Bill O'Reilly...tell me you can do better than this... you can't be this stupid...

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

you do have faith in something, dame, you have faith in reality....

granted, reality as we understand it,

but reality nonetheless

religious types believe in god,

athiests believe in reality....

I will wholeheartedly agree. Reality is subjective. It always was and it always will be. The western world has allowed me to be free of the daily problems of geting food, getting an adequate education, and fighting for my rights to allow me to delve into the deeper understanding of personal relationships and reality. This does not occur in less advanced societies. I am fully aware of this. This however does not make it less true. Reality is as we know it, reality. The "faith" you define is not something I would agree with. I do think that we have a responsibility to do unto others as we would have them do unto us because that is the best way for all of us to coexist if we do choose to do so. We all want to live life. 
However the need for a god is defined in the need to bring additional qualities into the world of which exist beyond out faculty. 
 
I'll reside with that which I have proof and can explain and for that which exists outside of that realm I will dedicate my life and resources to understanding those phenomena and making those results more widely known. That is the way we ought to approach problem solving and the unknown. Its the only justifiable way and far more reasonable than substituting faulty beliefs in their place. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

you do have faith in something, dame, you have faith in reality....

granted, reality as we understand it,

but reality nonetheless

religious types believe in god,

athiests believe in reality....

I will wholeheartedly agree. Reality is subjective. It always was and it always will be. The western world has allowed me to be free of the daily problems of geting food, getting an adequate education, and fighting for my rights to allow me to delve into the deeper understanding of personal relationships and reality. This does not occur in less advanced societies. I am fully aware of this. This however does not make it less true. Reality is as we know it, reality. The "faith" you define is not something I would agree with. I do think that we have a responsibility to do unto others as we would have them do unto us because that is the best way for all of us to coexist if we do choose to do so. We all want to live life. 
However the need for a god is defined in the need to bring additional qualities into the world of which exist beyond out faculty. 
 
I'll reside with that which I have proof and can explain and for that which exists outside of that realm I will dedicate my life and resources to understanding those phenomena and making those results more widely known. That is the way we ought to approach problem solving and the unknown. Its the only justifiable way and far more reasonable than substituting faulty beliefs in their place. 

 

[copped]

TELL EM' WHY YOU MAD SON...................


IN PARAGRAPHS.

 

[copped]

TELL EM' WHY YOU MAD SON...................


IN PARAGRAPHS.

 

[kix4kix]

Dude @ATG...... relax. I was stating facts, you went into a diatribe about learning. Skepticism is my greatest asset hommie.

Believe it or not, Hawking aint Jesus (I know you fuming). 

As far as what the !+$+ I was saying there: I was simply stating the FACT that when Hawking drops a theory, there aren't many people who can think on his level in regard to his field. You took a leap of faith with your assumptions.

And I was ALSO stating that just because Hawking drops an album, doesn't mean it's a classic. You know how many great thinkers had theories proven wrong years later?

 

[kix4kix]

Dude @ATG...... relax. I was stating facts, you went into a diatribe about learning. Skepticism is my greatest asset hommie.

Believe it or not, Hawking aint Jesus (I know you fuming). 

As far as what the !+$+ I was saying there: I was simply stating the FACT that when Hawking drops a theory, there aren't many people who can think on his level in regard to his field. You took a leap of faith with your assumptions.

And I was ALSO stating that just because Hawking drops an album, doesn't mean it's a classic. You know how many great thinkers had theories proven wrong years later?

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Dude @ATG...... relax. I was stating facts, you went into a diatribe about learning. Skepticism is my greatest asset hommie.

Believe it or not, Hawking aint Jesus (I know you fuming). 

As far as what the !+$+ I was saying there: I was simply stating the FACT that when Hawking drops a theory, there aren't many people who can think on his level in regard to his field. You took a leap of faith with your assumptions.

And I was ALSO stating that just because Hawking drops an album, doesn't mean it's a classic. You know how many great thinkers had theories proven wrong years later?

I guess you think that his stuff just goes out to everyone and no one checks it huh? 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Dude @ATG...... relax. I was stating facts, you went into a diatribe about learning. Skepticism is my greatest asset hommie.

Believe it or not, Hawking aint Jesus (I know you fuming). 

As far as what the !+$+ I was saying there: I was simply stating the FACT that when Hawking drops a theory, there aren't many people who can think on his level in regard to his field. You took a leap of faith with your assumptions.

And I was ALSO stating that just because Hawking drops an album, doesn't mean it's a classic. You know how many great thinkers had theories proven wrong years later?

I guess you think that his stuff just goes out to everyone and no one checks it huh? 

 

[kix4kix]

.........The field of science changes on the daily. I never said nobody checked his stuff.

 

[kix4kix]

.........The field of science changes on the daily. I never said nobody checked his stuff.

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

OP if you've done your research, then you'd know there are intelligent arguments on both sides of the debate.

Both religion and atheism require faith.

Faith in God. Faith in the odds.

Biggest fallacy that continually gets overlooked.
I don't believe in odds. You can't believe in "odds." Odds are calculations of empirical measurements. Don't be so loose in your connotation of words. Its annoying and dishonest.

I don't believe in God. Thats it. I don't need faith to not believe in something. You have a paradigm that suggest you are so CERTAIN there is a god that to reject him/her/it/them would indicate that I would need the same to deny it. No its not the case. I simply don't believe in your god. The same as I don't believe in unicorns. I don't need faith to not believe in them. I just don't see them nor do I see a reason to believe in them. You want to make my position so filled with faith so as to equal yours. They are NOT equal. Your faith is the same as another faith. My position is not one of faith. I am simply removed from the quarrel you and other faith-ful people have had for thousands of years. Its like saying not skiing is a hobby or not playing basketball is my favorite sport. Its utterly asinine to refer to my position as such. Don't ask me what my astrological sign is then when I say I don't believe in that stuff then say it takes faith to not believe in something. How can you even say that and take yourself seriously? 

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by faith.

You, reading this right now, are reinforcing your faith.  You, as you type a response in a bit, are reinforcing your faith in your position.  The same goes on for any debate or discussion.  This is what I meant.  I have faith in God, but I also have faith in my position as a believer in God.  You say "I don't know whether there is or is not a God" but you still have faith in your position to say that.

There is evidence that leads people to believe that God exists.  There is evidence that leads people to believe that God does not exist.

Neither of us, nor does anyone else on Earth, have proof beyond reason of God's existence or lack thereof.

Good read:
http://www.huffingtonpost...ce-of-god-_b_794308.html

You get a sense of just how long this debate is going on, and how it will go for eternity.  Why?

Because of what I originally said.  There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

OP if you've done your research, then you'd know there are intelligent arguments on both sides of the debate.

Both religion and atheism require faith.

Faith in God. Faith in the odds.

Biggest fallacy that continually gets overlooked.
I don't believe in odds. You can't believe in "odds." Odds are calculations of empirical measurements. Don't be so loose in your connotation of words. Its annoying and dishonest.

I don't believe in God. Thats it. I don't need faith to not believe in something. You have a paradigm that suggest you are so CERTAIN there is a god that to reject him/her/it/them would indicate that I would need the same to deny it. No its not the case. I simply don't believe in your god. The same as I don't believe in unicorns. I don't need faith to not believe in them. I just don't see them nor do I see a reason to believe in them. You want to make my position so filled with faith so as to equal yours. They are NOT equal. Your faith is the same as another faith. My position is not one of faith. I am simply removed from the quarrel you and other faith-ful people have had for thousands of years. Its like saying not skiing is a hobby or not playing basketball is my favorite sport. Its utterly asinine to refer to my position as such. Don't ask me what my astrological sign is then when I say I don't believe in that stuff then say it takes faith to not believe in something. How can you even say that and take yourself seriously? 

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by faith.

You, reading this right now, are reinforcing your faith.  You, as you type a response in a bit, are reinforcing your faith in your position.  The same goes on for any debate or discussion.  This is what I meant.  I have faith in God, but I also have faith in my position as a believer in God.  You say "I don't know whether there is or is not a God" but you still have faith in your position to say that.

There is evidence that leads people to believe that God exists.  There is evidence that leads people to believe that God does not exist.

Neither of us, nor does anyone else on Earth, have proof beyond reason of God's existence or lack thereof.

Good read:
http://www.huffingtonpost...ce-of-god-_b_794308.html

You get a sense of just how long this debate is going on, and how it will go for eternity.  Why?

Because of what I originally said.  There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

 

[dame theory]

Mo Matik wrote:

---

Dame Theory wrote:

---

Mo Matik wrote:

---

OP if you've done your research, then you'd know there are intelligent arguments on both sides of the debate.

Both religion and atheism require faith.

Faith in God. Faith in the odds.

Biggest fallacy that continually gets overlooked.
I don't believe in odds. You can't believe in "odds." Odds are calculations of empirical measurements. Don't be so loose in your connotation of words. Its annoying and dishonest.

I don't believe in God. Thats it. I don't need faith to not believe in something. You have a paradigm that suggest you are so CERTAIN there is a god that to reject him/her/it/them would indicate that I would need the same to deny it. No its not the case. I simply don't believe in your god. The same as I don't believe in unicorns. I don't need faith to not believe in them. I just don't see them nor do I see a reason to believe in them. You want to make my position so filled with faith so as to equal yours. They are NOT equal. Your faith is the same as another faith. My position is not one of faith. I am simply removed from the quarrel you and other faith-ful people have had for thousands of years. Its like saying not skiing is a hobby or not playing basketball is my favorite sport. Its utterly asinine to refer to my position as such. Don't ask me what my astrological sign is then when I say I don't believe in that stuff then say it takes faith to not believe in something. How can you even say that and take yourself seriously? 


You have evidence that leads you to believe that my God does not exist.  I have evidence that leads me to believe otherwise.  

Neither of us, nor does anyone else on Earth, have proof of God's existence or lack thereof.

Good read:
http://www.huffingtonpost...ce-of-god-_b_794308.html

You get a sense of just how long this debate is going on, and how it will go for eternity.  Why?

Because of what I originally said.  There are legitimate arguments on both sides.



One of us is right. However a lot of your evidence in different contexts often fails to stand up. You want to believe in a doctrine that has been adopted by other cultures and has many spin offs yet you reject that doctrine, even when it so closely mirrors yours.  Why does yours stand up where others doesnt? 

I'm just going to say it. Your argument isn't legitimate. 

 

[dame theory]

Mo Matik wrote:

---

Dame Theory wrote:

---

Mo Matik wrote:

---

OP if you've done your research, then you'd know there are intelligent arguments on both sides of the debate.

Both religion and atheism require faith.

Faith in God. Faith in the odds.

Biggest fallacy that continually gets overlooked.
I don't believe in odds. You can't believe in "odds." Odds are calculations of empirical measurements. Don't be so loose in your connotation of words. Its annoying and dishonest.

I don't believe in God. Thats it. I don't need faith to not believe in something. You have a paradigm that suggest you are so CERTAIN there is a god that to reject him/her/it/them would indicate that I would need the same to deny it. No its not the case. I simply don't believe in your god. The same as I don't believe in unicorns. I don't need faith to not believe in them. I just don't see them nor do I see a reason to believe in them. You want to make my position so filled with faith so as to equal yours. They are NOT equal. Your faith is the same as another faith. My position is not one of faith. I am simply removed from the quarrel you and other faith-ful people have had for thousands of years. Its like saying not skiing is a hobby or not playing basketball is my favorite sport. Its utterly asinine to refer to my position as such. Don't ask me what my astrological sign is then when I say I don't believe in that stuff then say it takes faith to not believe in something. How can you even say that and take yourself seriously? 


You have evidence that leads you to believe that my God does not exist.  I have evidence that leads me to believe otherwise.  

Neither of us, nor does anyone else on Earth, have proof of God's existence or lack thereof.

Good read:
http://www.huffingtonpost...ce-of-god-_b_794308.html

You get a sense of just how long this debate is going on, and how it will go for eternity.  Why?

Because of what I originally said.  There are legitimate arguments on both sides.



One of us is right. However a lot of your evidence in different contexts often fails to stand up. You want to believe in a doctrine that has been adopted by other cultures and has many spin offs yet you reject that doctrine, even when it so closely mirrors yours.  Why does yours stand up where others doesnt? 

I'm just going to say it. Your argument isn't legitimate. 

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

OP if you've done your research, then you'd know there are intelligent arguments on both sides of the debate.

Both religion and atheism require faith.

Faith in God. Faith in the odds.

Biggest fallacy that continually gets overlooked.
I don't believe in odds. You can't believe in "odds." Odds are calculations of empirical measurements. Don't be so loose in your connotation of words. Its annoying and dishonest.

I don't believe in God. Thats it. I don't need faith to not believe in something. You have a paradigm that suggest you are so CERTAIN there is a god that to reject him/her/it/them would indicate that I would need the same to deny it. No its not the case. I simply don't believe in your god. The same as I don't believe in unicorns. I don't need faith to not believe in them. I just don't see them nor do I see a reason to believe in them. You want to make my position so filled with faith so as to equal yours. They are NOT equal. Your faith is the same as another faith. My position is not one of faith. I am simply removed from the quarrel you and other faith-ful people have had for thousands of years. Its like saying not skiing is a hobby or not playing basketball is my favorite sport. Its utterly asinine to refer to my position as such. Don't ask me what my astrological sign is then when I say I don't believe in that stuff then say it takes faith to not believe in something. How can you even say that and take yourself seriously? 

You have evidence that leads you to believe that my God does not exist.  I have evidence that leads me to believe otherwise. 

Neither of us, nor does anyone else on Earth, have proof of God's existence or lack thereof.

Good read:
http://www.huffingtonpost...ce-of-god-_b_794308.html

You get a sense of just how long this debate is going on, and how it will go for eternity.  Why?

Because of what I originally said.  There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

The burden of proof is on religious people. When people make such claims outside the realm of religion they are deemed delusional even by religious people themselves.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

OP if you've done your research, then you'd know there are intelligent arguments on both sides of the debate.

Both religion and atheism require faith.

Faith in God. Faith in the odds.

Biggest fallacy that continually gets overlooked.
I don't believe in odds. You can't believe in "odds." Odds are calculations of empirical measurements. Don't be so loose in your connotation of words. Its annoying and dishonest.

I don't believe in God. Thats it. I don't need faith to not believe in something. You have a paradigm that suggest you are so CERTAIN there is a god that to reject him/her/it/them would indicate that I would need the same to deny it. No its not the case. I simply don't believe in your god. The same as I don't believe in unicorns. I don't need faith to not believe in them. I just don't see them nor do I see a reason to believe in them. You want to make my position so filled with faith so as to equal yours. They are NOT equal. Your faith is the same as another faith. My position is not one of faith. I am simply removed from the quarrel you and other faith-ful people have had for thousands of years. Its like saying not skiing is a hobby or not playing basketball is my favorite sport. Its utterly asinine to refer to my position as such. Don't ask me what my astrological sign is then when I say I don't believe in that stuff then say it takes faith to not believe in something. How can you even say that and take yourself seriously? 

You have evidence that leads you to believe that my God does not exist.  I have evidence that leads me to believe otherwise. 

Neither of us, nor does anyone else on Earth, have proof of God's existence or lack thereof.

Good read:
http://www.huffingtonpost...ce-of-god-_b_794308.html

You get a sense of just how long this debate is going on, and how it will go for eternity.  Why?

Because of what I originally said.  There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

The burden of proof is on religious people. When people make such claims outside the realm of religion they are deemed delusional even by religious people themselves.

 

[dame theory]

while it is the most accurate view to proclaim that I can never prove that god doesn't exist, I can suggest enough information that might lead me to conclude that there is no god.
Also, Mo Matik, what is your proof of God? Not personal proof, as that is subjective, but what is your proof that can be proclaimed publicly as widely accepted or persuasive evidence? As a believer in your faith it should be easy for you to convince me. 

I WANT TO BELIEVE IN GOD. I REALLY DO. Life would be exponentially easier. I swear it would...but at the time, I don't and I can't. Show me that I can and show me that there is reason to believe. MAKE ME A BELIEVER. If it was easy for the rest of you, it should be just as easy for me. 

 

[dame theory]

while it is the most accurate view to proclaim that I can never prove that god doesn't exist, I can suggest enough information that might lead me to conclude that there is no god.
Also, Mo Matik, what is your proof of God? Not personal proof, as that is subjective, but what is your proof that can be proclaimed publicly as widely accepted or persuasive evidence? As a believer in your faith it should be easy for you to convince me. 

I WANT TO BELIEVE IN GOD. I REALLY DO. Life would be exponentially easier. I swear it would...but at the time, I don't and I can't. Show me that I can and show me that there is reason to believe. MAKE ME A BELIEVER. If it was easy for the rest of you, it should be just as easy for me. 

 

[dame theory]

I'm sure God would have wanted this child to hear...
But he wasn't able to until this happened:

So much for divine intervention. 

 

[dame theory]

I'm sure God would have wanted this child to hear...
But he wasn't able to until this happened:

So much for divine intervention. 

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Dude @ATG...... relax. I was stating facts, you went into a diatribe about learning. Skepticism is my greatest asset hommie.

Believe it or not, Hawking aint Jesus (I know you fuming). 

Why would I be fuming that you said Hawking isn't Jesus? It's not even concrete that Jesus existed. Outside of the scientific field most ppl probably don't even know who Hawkings is. Where did you get that silly thought from?

Furthermore, last thing  I would want is for ppl to be worshiping a guy because he is smart even if that person revolutionized how we think and improved the standard of living for all humanity for the rest of time. Deifying ppl and deifying on it's own is an old practice that should be eradicated. Only the fearful and dumb do it and they're usually being controlled by the manipulative and selfish.

As far as what the !+$+ I was saying there: I was simply stating the FACT that when Hawking drops a theory, there aren't many people who can think on his level in regard to his field. You took a leap of faith with your assumptions.
I'm just lost on this part. Are you saying because some ppl aren't on Hawking's level or any genius scientists for that matter that when they provide new scientific facts or theories that those ppl will just assume he's right? You think new discoveries in science are just taken for granted on being right by ppl who aren't smart as the scientists that discovered them?

That's a falsehood. Couldn't be father from the truth. When the homey Galileo started saying the Earth revolves around the sun they didn't throw a parade for dude. His works were banned and he was killed. So your assumption that ppl just automatically assume new scientific discoveries are assumed to be right is wrong. Even today Especially in these times, science and those regarded as geniuses are dismissed for numerous asinine and inane reasons. Sure there are ppl not smart enough that say "this smart guy said it so he must be right" but there's just as many if not more ppl who aren't smart that don't just doubt but outright state that science is wrong.

So saying theories are proven wrong years later isn't saying anything new. If it's proven tomorrow 1+1=8 science will adjust to the new facts. Science isn't trying to be a belief system or some alternative to religion. It's trying to get things right and make it so ppl don't have to rely on faith or the smart ppl doing the work. That's the things about scientific facts, if you don't believe in the certainty of them you can try checking it yourself to see if it's right.

And I was ALSO stating that just because Hawking drops an album, doesn't mean it's a classic. You know how many great thinkers had theories proven wrong years later?
It's cool to be doubtful until something is proven to be a certainty. That's why scientists' theories are heavily judged and reviewed for decades. I'm not not saying because someone is a great thinker all of their theories are right and iron clad facts. Science pursues the truth. It self-corrects itself constantly especially when new discoveries about the laws of nature are found. If a theory is supposed and as numerous ppl continue to check the proof in different ways and it is shown to a correct process every time it is accepted until something else is found that negates or changes it.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Dude @ATG...... relax. I was stating facts, you went into a diatribe about learning. Skepticism is my greatest asset hommie.

Believe it or not, Hawking aint Jesus (I know you fuming). 

Why would I be fuming that you said Hawking isn't Jesus? It's not even concrete that Jesus existed. Outside of the scientific field most ppl probably don't even know who Hawkings is. Where did you get that silly thought from?

Furthermore, last thing  I would want is for ppl to be worshiping a guy because he is smart even if that person revolutionized how we think and improved the standard of living for all humanity for the rest of time. Deifying ppl and deifying on it's own is an old practice that should be eradicated. Only the fearful and dumb do it and they're usually being controlled by the manipulative and selfish.

As far as what the !+$+ I was saying there: I was simply stating the FACT that when Hawking drops a theory, there aren't many people who can think on his level in regard to his field. You took a leap of faith with your assumptions.
I'm just lost on this part. Are you saying because some ppl aren't on Hawking's level or any genius scientists for that matter that when they provide new scientific facts or theories that those ppl will just assume he's right? You think new discoveries in science are just taken for granted on being right by ppl who aren't smart as the scientists that discovered them?

That's a falsehood. Couldn't be father from the truth. When the homey Galileo started saying the Earth revolves around the sun they didn't throw a parade for dude. His works were banned and he was killed. So your assumption that ppl just automatically assume new scientific discoveries are assumed to be right is wrong. Even today Especially in these times, science and those regarded as geniuses are dismissed for numerous asinine and inane reasons. Sure there are ppl not smart enough that say "this smart guy said it so he must be right" but there's just as many if not more ppl who aren't smart that don't just doubt but outright state that science is wrong.

So saying theories are proven wrong years later isn't saying anything new. If it's proven tomorrow 1+1=8 science will adjust to the new facts. Science isn't trying to be a belief system or some alternative to religion. It's trying to get things right and make it so ppl don't have to rely on faith or the smart ppl doing the work. That's the things about scientific facts, if you don't believe in the certainty of them you can try checking it yourself to see if it's right.

And I was ALSO stating that just because Hawking drops an album, doesn't mean it's a classic. You know how many great thinkers had theories proven wrong years later?
It's cool to be doubtful until something is proven to be a certainty. That's why scientists' theories are heavily judged and reviewed for decades. I'm not not saying because someone is a great thinker all of their theories are right and iron clad facts. Science pursues the truth. It self-corrects itself constantly especially when new discoveries about the laws of nature are found. If a theory is supposed and as numerous ppl continue to check the proof in different ways and it is shown to a correct process every time it is accepted until something else is found that negates or changes it.

 

[mo matik]

The burden of proof is on religious people. When people make such claims outside the realm of religion they are deemed delusional even by religious people themselves.

Most religious people understand that there is an element of faith involved.  It has to be.  It's kind of required for the whole thing to work.

Also, Mo Matik, what is your proof of God. Not personal proof, as that is subjective, but what is your proof that can be proclaimed publicly as widely accepted or persuasive evidence?

The evidence I stand by is the Qur'an in it's entirety, and the Sahih collections of Hadith (Bukhari, and Muslim).

Scholarship on Islam is a minefield.  If you'd like a recommendation on where to start, I can do that.

 

[mo matik]

The burden of proof is on religious people. When people make such claims outside the realm of religion they are deemed delusional even by religious people themselves.

Most religious people understand that there is an element of faith involved.  It has to be.  It's kind of required for the whole thing to work.

Also, Mo Matik, what is your proof of God. Not personal proof, as that is subjective, but what is your proof that can be proclaimed publicly as widely accepted or persuasive evidence?

The evidence I stand by is the Qur'an in it's entirety, and the Sahih collections of Hadith (Bukhari, and Muslim).

Scholarship on Islam is a minefield.  If you'd like a recommendation on where to start, I can do that.

 

[breakyaneck3000]