. There are different ideas of what god is, and obviously you have one. You can't scientifically prove or disprove the existence of god. People who try to do so are taking previously based dogma and building "evidence" off of it. (Ex: The Bible says god is real, so that's proof!) (Ex: Bad things happen in life, so that's proof that there isn't a god!)

Though aren't the examples of tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. examples of God right there? I do not see how anyone could believe that the creation of the universe and mankind occur without some sort of divine creator. The theory of evolution is not probable (note: "Big Bang.") scientists have even made rules against these theories. The Laws of Thermodynamics state that things are "winding down." Example: if you light a pile of wood on fire it will turn to ash. But ash can not turn back in to that pile of wood. So how do you explain how the universe came to be? I for one believe that God does indeed exist.

I believe in G-d - the Jewish version.

And I have discovered a proof that G-d - the Jewish version - exists.

When G-d gave the Torah at Mt. Sinai, he spoke to all the Jewish people - over 2 million of them - at once. This is when Moses came down with the commandments - the second time.

Tell me how this story could have come about to be accepted by an entire people. Unless you believe in a 2-million-man mass conspiracy, it must be true!

I respect agnostics, but as it is not possible to DISPROVE G-d's existence, how anyone can say for sure that G-d does not exist? So I have less respect for hardcore atheists. From what I've heard, agnostics are undecided about G-d. My brother is one.

As for the hurricane/tornado/earthquake thing, G-d created a system. He does not want a world where everything goes well, since that creates wimps.

I will now invite people to challenge my beliefs on the basis of reason.

Though aren't the examples of tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. examples of God right there? I do not see how anyone could believe that the creation of the universe and mankind occur without some sort of divine creator. The theory of evolution is not probable (note: "Big Bang.") scientists have even made rules against these theories. The Laws of Thermodynamics state that things are "winding down." Example: if you light a pile of wood on fire it will turn to ash. But ash can not turn back in to that pile of wood. So how do you explain how the universe came to be? I for one believe that God does indeed exist.
You really don't know much about the science you're trying to use, do you?

here here! I concur with what you just said.


And on the subject of appearing in "front of a multitude." After Jesus raised from the dead He not only showed Himself to His disciples, but He also appeared to over 500 people. Hmm...500 people just imagined to see a dead man all at once? I do not think so.

here here! I concur with what you just said.


And on the subject of appearing in "front of a multitude." After Jesus raised from the dead He not only showed Himself to His disciples, but He also appeared to over 500 people. Hmm...500 people just imagined to see a dead man all at once? I do not think so.
We don't know that 500 people saw him, we only know that one or maybe a handfull of people passed on the story that 500 people saw him.

You really don't know much about the science you're trying to use, do you?


It's scientifically proven the earth is winding down, not speeding up. Is there something more you'd like to add?

It's scientifically proven the earth is winding down, not speeding up. Is there something more you'd like to add?
Sure. The law of thermodynamics states that entropy is bound to increase in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. It's part of the universe, which is a closed system. Entropy can decline locally on earth provided that entropy increases elsewhere in the system. The sun provides energy for life to organize while counterbalancing the decrease in local entropy by providing greater system-wide entropy through launching high energy waves and particles in all directions randomly.

It's scientifically proven the earth is winding down, not speeding up. Is there something more you'd like to add?
That's a lie. You're going to Hell. Thanks for playing, though.

Oh, and the numbers are written down in the bible.

I distinctly remember being tested on them in my Bible class last year.
Here are the numbers of men eligible for military service from each tribe (Levis not included):

Reuben: 46,500
Simon: 59,300
Naphtali: 53,400
Issachar: 54,400
Asher: 41,500
Dan: 62,700
Zebulun: 57,400
Gad: 45,650
Benjamin: 35,400
Judah: 74,600
Ephraim: 40,500
Menashe: 32,200

Total: 603,550

And that doesn't include the tribe of Levi, or the women or boys under 20.

A detailed census, not a single number.

To say, as some have, that atheism is more common because of this poll seems a bit far-fetched. After all, it's hardly a fair demographic of society, is it? And it is grossly inaccurate to say, as someone did near the start, that the 60% vote in favour of atheism proves this is "an educated forum." I don't think anyone needs reminding that some of the most brilliant, cultured and educated minds in human history have had some personal sense of religious faith - Descartes (Catholic), Voltaire (deist), C.S Lewis (atheist who later became a passionate convert to Christianity), J.R.R. Tolkein (Catholic) or Sir Isaac Newton (Protestant). Of course, there have been mentally brilliant atheists also. So it seems a crass and absurd suggestion that education and intellectual superiority must equate with a rejection of religion.

To say, as some have, that atheism is more common because of this poll seems a bit far-fetched. After all, it's hardly a fair demographic of society, is it? And it is grossly inaccurate to say, as someone did near the start, that the 60% vote in favour of atheism proves this is "an educated forum." I don't think anyone needs reminding that some of the most brilliant, cultured and educated minds in human history have had some personal sense of religious faith - Descartes (Catholic), Voltaire (deist), C.S Lewis (atheist who later became a passionate convert to Christianity), J.R.R. Tolkein (Catholic) or Sir Isaac Newton (Protestant). Of course, there have been mentally brilliant atheists also. So it seems a crass and absurd suggestion that education and intellectual superiority must equate with a rejection of religion.

Hey Jurgen you just got owned ;)

To say, as some have, that atheism is more common because of this poll seems a bit far-fetched. After all, it's hardly a fair demographic of society, is it? And it is grossly inaccurate to say, as someone did near the start, that the 60% vote in favour of atheism proves this is "an educated forum." I don't think anyone needs reminding that some of the most brilliant, cultured and educated minds in human history have had some personal sense of religious faith - Descartes (Catholic), Voltaire (deist), C.S Lewis (atheist who later became a passionate convert to Christianity), J.R.R. Tolkein (Catholic) or Sir Isaac Newton (Protestant). Of course, there have been mentally brilliant atheists also. So it seems a crass and absurd suggestion that education and intellectual superiority must equate with a rejection of religion.

Well my comment was alightly tounge and cheek. Still look at the societys people like Descartes and Newton came from.

Darwin wrote a book that wasn't even directly agains't God and look what happend. Please think of the responce Descartes or Newton would have had if they went proclaiming God didn't exist or X religion was even flawed. Many of the arguements Descartes uses to "prove" Gods existance seem week and some of his ideas stand strong without the un neccasary token intorduction of God to prove everything. Even if they did beleive it at heart its only because it didn't seem a logical position to go against it, especially as some of the bibles "stories" hadn't yet been discredited by parts of Science

Excellent post, even though i might fall in the die-hard atheist class, i have no beef with open minded people, even if they believe, nor do i constantly remind them of my opinion (unless they themselves bring up the subject :D )

Let's take the 10 commandments*, one of them is "do not to others what you wouldn't do to yourself", now, this might be a commandment, but even as a stand alone way of life, it's pretty damned decent way to live :)

In my opinion, religion, as seen in christianity & catholism etc etc should be more viewed as a set of morals to live by, not as a literal book to live by.

* This is actually the only one i know.... :eek:

That's not one of the 10 commandments dude.:p Jesus just said that, but not as a set of commandments.

Agnostic/Deist here. So yeah, I believe in God.

I will now invite people to challenge my beliefs on the basis of reason.
Sure thing; I'll throw a big one out.

What about the other races? The other people? Are you seriously insinuating that God ignored the Egyptian people, Ancient Greeks, the Chinese and the Romans throughout the rise and development of their respective fascinating cultures in favour of a bunch of people that completely ignored him for the better part of a millenium?

It seems much more likely to suggest that the witness of God is a fabrication made up in later generations than to suggest that God abandoned the rest of mankind to their fate, which resulted in the Other nations becoming altogether much more inventive and creative than the one that God focused on.

Oh good grief...

Though aren't the examples of tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. examples of God right there? I do not see how anyone could believe that the creation of the universe and mankind occur without some sort of divine creator. The theory of evolution is not probable (note: "Big Bang.")

Note "Big Bang" has nothing to do with evolution. If yuou do not know even that much you have absolutely no clue whatsoever how probable evolution is.

scientists have even made rules against these theories. The Laws of Thermodynamics state that things are "winding down."

The second law of Thermodynamics states (in very simplified terms) that no process operating in a closed system can ever result in more energy being available to do work than what it began with. Which is not something that is required to happen for evolution to operate.

Example: if you light a pile of wood on fire it will turn to ash. But ash can not turn back in to that pile of wood.

That's not thermodynamics, and it has nothing to do with biological evolution.

So how do you explain how the universe came to be?

Currently? There's a few different theories and we're waiting on more evidence to give a better indication on which of them are correct.

I for one believe that God does indeed exist.

Because? Please say it isn't because you just don't understand how the scientific principles and concepts you just so thoroughly mangled actually operate and so you just plug in "vaguely defined supernatural placeholder magically explains everything I don't understand".

Sure thing; I'll throw a big one out.

What about the other races? The other people? Are you seriously insinuating that God ignored the Egyptian people, Ancient Greeks, the Chinese and the Romans throughout the rise and development of their respective fascinating cultures in favour of a bunch of people that completely ignored him for the better part of a millenium?


Talking of Greeks, how many people over the centuries consulted the oracle of Apollo at Delphi? Absolute proof that Apollo existed. Christians would disagree but yet 500 people witnessing Jesus reborn is different?

The Roman Empire became the most dominant force in the world for several centuries and during the great expansion it was for the most part pagan, it only fell to pieces after it adopted Christianity, amusingly to a bunch of pagans from Gaul and Germany.

God condemned them only after they converted to worshipping him? And let pagans overrun the empire?

Bizarre no?

And on the subject of appearing in "front of a multitude." After Jesus raised from the dead He not only showed Himself to His disciples, but He also appeared to over 500 people. Hmm...500 people just imagined to see a dead man all at once? I do not think so.
Prove that he appeared to over 500 people. There isn't a single eye-witness account from anyone whose identity can be verified : all we have are stories written decades later by people whom we know next to nothing about (despite later claims and traditions that they were apostles).

It is a logical fallacy, a circular argument, to use the Bible as proof when the veracity of the Bible itself is in question.

You see, no one's going to help you Bubby, because there isn't anybody out there to do it. No one. We're all just complicated arrangements of atoms and subatomic particles - we don't live. But our atoms do move about in such a way as to give us identity and consciousness. We don't die; our atoms just rearrange themselves. There is no God. There can be no God; it's ridiculous to think in terms of a superior being. An inferior being, maybe, because we, we who don't even exist, we arrange our lives with more order and harmony than God ever arranged the earth. We measure; we plot; we create wonderful new things. We are the architects of our own existence. What a lunatic concept to bow down before a God who slaughters millions of innocent children, slowly and agonizingly starves them to death, beats them, tortures them, rejects them. What folly to even think that we should not insult such a God, damn him, think him out of existence. It is our duty to think God out of existence. It is our duty to insult him. Fuck you, God! Strike me down if you dare, you tyrant, you non-existent fraud! It is the duty of all human beings to think God out of existence. Then we have a future. Because then - and only then - do we take full responsibility for who we are. And that's what you must do, Bubby: think God out of existence; take responsibility for who you are.

You see, no one's going to help you Bubby, because there isn't anybody out there to do it. No one. We're all just complicated arrangements of atoms and subatomic particles - we don't live. But our atoms do move about in such a way as to give us identity and consciousness. We don't die; our atoms just rearrange themselves.


I agree with that bit. I always was a sciency kind of person though. Gotta love those atoms.

One thing i have wondered is why atoms follow rules of behaviour... i'm not talking about this on a 'God' level, but more on a Physics/Chemistry level. The rules we have applied are just our way of trying to make sense of the way they work, but yet as far as we understand it they do seem to follow patterns of behaviour. So on a simplistic level eight electrons in it's outer shell (ignoring the complexities of subshells), levels a stable atom. All atoms try to get this balance. The key word being balance.

Is the whole meaning of life (or rather inanimate existance) to find balance out of chaos? So electrons will be drawn towards protons, opposites will balance each other out. Neutrons are just the contentest things in existence.

Putting a spiritual bent upon it, it can be argued that the real religion is one based upon belief in forces, not supernatural and not 'God', but almost as a set of rules that govern the fabric of the universe simply by chance?

It's intruiging and not something i've ruled out.

You see, no one's going to help you Bubby, because there isn't anybody out there to do it. No one. We're all just complicated arrangements of atoms and subatomic particles - we don't live. But our atoms do move about in such a way as to give us identity and consciousness. We don't die; our atoms just rearrange themselves. There is no God. There can be no God; it's ridiculous to think in terms of a superior being. An inferior being, maybe, because we, we who don't even exist, we arrange our lives with more order and harmony than God ever arranged the earth. We measure; we plot; we create wonderful new things. We are the architects of our own existence. What a lunatic concept to bow down before a God who slaughters millions of innocent children, slowly and agonizingly starves them to death, beats them, tortures them, rejects them. What folly to even think that we should not insult such a God, damn him, think him out of existence. It is our duty to think God out of existence. It is our duty to insult him. Fuck you, God! Strike me down if you dare, you tyrant, you non-existent fraud! It is the duty of all human beings to think God out of existence. Then we have a future. Because then - and only then - do we take full responsibility for who we are. And that's what you must do, Bubby: think God out of existence; take responsibility for who you are.

I'm open to new things. Atheism for some seems like a logical choice, though I do not see how we could come to be without a divine creator.

But what I would like to know, is why you are getting so worked up, and condemning those who do believe in God? And condeming they God they worship. That's not only unethical it's just rude.

You have come with supporting evidence so I respect you for your intelligence.

But atoms arranging and rearranging themselves? Mankind not really being here? Sounds illogical. But I am interested in what you are saying...if you can explain it a bit better.

I beleive that God exists. And I honestly don't feel the urge to prove it. I just know he does. I feel it explains itself. But some may be too ignorant to see that.

But I must commend you and the other people who've posted. You know what you are talking about. Though all you have explained is theories. No scientific evidence, just theories. Please if you have some backup literature...do show it. Though I must assure you that you will not convert me of my beliefs.

Kamsaki, I have an answer.

There is a Midrash - a kind of parable - that states that G-d offered the Torah to the other nations.

He offered it to the Canaanites. They asked Him, What does it say? He answered "Do not worship idols". They rejected it.

He offered it to the Greeks. They asked Him, What does it say? He answered "Do not commit adultery". They rejected it.

He offered it to the Ishmaelites (proto-Arabs). They asked Him, What does it say? He answered "Do not murder". They rejected it. (Note: at the very least, pre-Muslim Arab culture featured a lot of tribal conflict).

But the Jews accepted it.

The other nations would not have accepted the Torah.

I know that it's a great song, but I didn't realize it even had a Goddess and all.

When I get to the bottom
I go back to the top
of the slide
where I stop and I turn
and I go for a ride
'til I get to the bottom
and I see you again.
What would you call the woman who used to sing it then?

Which "God" are you referring to?

What would you call the woman who used to sing it then?
Mmmh... Paul? :)

I agree with that bit. I always was a sciency kind of person though. Gotta love those atoms.

One thing i have wondered is why atoms follow rules of behaviour... i'm not talking about this on a 'God' level, but more on a Physics/Chemistry level. The rules we have applied are just our way of trying to make sense of the way they work, but yet as far as we understand it they do seem to follow patterns of behaviour. So on a simplistic level eight electrons in it's outer shell (ignoring the complexities of subshells), levels a stable atom. All atoms try to get this balance. The key word being balance.

Is the whole meaning of life (or rather inanimate existance) to find balance out of chaos? So electrons will be drawn towards protons, opposites will balance each other out. Neutrons are just the contentest things in existence.

Putting a spiritual bent upon it, it can be argued that the real religion is one based upon belief in forces, not supernatural and not 'God', but almost as a set of rules that govern the fabric of the universe simply by chance?

It's intruiging and not something i've ruled out.

...and here inlies the only form of God i'd consider, the driving forces behind the most basics things, like why positive charges attract to negative charges, I don't think it's possible for a sentient being. I doubt anyone can explain how a sentient God came to be, but some explain everything else saying, "he made it that way". On the other hand, you can explain how most things work with deductive reasoning from the most basic of laws and rules in physics and the like, again the electrical charges, but can't explain exactly why that is. Why don't like chagres attract instead of repel? I think that not a being but simply a force would make more sense. Of course, you can still ask "Why?" but that's like when your dealing with a five-year-old and they keep saying "Why?", you can never really get to an answer where they can't ask why about it.


Of course with this ideal, the Bible and it's styories simply seem ridiculous, Religon in itself can teach morals and be good for a person, but it's caused more than it's help in my opinion, religious wars, genocide, discrimination...

I have my own special religion, where people from whatever religion get to have their gods and stuff. Christians go to heaven with Jesus, Jews do... something, Muslims get to be with Allah, Hindu's get to be reincarnated, Buddhists do... something, etc.

I agree that the concept of god is illogical, but if when try and prove to people that god DOESN'T exist, it's still just a string of hypothetical thoughts, not proof. I agree that there's no such thing as heaven and hell, but I can't prove to anyone that that is true. There's just no way to do it. That's why atheism is a belief as well. It isn't based on anything but an individual's opinion. Sure, it's a belief that god DOESN'T exist, but it's still a belief. Agnosticism is really much more logical than atheism.

In the concept of "i belief there is no god" then yes, atheism is a belief, a conviction of sorts, it's not the same as faith tho.

I have no clue what agnosticism is

Though aren't the examples of tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. examples of God right there? I do not see how anyone could believe that the creation of the universe and mankind occur without some sort of divine creator. The theory of evolution is not probable (note: "Big Bang.") scientists have even made rules against these theories. The Laws of Thermodynamics state that things are "winding down." Example: if you light a pile of wood on fire it will turn to ash. But ash can not turn back in to that pile of wood. So how do you explain how the universe came to be? I for one believe that God does indeed exist.

If god exists, where did he come from? Believing in God to explain ones own existance is just moving the goalpost really

The term god is horrible to define and for amny theologians God is something you experinece on a personal level 0 i.e. your god will be different to that of another - nad yet this is still the same god due to god being omnipotent. If hes omnipotent surely he can hide his existance yet give us something to hang onto providing the concept that is faith and belief. Naturally some think science has proven to be the death of God, but if you look into it far more closely you will see thar science actually supports god in many areas if commeon sense and the fundamental principoles of scientific investriagion are observed. but i wont go into that now.( and im not tlaking about some silly fictional story such as angel and demns, even thuogh it was a good read :mp5: )

That's not one of the 10 commandments dude.:p Jesus just said that, but not as a set of commandments.

I always knew he was a hippie :p

Its wierd.. So many people on NS are athiests and hardly any in the worlds Population. I think a lot of the athiest voters like to pretend they are just because they are jokeing teens

Or perhaps there's some quality common in atheists that appeals to games like NS?

I have my own special religion, where people from whatever religion get to have their gods and stuff. Christians go to heaven with Jesus, Jews do... something, Muslims get to be with Allah, Hindu's get to be reincarnated, Buddhists do... something, etc.


That's exactly the same view i have. I forget the exact terminiology, it is a form of polytheism. I tend to call it omnitheism (belief in the existence of all gods until proven otherwise).

In the concept of "i belief there is no god" then yes, atheism is a belief, a conviction of sorts, it's not the same as faith tho.

I have no clue what agnosticism is


Agnosticism is basically fence sitting; in essence; "i do not know if god exists one way or the other, i believe gods could exist so i'll not rule them out, but i don't intend to pick a religion because i have no idea which one is right, thus i'm non commital"


It's a very wise position to take i think, just in case.

I don't believe in Pappa Legba, Zeus, or Ahura Mazda, why would I believe in Allah, Jehova, or Jesus?

Hey! Pappa Legba cured my athlete's foot!!

Me?

Born-again Heathen.

It's a very wise position to take i think, just in case.
Just in case? Let's face it; if God exists, he's not going to be impressed by that sort of wishy-washy self preservation.

Just in case? Let's face it; if God exists, he's not going to be impressed by that sort of wishy-washy self preservation.


Why not? At least your honest about your own failings and that you're a mere mortal and not perfect like God. You can chose wrong and show you are willing to learn.

Why not? At least your honest about your own failings and that you're a mere mortal and not perfect like God. You can chose wrong and show you are willing to learn.
Trying to keep all bases covered isn't being honest about yourself. Being honest would be to say simply that nothing convinces you, which includes any Gods who may be critical of your life, and you accept the consequences that might have, rather than saying "One of them is right; I just haven't decided which one yet" and trying to suck up to whichever God does exist.

EDIT: This is of course assuming you believe only one of the Religions is capable of being true. If you believe they're all views on a single entity, that's fair enough.

That's exactly the same view i have. I forget the exact terminiology, it is a form of polytheism. I tend to call it omnitheism (belief in the existence of all gods until proven otherwise).
Which is a fallacy. Proof is required for positives, not negatives.

I'm not an atheist, nor am I a theist. To try and question the existence of something that exists outside of all natural laws is rather silly, isn't it? There is no possible way a human could know if God exists or not.

Having said that, I think that as long as you have reason it is possible to find what is morally right and morally wrong. Once you know that the question of whether God exists or not is quite irrelevent; I would live the same either way.

Anyway, God would probably know whether you're just trying to flatter him or whether you really are living the way he wants you to because you think it is right.

Which is a fallacy. Proof is required for positives, not negatives.


Still doesn't change my view point, i'm still a polytheist, always have been, always will be.

I'm not an atheist, nor am I a theist.
That's a contradiction. If you're not a theist, then, by definition, you're an atheist. A-theism = without theism. It doesn't have to mean a positive belief in the non-existence of god/s (which is "strong atheism").

To try and question the existence of something that exists outside of all natural laws is rather silly, isn't it? There is no possible way a human could know if God exists or not.
... which is the agnostic position (A-gnostic = without knowledge), but agnostics are also weak atheists.

Having said that, I think that as long as you have reason it is possible to find what is morally right and morally wrong. Once you know that the question of whether God exists or not is quite irrelevent; I would live the same either way.
To a large extent, the sense of right and wrong is instinctive - you don't have to be taught it. People can feel guilty over things which they've never been told were wrong.

But you're right. If people only behave morally because they're being told to, it suggests that they have no personal, innate, morality, which is scary. It doesn't say much for the moral fibre of a person if he can say "Without God, I'd do whatever I like".

That's a contradiction. If you're not a theist, then, by definition, you're an atheist. A-theism = without theism. It doesn't have to mean a positive belief in the non-existence of god/s (which is "strong atheism").


... which is the agnostic position (A-gnostic = without knowledge), but agnostics are also weak atheists.


To a large extent, the sense of right and wrong is instinctive - you don't have to be taught it. People can feel guilty over things which they've never been told were wrong.

But you're right. If people only behave morally because they're being told to, it suggests that they have no personal, innate, morality, which is scary. It doesn't say much for the moral fibre of a person if he can say "Without God, I'd do whatever I like".

Bah, semantics was never my strong point.

I'm open to new things. Atheism for some seems like a logical choice, though I do not see how we could come to be without a divine creator.


Well, the answer that would be pretty obvious to me, you believe in god.

But what I would like to know, is why you are getting so worked up, and condemning those who do believe in God? And condeming they God they worship. That's not only unethical it's just rude.


If you read my post, at the top it says it is a quote from a movie

You have come with supporting evidence so I respect you for your intelligence.

Again, its from a movie

But atoms arranging and rearranging themselves? Mankind not really being here? Sounds illogical. But I am interested in what you are saying...if you can explain it a bit better.


Its a quote from a movie, I'm not a scientist

I beleive that God exists. And I honestly don't feel the urge to prove it. I just know he does. I feel it explains itself. But some may be too ignorant to see that.


I feel the same way about there being no god/gods

But I must commend you and the other people who've posted. You know what you are talking about. Though all you have explained is theories. No scientific evidence, just theories. Please if you have some backup literature...do show it. Though I must assure you that you will not convert me of my beliefs.



Haha, I really wouldn't bother trying to convert the brainwashed, I might as well smash my head into a wall. No evidence exists to say a god or gods exist either, except the bible, and that was written by man for man to control man.
I don't see the point of wasting my life, worshipping deities that apparently made the world, yet manage to screw it up as well. And the heaven and hell thing? If heaven is full of the people I have met who protest to be christian, I'll take hell, its a no brainer really.

As for the rest of the religions? My opinion is the same, humans should stop living in awe of themselves, you don't see animals going to church do you?

Prove that he appeared to over 500 people. There isn't a single eye-witness account from anyone whose identity can be verified : all we have are stories written decades later by people whom we know next to nothing about (despite later claims and traditions that they were apostles).

It is a logical fallacy, a circular argument, to use the Bible as proof when the veracity of the Bible itself is in question.


Not to mention ergot, which was rife in the days of Jesus. People suffering from ergotism see all kinds of crazy things, walking on water, burning bushes etc...

Not that I despute Christ's existance, its the God part that I find unbelievable.

"It is a logical fallacy, a circular argument, to use the Bible as proof when the veracity of the Bible itself is in question."

That is great, I'll use it myself. Thanks.

Hey! Pappa Legba cured my athlete's foot!!
Well, actually I do believe in Papa Legba. Who else is going to stand at the crossroads and open the gate between the world of men and the world of Loa?

I believe in God because it makes more sense that not God. Also many people seem to equate religion with God. Not so. Back to my original point, now if God does not exist it explains nothing. If he does well it explains why everything works so well and why stuff exists in the first place. On another note people seem to stereotype the other group when they proclaim to believe in God or not. As for the massive rise in atheism: Its part of the modern zeitgeist.

Minuta']Im 100% atheist. No god, ever, never!

No God Ever Never????
These are some pretty big assertions. To say God does not exist is to claim that you have omniscient power and knowledge so you could see all and know God is not anywhere. But I thought you were trying to say such a being does not exist. It is a logical fallacy to be a true atheist. That is why it is more popular to be an agnostic.

resectfully yours

Well, actually I do believe in Papa Legba. Who else is going to stand at the crossroads and open the gate between the world of men and the world of Loa?

Pardon my ignorance but could you explain what or who Papa Legba is.

No God Ever Never????
These are some pretty big assertions. To say God does not exist is to claim that you have omniscient power and knowledge so you could see all and know God is not anywhere. But I thought you were trying to say such a being does not exist. It is a logical fallacy to be a true atheist. That is why it is more popular to be an agnostic.

resectfully yours

Agnostics are inherently atheistic since they lack belief in a god. ;)

Agnostics are inherently atheistic since they lack belief in a god. ;)


The difference is that agnostics claim they don't know for sure if God exists or not and so they choose to believe that He does not. Atheists however, claim that God does not exist and that He can not exist. To assert that as a definite is not the same as being skeptical fo God's existence.

The difference is that agnostics claim they don't know for sure if God exists or not and so they choose to believe that He does not. Atheists however, claim that God does not exist and that He can not exist. To assert that as a definite is not the same as being skeptical fo God's existence.

I think you need to learn more about atheism. Some atheists claim that, yes, but atheism by default requires no assertion; it merely rejects the claim of the theist based on insufficient evidence. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim--in this case, the theist.

The most literal definition of "atheist" is "someone who lacks belief in a god or gods". Anything added onto that, such as the assertion that gods do not and can not exist in any way, isn't really a part of the original definition of atheism. Kind of like how you can be a Christian, and also believe in aliens. It's just an unrelated assertion.

A better explanation for why so many nontheists identify themselves as agnostic, I think, is that they want to avoid the stigma associated with the word "atheist".

That's exactly the same view i have. I forget the exact terminiology, it is a form of polytheism. I tend to call it omnitheism (belief in the existence of all gods until proven otherwise).
The idea that you can believe in both Allah who claims to be the only God ("there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet") and to also believe in Jehovah of the Bible who also claimed exclusivity ("Behold oh Israel the Lord your God is one") is not a logical viewpoint.
Both can not be true if they both claim the other is false.

we're all worm food when we die thats science hold the keys to life thats why i don't believe there is a god.

I think you need to learn more about atheism. Some atheists claim that, yes, but atheism by default requires no assertion; it merely rejects the claim of the theist based on insufficient evidence. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim--in this case, the theist.

The most literal definition of "atheist" is "someone who lacks belief in a god or gods". Anything added onto that, such as the assertion that gods do not and can not exist in any way, isn't really a part of the original definition of atheism. Kind of like how you can be a Christian, and also believe in aliens. It's just an unrelated assertion.

A better explanation for why so many nontheists identify themselves as agnostic, I think, is that they want to avoid the stigma associated with the word "atheist".

A Webster’s definition is "one who does not believe in the existence of deity" not in a god or gods but deity itself. This is why it is a logical fallacy because only an omniscient being could truly assert the positive lack of deity.

we're all worm food when we die thats science hold the keys to life thats why i don't believe there is a god.

Science supports the existence of God. There is no other explanation for the complexity we see around us. Order cannot be created by disorder. Random chance cannot account for this vast and scientifically exact universe. There is no margin of error in science.

A Webster’s definition is "one who does not believe in the existence of deity" not in a god or gods but deity itself. This is why it is a logical fallacy because only an omniscient being could truly assert the positive lack of deity.

Note the terminology: one who does not believe, not one who asserts. There's a distinction there.

Science supports the existence of God. There is no other explanation for the complexity we see around us. Order cannot be created by disorder. Random chance cannot account for this vast and scientifically exact universe. There is no margin of error in science.

That's simply wrong, I'm afraid. Calling upon the "complexity" of the universe is simply another form of the argument from ignorance--"I don't know how it happened, so God must have done it." That's a logical fallacy. The vast majority of scientists, especially in fields like biology, do not believe in God, and I don't see how you could claim that science supports the existence of a being for which no evidence of any kind exists. You see, science is based on observation, not faith.

[QUOTE=Valdyr]Note the terminology: one who does not believe, not one who asserts. There's a distinction there.

First off If you disbelieve in the very concept of godhood then you do assert the nonexistance of God. How can you claim godhood does not exist and yet God might?? That is not possible. for God to exist and godhood to not exist.

Science supports the existence of God.
Most scientists disagree with you. In which science are you a Nobel Prize Winner? :)

There is no other explanation for the complexity we see around us.
Yes there is. Read some science!

Random chance cannot account for this vast and scientifically exact universe.
Nobody claims that random chance alone does account for it - this is a straw man. But random chance and intelligent design are not the only possibilities.

The idea that you can believe in both Allah who claims to be the only God ("there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet") and to also believe in Jehovah of the Bible who also claimed exclusivity ("Behold oh Israel the Lord your God is one") is not a logical viewpoint.
Both can not be true if they both claim the other is false.
Oh, the romantics. Always looking at image rather than underlying form.

Bonus points to anyone who knows what I'm referring to with that, by the way.

The Underlying structure of both "Gods" is the same. Claims to be the one true God can be held as equally true if you assume that all worship the same being, but that the appearence and Identity of this being is entirely subjective. After all, the only experience people have of God is internal and what explanation that is applied by other people's interpretations of that internal sensation.

It is Muslims and Christians that separate Jehovah and Allah, based entirely on what they call it and what they claim to have been told by it.

That's simply wrong, I'm afraid. Calling upon the "complexity" of the universe is simply another form of the argument from ignorance--"I don't know how it happened, so God must have done it." That's a logical fallacy. The vast majority of scientists, especially in fields like biology, do not believe in God, and I don't see how you could claim that science supports the existence of a being for which no evidence of any kind exists. You see, science is based on observation, not faith.[/QUOTE]

It is not an argument from ignorance. We know life is, so we know life had a start. Random chance is not a sufficient explanation for this start. We see life follows a pattern and a design (for evidence of this check out any DNA study). Design equals designer. How is this an argument from ignorance?

It is not an argument from ignorance. We know life is, so we know life had a start. Random chance is not a sufficient explanation for this start. We see life follows a pattern and a design (for evidence of this check out any DNA study). Design equals designer. How is this an argument from ignorance?

Insofar as you assume that the only two options for the start of life are either randomness or god, without taking into account all the already known factors regarding the patterns of life.
Calling laws of physics "design" does not prove that there has to be a "designer".

Most scientists disagree with you. In which science are you a Nobel Prize Winner? :)
there are nobel prize winners on both sides of this debate

Yes there is. Read some science!
Less vague please, science is not a book, but if you have a book or theory in mind by all means enlighten me.

Nobody claims that random chance alone does account for it - this is a straw man. But random chance and intelligent design are not the only possibilities.
Many scientists claim that evolution caused the world we know, this is random chance.

Many scientists claim that evolution caused the world we know, this is random chance.

Actually, most scientists will tell you that physics and chemistry caused the world we know. Evolution only started much later on...

First off If you disbelieve in the very concept of godhood then you do assert the nonexistance of God. How can you claim godhood does not exist and yet God might?? That is not possible. for God to exist and godhood to not exist.

It doesn't matter what you don't believe in--you aren't making an assertion unless you actively claim that something doesn't exist, rather than just not believing in it.

It is not an argument from ignorance. We know life is, so we know life had a start. Random chance is not a sufficient explanation for this start. We see life follows a pattern and a design (for evidence of this check out any DNA study). Design equals designer. How is this an argument from ignorance?

For a long time, natural phenomena like lightning and rain were considered unexplainable except as the acts of divine beings. Now people are claiming that life is unexplainable except as the act of a divine being. Both are arguments from ignorance--because you don't know how something happened, you ascribe it to a magical cosmic being. This doesn't prove anything whatsoever. Just because you can't conceive of an alternate explanation doesn't mean there isn't one, and if we add a divine being to the mix, it gets cut down by Occam's Razor.

We see life follows a pattern and a design (for evidence of this check out any DNA study).
Do you know what DNA is? It's an Acid; a molecular structure. It's a patterned one; one made up from simple repetition of simple constructors. It's a replicator; it is capable of multiplying.

This is the most likely kind of thing to triumph in an evolutionary system. Simple, easily formed molecular patterns that replicate. I would say that DNA is among the worst possible examples of design you could name, since it works so well in an evolutionary model.

Insofar as you assume that the only two options for the start of life are either randomness or god, without taking into account all the already known factors regarding the patterns of life.
Calling laws of physics "design" does not prove that there has to be a "designer".
True I do use God and designer interchangeably but who or what ever designed an earth and universe would be a god in his own right.
But I digress either something is created or it randomly happened it is one or the other. If you know how something can not be in either of these two categories than please explain. And yes, design demands a designer. If you saw a car in the middle of nowhere you would see the design and rightly assume a creator or designer of some sort. You would not assume it was simply the result of an iron ore deposit being to close to volcanic activity.

Pardon my ignorance but could you explain what or who Papa Legba is.
sounds like voudon to me.

Do you know what DNA is? It's an Acid; a molecular structure. It's a patterned one; one made up from simple repetition of simple constructors. It's a replicator; it is capable of multiplying.

This is the most likely kind of thing to triumph in an evolutionary system. Simple, easily formed molecular patterns that replicate. I would say that DNA is among the worst possible examples of design you could name, since it works so well in an evolutionary model.

There is nothing I repeat nothing simple about DNA. It contains all the information vital to the body. Everything from a person’s hair color to size. It contains enough info to fill a library of books. We have studied it for years now and we still don't understand it fully. How can you call that simple???

True I do use God and designer interchangeably but who or what ever designed an earth and universe would be a god in his own right.
I write a hypothetical computer program to simulate evolution that results in self-aware beings.

Does that make me God?

But I digress either something is created or it randomly happened it is one or the other. If you know how something can not be in either of these two categories than please explain.
Emergent Behaviour. Systemics. Things working together to create other things. Happens all the time.

It doesn't matter what you don't believe in--you aren't making an assertion unless you actively claim that something doesn't exist, rather than just not believing in it.



For a long time, natural phenomena like lightning and rain were considered unexplainable except as the acts of divine beings. Now people are claiming that life is unexplainable except as the act of a divine being. Both are arguments from ignorance--because you don't know how something happened, you ascribe it to a magical cosmic being. This doesn't prove anything whatsoever. Just because you can't conceive of an alternate explanation doesn't mean there isn't one, and if we add a divine being to the mix, it gets cut down by Occam's Razor.

Wrong. You are comparing apples to oranges. Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation is the most correct. The Idea of a creator is not the simplest explanation it is the only viable explanation. Your lightning example is not a far one. We are exploring this whole idea scientifically those people from way back, were not.

True I do use God and designer interchangeably but who or what ever designed an earth and universe would be a god in his own right.
But I digress either something is created or it randomly happened it is one or the other. If you know how something can not be in either of these two categories than please explain. And yes, design demands a designer. If you saw a car in the middle of nowhere you would see the design and rightly assume a creator or designer of some sort. You would not assume it was simply the result of an iron ore deposit being to close to volcanic activity.

If you take a close look at the word around you, you will realise that it follows certain physical rules. There's gravity, for instance, which was and is one of the major forces in the creation and the stability of our own planet, the solar system, the galaxy, etc. There are plenty of other physical and chemical rules and laws according to which the elements behave.
This is neither a designed system, nor is it random. Events follow these rules, planets are formed and if the right conditions are met, life will originate. There is no purpose behind it, but it isn't random.

Yes, there is the possibility that an intelligence may have set up those rules before the universe came into being, but ever since then, it most likely hasn't meddled with it any more.

There is nothing I repeat nothing simple about DNA. It contains all the information vital to the body. Everything from a person’s hair color to size. It contains enough info to fill a library of books. We have studied it for years now and we still don't understand it fully. How can you call that simple???

Considering that you are obviously talking about human DNA, yes, that is complex. The DNA of a protozoa on the other hand can be deciphered and altered.
The concept and structure of the DNA is incredibly simple, as it consists of only 4 aminos, 4 different molecules. If it wasn't simple, it most likely wouldn't have succeeded.

There is nothing I repeat nothing simple about DNA. It contains all the information vital to the body. Everything from a person’s hair color to size. It contains enough info to fill a library of books. We have studied it for years now and we still don't understand it fully. How can you call that simple???
DNA is simple in its construction. That doesn't mean it isn't a complex molecule, but when you look at it, it really is just a collection of pairs of bases joined together in a string that is interpreted by other chemical processes.

Complex things arise from repetition of simple processes.

I write a hypothetical computer program to simulate evolution that results in self-aware beings.

Does that make me God?

If you could do it than it would at least to those people you created. Even here you would run into a problem though because you would be using another god's creation (anything man creates is actually not creation we use products that already exist, God created for nothing).


Emergent Behaviour. Systemics. Things working together to create other things. Happens all the time.

Not true creation you make a cake you don't really create it you simply mixed pre-existing ingredients together a achieved the foreseen result.

Wrong. You are comparing apples to oranges. Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation is the most correct. The Idea of a creator is not the simplest explanation it is the only viable explanation. Your lightning example is not a far one. We are exploring this whole idea scientifically those people from way back, were not.

How do you know it is the only viable explanation? Are you claiming omniscience, as you previously insisted that atheists who deny the existence of God are doing?

So far, all you have is the argument from ignorance, which is a fallacy. Nobody knows everything, so it's illogical to conclude that something is impossible just because you can't conceive of it. Stating that the universe "looks designed" and therefore has a divine creator is simply a null argument. It proves nothing at all.

Not true creation you make a cake you don't really create it you simply mixed pre-existing ingredients together a achieved the foreseen result.
Creation? Who's talking about Creation? I was talking about Intelligent Design.

...

Seriously though, I'm not just manipulating matter. I am defining matter with the use of only one thing; Energy. I am specifically using the energy in this world to fashion physical laws and manifest matter within the plane of existence I am defining. I retain full control over these laws. To the people that arise within this system, I created their lives and realities, and have the power to take them away whenever I wish.

I ask again; am I god?

Not true creation you make a cake you don't really create it you simply mixed pre-existing ingredients together a achieved the foreseen result.

You got that wrong. Evolution is not you making a cake according to recipe, evolution is somebody grinding up plant seeds to begin with. Then somebody else who discovers that when you mix the powder with water, you get some form of porridge that is rather tasty. Then, years later, somebody else who discovers that you can put the mixture into the fire and that it results in some form of cake, which is practical and tasty. Add another few thousand years and somebody will discover the recipe for Sacher Torte.
Try and tell me that the Cro Magnon who found out that you can grind up plant seeds planned that the recipe for Sacher Torte would be found some day...

We see life follows a pattern and a design (for evidence of this check out any DNA study). Design equals designer. How is this an argument from ignorance?
This argument is a logical fallacy based on an unfounded premise. Life has pattern. It does not follow that the pattern was designed. To say that is was is to beg the question.

Many scientists claim that evolution caused the world we know, this is random chance.
This is an argument from ignorance - ignorance of evolution. If you believe that evolution is solely a matter of random chance, then I recommend that you go and read and understand some good books on the subject (try Richard Dawkins).

Put simply, genetic mutation is random (but not always); natural selection is not random. Genetic mutation provides the "material" for natural selection to work with, but it's natural selection which drives evolution forward.

DNA is simple in its construction. That doesn't mean it isn't a complex molecule, but when you look at it, it really is just a collection of pairs of bases joined together in a string that is interpreted by other chemical processes.

Complex things arise from repetition of simple processes.
That does not make it simple. A car is just simple metals but I don't think you could create one over the week end. How much less is it possible for a non-intelligent thing to create a complex humane body? It simply is not possible with all the knowledge we humans have we could not create a human with nothing but acids to work with. But you’re telling me I should believe it (the world) was created by accident with not even the use of an intelligent mind? Sound illogical to me.

That does not make it simple. A car is just simple metals but I don't think you could create one over the week end. How much less is it possible for a non-intelligent thing to create a complex humane body? It simply is not possible with all the knowledge we humans have we could not create a human with nothing but acids to work with. But you’re telling me I should believe it (the world) was created by accident with not even the use of an intelligent mind? Sound illogical to me.

The world didn't start out with humans, you know? It started out with organism even simpler than today's protozoae.

Very much the same way that cars started out with roundwoods...

That does not make it simple. A car is just simple metals but I don't think you could create one over the week end. How much less is it possible for a non-intelligent thing to create a complex humane body? It simply is not possible with all the knowledge we humans have we could not create a human with nothing but acids to work with. But you’re telling me I should believe it (the world) was created by accident with not even the use of an intelligent mind? Sound illogical to me.
Far from it. Since we, the most intelligent beings we know, can't even come close to creating a human being, it wouldn't be an unreasonable hypothesis to say that intelligence itself is incapable of creating anything as complex as people, let alone a universe. There is a limit to how far design can go, and the universe is way way beyond that limit.

This argument is a logical fallacy based on an unfounded premise. Life has pattern. It does not follow that the pattern was designed. To say that is was is to beg the question.
People give birth to people that alone is a pattern of design we don't give birth to a random life form.

This is an argument from ignorance - ignorance of evolution. If you believe that evolution is solely a matter of random chance, then I recommend that you go and read and understand some good books on the subject (try Richard Dawkins).

Put simply, genetic mutation is random (but not always); natural selection is not random. Genetic mutation provides the "material" for natural selection to work with, but it's natural selection which drives evolution forward.

I don't believe you understand evolution correctly. Evolution must be random in its nature (read Darwin if you don't believe me). Anytime you involve a non-random force into evolution than the possibility of God re-enters the picture. Natural selection must be random in its nature or it would be intelligent in its actions. And if it is intelligent than from what does it gain its intelligence?

That does not make it simple. A car is just simple metals but I don't think you could create one over the week end. How much less is it possible for a non-intelligent thing to create a complex humane body? It simply is not possible with all the knowledge we humans have we could not create a human with nothing but acids to work with. But you’re telling me I should believe it (the world) was created by accident with not even the use of an intelligent mind? Sound illogical to me.
If it were created by a mind, I refuse to believe it was intelligent. *Rips out my appendix with my bare hands* WHY??? WHY???

That does not make it simple. A car is just simple metals but I don't think you could create one over the week end. How much less is it possible for a non-intelligent thing to create a complex humane body? It simply is not possible with all the knowledge we humans have we could not create a human with nothing but acids to work with. But you’re telling me I should believe it (the world) was created by accident with not even the use of an intelligent mind? Sound illogical to me.
If the Car came in large building blocks and general rules for how they work, I reckon it wouldn't be too hard to put one together.

I could build a working model car out of Lego very easily, in fact.

The thing about DNA is it really is like a big Lego model. Sure, it probably took some time to form, but all it has to do is take blocks and stick them together. Furthermore, when you have a chemical state that encourages such blocks to do so, you're inevitably going to end up with something like Magnetic Lego. Throw it out and it will settle into some sort of form. It's not random; rather, it depends on the size and magnetic properties of each individual block, and is therefore quite rigidly defined.

These things form for a reason. That reason is much more simple than "Something else that was external to these things had the intelligence and understanding to know exactly how to click them into the right order so as to create specific results;" it is "The environment around the blocks was encouraging the connection." And, y'know, Occam's Razor and all.

(( Which, incidentally, I feel is flawed. I'm just turning it back on you. ^^ ))

The world is no accident. Rather, it is a result of interactions between things that are just behaving as their physical state dictates.

Far from it. Since we, the most intelligent beings we know, can't even come close to creating a human being, it wouldn't be an unreasonable hypothesis to say that intelligence itself is incapable of creating anything as complex as people, let alone a universe. There is a limit to how far design can go, and the universe is way way beyond that limit.


Think about what you are saying. Because the world is beyond our under standing it therefore, must be below us???? That is like saying because I don't understand complex algebra problem my dog must understand it, that is completely devoid of logic. If our level of intellegence is not enough to understand it we must look to a higher level of intellegence not a lower one. If you don't understand your home work you would ask a teacher or someone more knowledgable than yourself. You would not go to a 3 year old or a mad man.

I don't believe you understand evolution correctly. Evolution must be random in its nature (read Darwin if you don't believe me). Anytime you involve a non-random force into evolution than the possibility of God re-enters the picture. Natural selection must be random in its nature or it would be intelligent in its actions. And if it is intelligent than from what does it gain its intelligence?

You're not talking about evolution here, you are talking about mutations. Mutations are completely random, a fact that is observable everywhere in nature.
For mutations to enter into the evolutionary process, they have to fit the rules. They must provide an advantage for the mutated individual. If they are no advantage or a disadvantage, the individual will most likely not be able to pass them on, and the mutation dies with the individual. If they are an advantage, the individual will pass them on to its offspring, which may result in time in either a change of the species or else in a new, independent species, depending on the circumstances.

It is neither a random process nor is it planned.

You're not talking about evolution here, you are talking about mutations. Mutations are completely random, a fact that is observable everywhere in nature.
For mutations to enter into the evolutionary process, they have to fit the rules. They must provide an advantage for the mutated individual. If they are no advantage or a disadvantage, the individual will most likely not be able to pass them on, and the mutation dies with the individual. If they are an advantage, the individual will pass them on to its offspring, which may result in time in either a change of the species or else in a new, independent species, depending on the circumstances.

It is neither a random process nor is it planned.
I think you're trying to say that it's a random process governed by rules (correct me if I'm wrong).

I think you're trying to say that it's a random process governed by rules (correct me if I'm wrong).

I think the word "random" implies that there are no rules...

That does not make it simple. A car is just simple metals but I don't think you could create one over the week end. How much less is it possible for a non-intelligent thing to create a complex humane body? It simply is not possible with all the knowledge we humans have we could not create a human with nothing but acids to work with. But you’re telling me I should believe it (the world) was created by accident with not even the use of an intelligent mind? Sound illogical to me.

A car is far less complex than a random vein of metal ore, for example. Raw metal ore has a much higher entropy value than does a car, which has a comparatively miniscule entropy value, precisely because it is so much more ordered (and thus simpler).

But animals and biological systems aren't like cars. These work by taking advantage of increasing entropy of the surrounding to decrease entropy temporarily internally (which is why, for example, photosynthesis is such an ineficient process). In other words, comparing a biological system to a car and deriving from that the need for intelligent design is precisely the same thing as assuming that the combustion of the gasoline in the car's tank requires your attention to occur.

Furthermore, humans are not made out of "nothing but acids," and neither is our genetic material. In fact, amino acids aren't acids like hydrochloric acids. They're only called "acids" because they're capable of donating a hydrogen ion, and this is what "zips" the double-helix of DNA together. The whole thing is more complex than that.

Amino acids form polypeptides, and these are nothing more than codes for other (inverse) polypeptides. Transcribing them requires yet another proteinaceous material (transcriptase), and there are quite a number of those. And after the polypeptides are formed, other compounds come into play that help to ensure proper folding in one of up to four directions, so that the polypeptide turns into a protein.

And these proteins signal other proteins (amongst other things) that manipulate chemicals.

And while this is a very simplified view of a very complicated subject, there is absolutely nothing in any of it that in any way violates any of the same physical laws that govern inanimate matter, and every single one of these processes is almost exactly like the homologous process in every other living thing on the planet.

In short, what we see is not some instantaneous bursting forth of designed organisms, but a gradual building-up from the most basic laws of mathematics and physics as applied to chemistry. Our biology, in fact, is nothing more than a particular kind of chemistry. That's all.

Now, for example, if you understand what an acid is, and you can understand what an acid dissociation constant is and how it governs the behavior of a given acid compound, and what it means to say that a molecule is capable of donating protons, then you might start to understand why having "nothing but acids" to work with would be a lot less limiting than you seem to think it is. 'Cuz frankly, most chemicals, and almost all organic compounds, are acids in the broad sense of what an acid is.

That is like saying because I don't understand complex algebra problem my dog must understand it, that is completely devoid of logic. If our level of intellegence is not enough to understand it we must look to a higher level of intellegence not a lower one.
Again, I look to Computation. Computers are not intelligent; they are just matter states. Yet when we apply rules to them, we divine information from them. Particularly with regards to algebra and numeracy, in fact.

Information and Intelligence are not one and the same.

I don't believe you understand evolution correctly. Evolution must be random in its nature (read Darwin if you don't believe me). Anytime you involve a non-random force into evolution than the possibility of God re-enters the picture. Natural selection must be random in its nature or it would be intelligent in its actions. And if it is intelligent than from what does it gain its intelligence?
Erm... NC, I'd advise you quit before you make a fool of yourself as you obviously don't understand evolution yourself. Evolution is neither random, nor directed, it's the result of a series of random mutations of which only the best adapted to survive make it to the next generation.

The randomness is in the mutations, but depending on what this mutation is, it will be passed on or die out.

If the Car came in large building blocks and general rules for how they work, I reckon it wouldn't be too hard to put one together.

I could build a working model car out of Lego very easily, in fact.

The thing about DNA is it really is like a big Lego model. Sure, it probably took some time to form, but all it has to do is take blocks and stick them together. Furthermore, when you have a chemical state that encourages such blocks to do so, you're inevitably going to end up with something like Magnetic Lego. Throw it out and it will settle into some sort of form. It's not random; rather, it depends on the size and magnetic properties of each individual block, and is therefore quite rigidly defined.

These things form for a reason. That reason is much more simple than "Something else that was external to these things had the intelligence and understanding to know exactly how to click them into the right order so as to create specific results;" it is "The environment around the blocks was encouraging the connection." And, y'know, Occam's Razor and all.



Instructions large building blocks? What car is this? If the world had instructions this would be a sign of an intelligent creator not of evolution. The whole point of that illustration was that simple nature of metal does not make a car a simple form. You then replied that if it was simple you could put it together that is the point it is not simple and how much more complicated is the human body.
And honestly DNA is nothing like "a big Lego model" a child could put together legos but could never create a human body even with all the parts allready there. This Idea that you can simply put DNA together over time is asinine you do not simply put blocks together there are a million blocks and each one has a special purpose and if peices are missing the body runs into trouble. The "magnetic" idea of peices being attracted to each other was a theory we now know there is no such attraction (the man who came up with theory has since dicredited it; one of the 2 men I should say).
As for the external comment; nothing can create itself the cause must be seperate (or external) from the created. To say they are the same is to say that the creation existed before itself in order to create itself this is an obvious fallacy. Things don't exist before they are made.

Again, I look to Computation. Computers are not intelligent; they are just matter states. Yet when we apply rules to them, we divine information from them. Particularly with regards to algebra and numeracy, in fact.

Information and Intelligence are not one and the same.
You can't have one without the other.
Computers are not intelligent but the minds that created them and that use them, are intelligent. So intelligence is involved.

I don't believe you understand evolution correctly. Evolution must be random in its nature (read Darwin if you don't believe me).
I've read Darwin and he did not claim that evolution had to be random! IIRC, he didn't even use the word "evolution", but he did use "natural selection", and "selection", by definition, is not a random process. If it was, then it would be impossible for evolutionary scientists to make predictions, and if they couldn't make predictions, then they wouldn't be scientists!

Don't just read Darwin, read some modern evolutionary biology. Darwin got it essentially right, but evolutionary science has moved on by leaps and bounds since then.

Anytime you involve a non-random force into evolution than the possibility of God re-enters the picture. Natural selection must be random in its nature or it would be intelligent in its actions.
Nonsense. Non-random does not mean intelligent. It means any process which involves cause and effect.

I've read Darwin and he did not claim that evolution had to be random! IIRC, he didn't even use the word "evolution", but he did use "natural selection", and "selection", by definition, is not a random process. If it was, then it would be impossible for evolutionary scientists to make predictions, and if they couldn't make predictions, then they wouldn't be scientists!

Don't just read Darwin, read some modern evolutionary biology. Darwin got it essentially right, but evolutionary science has moved on by leaps and bounds since then.


Nonsense. Non-random does not mean intelligent. It means any process which involves cause and effect.

But without intelligence it must be random there is no third possibility. If there is not thought put into a thing than it is by definition random.
The definition of random is without aim or goal. How can a thing without intelligence have a goal? Did the primordial goop decide ahead of time what it planned to become? Of course not. So how can it be anything but random (or without goal or an aim).

Instructions large building blocks? What car is this? If the world had instructions this would be a sign of an intelligent creator not of evolution. The whole point of that illustration was that simple nature of metal does not make a car a simple form. You then replied that if it was simple you could put it together that is the point it is not simple and how much more complicated is the human body.
And honestly DNA is nothing like "a big Lego model" a child could put together legos but could never create a human body even with all the parts allready there. This Idea that you can simply put DNA together over time is asinine you do not simply put blocks together there are a million blocks and each one has a special purpose and if peices are missing the body runs into trouble. The "magnetic" idea of peices being attracted to each other was a theory we now know there is no such attraction (the man who came up with theory has since dicredited it; one of the 2 men I should say).
As for the external comment; nothing can create itself the cause must be seperate (or external) from the created. To say they are the same is to say that the creation existed before itself in order to create itself this is an obvious fallacy. Things don't exist before they are made.


Your problem, at its base, appears to be that you don't distinguish "order" from "complexity."

I have no idea what "magnetic" theory you're talking about, but I do know that if you deprotenate an amino acid, it will be attracted to, and form a bond with, another deprotenated amino acid (per the Bronsted-Lowry definition), but that has nothing to do with magnetism and everything to do with orbital hybridization. What your statement has to do with the construction of more complex organic molecules from simpler ones, then, I can't begin to understand.

You state that the cause must be separate from the thing it causes, but there are millions upon millions of examples that disprove this assertion. If chloride ions get close to sodium ions, for instance, they will form sodium chloride crystals. The crystals have a much higher degree of order and far lower entropy (higher order) than the ions that formed them, but absolutely no intelligent intervention has taken place, and the cause of their behaving in such a manner is completely bound up with the configuration of their outer shell electrons. If the crystals are dissolved in water, the crystal lattice breaks down and the ions separate again. The ions are still the same ions, and the fact that they separate is as much one of their properties as the fact that they ever joined together. Where in all of this is it necessary to have the cause be distinct from the thing created?

So how can it be anything but random (or without goal or an aim).
By reason of necessity.

Erm... NC, I'd advise you quit before you make a fool of yourself as you obviously don't understand evolution yourself. Evolution is neither random, nor directed, it's the result of a series of random mutations of which only the best adapted to survive make it to the next generation.

The randomness is in the mutations, but depending on what this mutation is, it will be passed on or die out.

You don't understand the nature of mutations. There has never been a recorded case of a benificial mutation. Come up with one and I will cead this point to you. A real case please.

But without intelligence it must be random there is no third possibility. If there is not thought put into a thing than it is by definition random.
The definition of random is without aim or goal. How can a thing without intelligence have a goal? Did the primordial goop decide ahead of time what it planned to become? Of course not. So how can it be anything but random (or without goal or an aim).

So what you're saying is that snowflakes are designed by something?

No two are the same; the shape of a specific snowflake is statistically random. At the same time, the shapes of all snowflakes are constrained to follow very precise laws of geometry, thermodynamics, etc. Since the shapes of snowflakes aren't entirely random (they do follow rules), your assertion would be that the shapes have some goal or purpose...?

By reason of necessity.

Necessity of what? Evolution teaches that this is necessary otherwise Evolution would be wrong and here I agree with them. It is impossible to be not designed and yet not random so I agree evolution is wrong.

But without intelligence it must be random there is no third possibility. If there is not thought put into a thing than it is by definition random.
The definition of random is without aim or goal. How can a thing without intelligence have a goal? Did the primordial goop decide ahead of time what it planned to become? Of course not. So how can it be anything but random (or without goal or an aim).

Ok, to clear the definition of "random" :

Main Entry: 2random
Function: adjective
1 a : lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern b : made, done, or chosen at random <read random passages from the book>
2 a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence <random processes> b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence <a random sample>; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements <random sampling>
(Taken from Merriam-Webster online dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary))

Evolution can therefore not be called random, as it follows patterns. The fittest survives and passes down its genes.

You don't understand the nature of mutations. There has never been a recorded case of a benificial mutation. Come up with one and I will cead this point to you. A real case please.

The HIV virus.

The main reason why there still is no cure for an HIV infection is that the virus mutates extremely fast, making it again and again resistant to medication.

You don't understand the nature of mutations. There has never been a recorded case of a benificial mutation. Come up with one and I will cead this point to you. A real case please.

The sickle cell anemia gene is a beneficial mutation if a human lives in an environment where malaria is prevalent. The plasmodia that cause malaria can't live inside of the sickle cell due to a specific mutation that causes a malformation of the structure of the hemoglobin protein.

The set of mutations that have caused an increasing number of people to be born without wisdom teeth is beneficial in light of the decreasing overall sizeof the human jaw (I'm very familiar with this mutation, as I'm one of the lucky mutants. I've never had wisdom teeth. About 8% of the population is estimated to carry this particular mutation).

In the domestic cat, the genes for eye color, fur color and hearing accuity (one set of such genes, in any case) are linked on a chromosome. This is why all cats with white fur and two blue eyes are deaf. However, a mutation in the house cat genome allows for two different-colored eyes, and because of this a white cat with one blue eye and one eye of another color will not be deaf. Surely a benefit to the cat.

There are three examples. There are thousands more.

So what you're saying is that snowflakes are designed by something?

No two are the same; the shape of a specific snowflake is statistically random. At the same time, the shapes of all snowflakes are constrained to follow very precise laws of geometry, thermodynamics, etc. Since the shapes of snowflakes aren't entirely random (they do follow rules), your assertion would be that the shapes have some goal or purpose...?

What are you trying to prove? That there is a person sitting up in the clouds designing snowflakes? Yes they are unique and we know why because the general nature of freezing water around a dust partical. We would both agree here. So what is your point?

What are you trying to prove? That there is a person sitting up in the clouds designing snowflakes? Yes they are unique and we know why because the general nature of freezing water around a dust partical. We would both agree here. So what is your point?

You said that "random" means that there is no purpose or goal. The shapes of snowflakes are NOT random. They are governed by laws of geometry, physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. Therefore, according to your definition, snowflakes must be designed.

You don't understand the nature of mutations. There has never been a recorded case of a benificial mutation. Come up with one and I will cead this point to you. A real case please.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001205.html

The sickle cell anemia gene is a beneficial mutation if a human lives in an environment where malaria is prevalent. The plasmodia that cause malaria can't live inside of the sickle cell due to a specific mutation that causes a malformation of the structure of the hemoglobin protein.

Sickle cell animia is not a benefit. people with this condition are not as able to transport oxygen thru there body due to the shape of there red blood cells.

The set of mutations that have caused an increasing number of people to be born without wisdom teeth is beneficial in light of the decreasing overall sizeof the human jaw (I'm very familiar with this mutation, as I'm one of the lucky mutants. I've never had wisdom teeth. About 8% of the population is estimated to carry this particular mutation).

This one lacks sufficent data to prove anything. Most scientists don't even believe this is a mutation.

In the domestic cat, the genes for eye color, fur color and hearing accuity (one set of such genes, in any case) are linked on a chromosome. This is why all cats with white fur and two blue eyes are deaf. However, a mutation in the house cat genome allows for two different-colored eyes, and because of this a white cat with one blue eye and one eye of another color will not be deaf. Surely a benefit to the cat.

Wrong again it was a mutation that caused the deafness in the first place. Have you ever wondered why this does not happen in the wild? Because the inbreeding of domestic cats is what caused the problem in the first place.

There are three examples. There are thousands more.

So no you don't have any real examples

Great, seems like he reached the stage of complete denial :D

You said that "random" means that there is no purpose or goal. The shapes of snowflakes are NOT random. They are governed by laws of geometry, physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. Therefore, according to your definition, snowflakes must be designed.

First of all this isn't proving anything, never the less I will humor you with a responce.
When I said the definition of random was with out goal or purpose, I was quoting from the Webster's dictionary. So if you are saying my definition of random is wrong than I am afraid you are mistaken. The difference in each snowflake proves they're uniqueness this does not mean they are random. On top of that because God created the world the marks of the creator will be on all the created. So this doesn't really prove anything that you would want it to.

First of all this isn't proving anything, never the less I will humor you with a responce.
When I said the definition of random was with out goal or purpose, I was quoting from the Webster's dictionary. So if you are saying my definition of random is wrong than I am afraid you are mistaken. The difference in each snowflake proves they're uniqueness this does not mean they are random. On top of that because God created the world the marks of the creator will be on all the created. So this doesn't really prove anything that you would want it to.

I provided that quote from Webster, it specifically states that random means without purpose, goal and pattern, which must have slipped your attention.
Both snowflakes and evolution don't qualify as random, as both follow patterns.

I have to go to work now but it was nice talking to all who were involved.
Have a great day.

Sickle cell animia is not a benefit. people with this condition are not as able to transport oxygen thru there body due to the shape of there red blood cells.

First off, its not the shape of the red blood cells that limits the transport of oxygen, it's the shape of the hemoglobin molecule. A normal hemoglobin molecule has four binding sites; a sickle cell hemoglobin only has three. The result is a 1/4 reduction in binding capability, as opposed to a 100% reduction in the chance of contracting malaria in an environment where the disease is prevalent. So yes, it is a benefit, and a major one. It's a trade-off, and it's not a worthwhile one in an environment where there is no malaria. But in a population where people regularly die of malaria before having a chance to reproduce, genes aren't passed on. The odds of surviving to an age at which reproduction is possible is increased by this gene in the appropriate environment. There's no debate over this at all.

This one lacks sufficent data to prove anything. Most scientists don't even believe this is a mutation.

Absolutely untrue. In fact, the gene, MSX1, a part of the homeobox region, has been known and mapped since 1996. The only question at this point is whether MSX1 functions alone in tooth agenesis or if it is part of a complex of genes. Go look it up if you don't believe me, but the gene has absolutely been characterized and its functional regions mapped.

Wrong again it was a mutation that caused the deafness in the first place. Have you ever wondered why this does not happen in the wild? Because the inbreeding of domestic cats is what caused the problem in the first place.

Wrong.

The reason the gene isn't found in the wild is due to the linkage between the W gene (which is the hearing accuity gene) and the genes which govern pigmentation of the fur and eyes. White cats in the wild don't tend to survive because predators can see them easily, plus they're rather more defensless because they're deaf. It's not inbreeding that causes the gene (in fact, inbreeding NEVER causes mutation, only an increased rate of expression of an already-existant mutation). The gene which allows for two distinct eye colors in a single individual is a mutation of a gene that would normally result in a blending of sorts... eye color in cats is normally a polygenetic trait, but the two-color gene has allowed it to become codominant instead. Thus, two distinct colors and a W-gene carrier that can survive instead of a W-gene carrier that gets hit by a car.

So no you don't have any real examples

I've given three. You'll continue to refuse them in favor of your ignorance on the issue, because as I suspected you've made up your mind about this and will cling to a lack of knowledge rather than admit that you don't know what you're talking about and consider evidence that's out there, right now.

First of all this isn't proving anything, never the less I will humor you with a responce.
When I said the definition of random was with out goal or purpose, I was quoting from the Webster's dictionary. So if you are saying my definition of random is wrong than I am afraid you are mistaken. The difference in each snowflake proves they're uniqueness this does not mean they are random. On top of that because God created the world the marks of the creator will be on all the created. So this doesn't really prove anything that you would want it to.

Webster's dictionary gives definitions of words in their broadest and most common sense.

And with the definition you've just given, anything that isn't a random pool of quantum foam would have to be designed by the God that you've postulated.

In other words, your definition of order is "designed by God," and your definition of "disorder" is "not designed by God." Your definition of God is, in this sense "that which provides order."

All you've done is come up with a tautology... not a definition.

I provided that quote from Webster, it specifically states that random means without purpose, goal and pattern, which must have slipped your attention.
Both snowflakes and evolution don't qualify as random, as both follow patterns.
Alright I will answer this last one before I go.
Your mistake is that you believe that because I said that if it is not designed than it must be random that I also must postulate the reverse to be true. But this is not the case the two are not mutually exclusive it is possible to create totally random things. Like a programs that produce random numbers or some such thing. Because a thing is random does not mean it is not designed. However if a thing does not have an intelligent design than by definition it must be random because it cannot have a goal or aim in mind. Besides total randomness of shape is not a pro-evolutionary idea if evolution were true random cause would not produce random effect. That is to say if the process was totally random sum results would be duplicated. Snowflakes don't prove evolution if they prove anything it is that God has created a beautiful world for us to live in.
Now I really must go.

Alright I will answer this last one before I go.
Your mistake is that you believe that because I said that if it is not designed than it must be random that I also must postulate the reverse to be true. But this is not the case the two are not mutually exclusive it is possible to create totally random things. Like a programs that produce random numbers or some such thing. Because a thing is random does not mean it is not designed. However if a thing does not have an intelligent design than by definition it must be random because it cannot have a goal or aim in mind. Besides total randomness of shape is not a pro-evolutionary idea if evolution were true random cause would not produce random effect. That is to say if the process was totally random sum results would be duplicated. Snowflakes don't prove evolution if they prove anything it is that God has created a beautiful world for us to live in.
Now I really must go.

If I understand correctly you are saying that snowflakes can be neither random nor designed, but evolution can't? Where, pray, is the difference?
Both follow simple, logical patterns and neither show any sign of design whatsoever.

Snowflakes don't prove evolution if they prove anything it is that God has created a beautiful world for us to live in.
Now I really must go.
I think very cold water did that.

To say wether or not god exists you must first define god, and if you don't believe then you are not able to define. So I'd have to say god/God exists for some folks and not for others.

Well now that we have that cleared up...:confused:

The HIV virus.

The main reason why there still is no cure for an HIV infection is that the virus mutates extremely fast, making it again and again resistant to medication.


The common flu, for another.

The common flu virus has mutated into various strains for years.
Thus, why a simple influenza virus innoculation will not prevent you from getting the creeping crud this winter.
It will only prevent you from getting that particular strain of the Flu.

Sounds to me like the person you were arguing with knows little about mutation.

To say wether or not god exists you must first define god, and if you don't believe then you are not able to define. So I'd have to say god/God exists for some folks and not for others.
So if there was nobody alive to define him, then God couldn't exist. That sounds about right - God is a human invention, an idea, and nothing more.

Real things, including the real causes of the universe's existence, existed long before there were any humans, and will exist long after we're extinct.

Sickle cell animia is not a benefit. people with this condition are not as able to transport oxygen thru there body due to the shape of there red blood cells.


Sickle cell anemia is caused by a recessive gene. One must be homozygous (sp?) in order to get sick. If one is heterozygous (sp?) he is protected from malaria and will not suffer from Sickle Cell. Since heterozygous parents will breed heterozygous kids about half the time, and since Malaria is one of the tropics most dangerous killers the sickle cell gene ensures that about half the kids from such parents will be healthy and immune to malaria and helps guarantee that those kids will live to breed.

It's clearly an advantage.

The common flu, for another.

The common flu virus has mutated into various strains for years.
Thus, why a simple influenza virus innoculation will not prevent you from getting the creeping crud this winter.
It will only prevent you from getting that particular strain of the Flu.

Sounds to me like the person you were arguing with knows little about mutation.

Nor does he know much about evolution or abiogenesis... I feel I'm more informing than debatting.

Just because you haven't taken the time to understand evolution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.