Why do you believe that there is a god?

[b smooth 202]

Silly Putty where is your empirical evidence?

You've referenced nothing but Atheist-graphs, atheist authors , and gallup polls as your empirical evidence which is LAUGHABLE. Where are your precious facts?

hmmm...where can we find some 'facts'? How about...Sir Issac Newton....the man responsible for conceptualizing gravity, the theory of color, as well as calculus. Newton has probably made the greatest contributions to science....what did he say about God sillypitty? 

How about Maximillien Robespierre?

'Atheism is aristocratic; the idea of a great Being that watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant crime is altogether popular. '

You have no argument...God is all you have.

 

[an dee 51o]

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by GP9Rm4108

If any of you have questions on the bible and Christianity PM me. I can't do it in this free for all setting where there is too much nonsense and disrespect going on.

disrespect?
I have been for the most part pretty respectful and tried to address each and every point being made.

Tell me what you disagree with and/or what you're upset about. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Silly Putty where is your empirical evidence?

You've referenced nothing but Atheist-graphs, atheist authors , and gallup polls as your empirical evidence which is LAUGHABLE. Where are your precious facts?

hmmm...where can we find some 'facts'? How about...Sir Issac Newton....the man responsible for conceptualizing gravity, the theory of color, as well as calculus. Newton has probably made the greatest contributions to science....what did he say about God sillypitty? 

How about Maximillien Robespierre?

'Atheism is aristocratic; the idea of a great Being that watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant crime is altogether popular. '

You have no argument...God is all you have.

Newton believed in a god. Does learning how to find the area under a mathematical curve mean that there is a god some how? Algebra was created by muslims. Does that mean there is a god? 
This is not about intelligence or contributions. This is about the existence of a god. You can't assert that one exists if you can't prove it or provide evidence.

You have no posted one source or clear definition of the stance you take. 

You keep asking for evidence yet when I post detailed images, sources, data, and opinions on why I do not believe in the claims substiantiated for the existence of a god, you do not say what you disagree with. Don't trivialize my opinions as just atheist drivel. Atheism isn't the OPPOSITE of theism, its the LACK of theism.

Religions and faiths are opposing each other on the football field. I have removed myself from the equation and am watching from the stands. Thats what I'm getting at. 

I have told you for the millionth time now. If you propose that god exists, and your evidence does not support the claim, then I can't subscribe to that claim. 

End of story.

Why do you think god exists? Tell me why and I'll see if that is enough for me to say why there is a god. If your evidence doesn't stand on its own, then why should I believe you? Because I want to? That doesn't make sense. If you have evidence that its going to be a hurricane tomorrow in your hood, but you refuse to leave because you don't WANT to, then where do you stand? 

Again, tell me why you think there is a god. 

 

[gp9rm4108]

Silly, this was in no way pointed at you. It's just in conversations like this, you can never have a heart to heart with a person in a forum setting. It needs to be one on one.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by GP9Rm4108

Silly, this was in no way pointed at you. It's just in conversations like this, you can never have a heart to heart with a person in a forum setting. It needs to be one on one.

No offense, but that is cowardly.
If you want to have one-on-one conversations on a message board then that somewhat defeats the purpose. 

For the most part its an anonymous realm of discussion so you should be willing to discuss things and present your arguments the same way in public as you do in private.

If your stance is well substantiated and reasons well enough, your argument will stand on its own.

 

[gp9rm4108]

I say this because I know there will be others that will step all over the conversation I am trying to have with a select person. I have done this too many times in my life to know that a heart to heart conversation on faith can not be done where there is a mass state of uncoordination.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by GP9Rm4108

I say this because I know there will be others that will step all over the conversation I am trying to have with a select person. I have done this too many times in my life to know that a heart to heart conversation on faith can not be done where there is a mass state of uncoordination.

State your case.
List your claims and support them with your evidence as you see fit.

If people agree or disagree with you then they'll let you know. Thats how you get a discussion going. No one is going to reach out to you for the sake of doing so in private. 

Prove your worth to the christian side (oddly enough you seem to think only christianity is the way, but thats another story) and your questions and support may/may not come to address you.

Thats how these message boards work. Complaining that people won't like your arguments or the discussion will get trampled won't mean anything if you don't try  in the first place to establish your claims. 

 

[b smooth 202]

Why do I have to tell you why son? Do believers owe atheists an explanation for why we believe? Why is anything the way it is? Why are their oppressed people in the world? Why did Europeans come to America and destroy an entire race of people while enslaving Africans on the way?

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Why do I have to tell you why son? Do believers owe atheists an explanation for why we believe? Why is anything the way it is? Why are their oppressed people in the world? Why did Europeans come to America and destroy an entire race of people while enslaving Africans on the way?

Then why should ANYONE believe you if you're not going to prove anything?
End of story. 

If you think like that, go defend yourself in court with no legal representation. Good luck. 

 

[goldenchild9]

Gonna read through this thread and come back with a response but a G.rand O.rderly D.esign exists without question. Its all about what lens you you chose to interpret that fact through.

 

[b smooth 202]

I could defend myself per se in court easily...and honestly I would be 100% up to it....because frankly black people and colored people in general are tired of being subjugated to European perceptions, laws, and customs.
white people

before you say Im racist Im part white myself and grew up around white folks.  

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Gonna read through this thread and come back with a response but a G.rand O.rderly D.esign exists without question. Its all about what lens you you chose to interpret that fact through.

Cute acronym. 



Reminds me of B.asic I.nstructions B.efore L.eaving E.arth

So its subjective? 

I can't wait to read your responses...  

 

 

[goldenchild9]

Everything is subjective.

Science is just another religion.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Everything is subjective.

Science is just another religion.

Oh wow. 
So you're just as valid for saying disease is caused by a devil as much as I am for showing you an electron micrograph of a protein based prion disease? 

 

[an dee 51o]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Science is just another religion.

No, science never claims truth. It is forever advancing and actually welcomes new discoveries. Can you say the same about religion?

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Everything is subjective.

Science is just another religion.

Oh wow. 
So you're just as valid for saying disease is caused by a devil as much as I am for showing you an electron micrograph of a protein based prion disease? 

First off...don't question my intelligence with such stupid assumptions. 
I never mentioned anything about "a devil" or made a proclamation that such a being exists.

Secondly...

Does science have a cultural system associated with it, a "scientific culture" if you will?

Isn't science a belief system which seeks to better understand and explain the origin and inner workings of the Universe? 

If you answer yes to those questions, you have just admitted that science (as it is known in the "western world" today), fits the description of a religion by its very definition.

That is all I have said thus far.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Everything is subjective.

Science is just another religion.

Oh wow. 
So you're just as valid for saying disease is caused by a devil as much as I am for showing you an electron micrograph of a protein based prion disease? 

First off...don't question my intelligence with such stupid assumptions. 
I never mentioned anything about "a devil" or made a proclamation that such a being exists.

Secondly...

Does science have a cultural system associated with it, a "scientific culture" if you will?

Isn't science a belief system which seeks to better understand and explain the origin and inner workings of the Universe? 

If you answer yes to those questions, you have just admitted that science (as it is known in the "western world" today), fits the description of a religion by its very definition.

That is all I have said thus far.

"Science" is the name of the body of information we have that we have made assertions of, tested the claims, and confirmed the evidence.

Thats it. 

Extrapolating it to a culture or body of people, is ridiculous. This is where PR needs to come in from scientific entities and dispel this notion. Its not a religion.

If you figure out how to manipulate electricity through mathematical formulas and projections of other knowledge gained through experimentation to a reliable and consistent degree of predictability, does that equate to a religion to you? 

You're not making any sense. 

As someone said before. Science doesn't claim truth. If a claim is suggested and supported with evidence and tested consistently and it still holds up then it has merit. If it fails to support the claims that evidence suggest then it is dispelled.

I've used this example before but look at the difference between newtonian and einsteins physics. Newton was right...up to a certain point. Einstein just made a better and more accurate system that had more evidence behind it so its supported more than newtons conclusions. It didn't disprove newton, it simply said einstein was MORE right. Thats the point. 

Additionally, to equate "science" to a religion shows your vapid grasp on the subject. If you don't benefit from "science" then don't use "science." Go worship another "religion" then. 

Get off your computer, take off your synthetically made fibers, and go hunt for your food like your pre-sedentary ancestors in the grasslands. 

 

[b smooth 202]

Get off your computer, take off your synthetically made fibers, and go hunt for your food like your pre-sedentary ancestors in the grasslands. 

And there it goes^^^ I knew it

/thread. 

went over your head

Oh word? 

I wonder if their is any correlation to being white and being an 'atheist' ?

Whatever happened to the guy in Norway? Is he even being persecuted for his 'terrorist' actions? Read between the lines before you get caught slipping. 

 

[mycoldyourdone]

went over your head

 

[goldenchild9]

"Science" is the name of the body of information we have that we have made assertions of, tested the claims, and confirmed the evidence.

Thats it. 

Extrapolating it to a culture or body of people, is ridiculous. This is where PR needs to come in from scientific entities and dispel this notion. Its not a religion.

From Berkley:

[table][tr][td]While we typically think of culture as defined by geography or ethnicity (e.g., American culture, Chinese culture), the term also applies to the practices, behaviors, and expectations of smaller groups of people — whether they're a gang of skateboarding youth or the employees of a high-powered consulting firm. Though embedded in the larger culture surrounding them, such subcultures have their own sets of unwritten rules for interacting with one another, and scientists are no exception. In science, these rules of good behavior are fairly general but are essential to maintaining the quality of scientific evidence and ideas.[/td][/tr][/table]
Clearly there is a scientific culture. Rigorous scrutiny, scientific objectivity, scientific code of ethics, fair attribution of credit for discoveries, symbols, rituals. If you didn't know that there is a scientific culture....how can one even take your "megalomaniacal" rantings on God seriously? 

If you figure out how to manipulate electricity through mathematical formulas and projections of other knowledge gained through experimentation to a reliable and consistent degree of predictability, does that equate to a religion to you?
Science is an overarching system of belief, the manipulation of electricity, simply being an aspect of the greater entity. You can't define the sum of a thing by equating it exactly to a piece of the whole. Basic logic and "scientific principle". 

Science doesn't claim truth
Yet you're in here definitively ranting about the very basis of existence as if you are the climax of universal intelligence. Come on man. You are just like a religious zealot, who believes that their understanding of reality trumps all else.

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

As someone said before. Science doesn't claim truth. If a claim is suggested and supported with evidence and tested consistently and it still holds up then it has merit. If it fails to support the claims that evidence suggest then it is dispelled.


I've used this example before but look at the difference between newtonian and einsteins physics. Newton was right...up to a certain point. Einstein just made a better and more accurate system that had more evidence behind it so its supported more than newtons conclusions. It didn't disprove newton, it simply said einstein was MORE right. Thats the point. 

The same thing happens with religion at large.

Let me ask you this?....

Has there not been countless revisions of religion?

Protestantism evolved as a debate about the beliefs, procedures and ideologies of Early Orthodox Catholicism. 

There are hundreds of sects of any particular religion, hundreds of which place heavy belief of modern science but see existence in a more nuanced manner, very similar to that of the developing fields of quantum science.

But like I said, you are as much of a zealot as those you look down on, which blinds you from seeing the infinite gray area in which most human concepts dwell.

 

[mycoldyourdone]

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

"Science" is the name of the body of information we have that we have made assertions of, tested the claims, and confirmed the evidence.

Thats it. 

Extrapolating it to a culture or body of people, is ridiculous. This is where PR needs to come in from scientific entities and dispel this notion. Its not a religion.

From Berkley:

[table][tr][td]While we typically think of culture as defined by geography or ethnicity (e.g., American culture, Chinese culture), the term also applies to the practices, behaviors, and expectations of smaller groups of people — whether they're a gang of skateboarding youth or the employees of a high-powered consulting firm. Though embedded in the larger culture surrounding them, such subcultures have their own sets of unwritten rules for interacting with one another, and scientists are no exception. In science, these rules of good behavior are fairly general but are essential to maintaining the quality of scientific evidence and ideas.[/td][/tr][/table]
Clearly there is a scientific culture. Rigorous scrutiny, scientific objectivity, scientific code of ethics, fair attribution of credit for discoveries, symbols, rituals. If you didn't know that there is a scientific culture....how can one even take your "megalomaniacal" rantings on God seriously? 

If you figure out how to manipulate electricity through mathematical formulas and projections of other knowledge gained through experimentation to a reliable and consistent degree of predictability, does that equate to a religion to you?
Science is an overarching system of belief, the manipulation of electricity, simply being an aspect of the greater entity. You can't define the sum of a thing by equating it exactly to a piece of the whole. Basic logic and "scientific principle". 

Science doesn't claim truth
Yet you're in here definitely ranting about the very basis of existence as if you climax of universal intelligence. Come on man. You are just like a religious zealot, who believes that their understanding of reality trumps all else.



Aside from being a fallacious appeal to authority (which means nothing. I don't care if barack or chuck norris says that there is a god because he believes there is one, he can't support his claim with any proof beside that which he just wants to say only to himself) I have to address this. 
Yes, you are right to an EXTENT. 

I will give you credit for that. In each community, even in science there are certain defining characteristics and methods of interaction that prevail over others. However this is where I disagree. 

Granted, the scientific community that investigates claims tries to be as impartial as possible so as to determine whether or not claims can be verified. You may assert that objectivity and the pursuit of it is a "culture" but you have to see that this same community changes its rules all the time. It tries to get BETTER. It is scientific about being scientific. Thats the thing. It is critical of even the practices that IT uses. Thats why research institutions have review boards and other certification entities meet constantly to develop new and more refined ways of allowing data to be analyzed. 

Not once in here have I said science has all the answer or is the absolute truth. I HAVE said however that the claims proposed by individuals are either supported by evidence or they are not. Do you know why youre not taught humans that can fly in school? Because there is no evidence to support that claim. Things that can be asserted with consistently reasonable and replicable proof are things that get validated. Don't just think that if it passes the test once then its all good. Often times even solidified claims get updated. We are updating things that we thought were fact even 10 years ago. Its constantly redefining and reevaluating yourself. 

If you want to call it a culture, fine do so. But how does that invalidate the claims suggested as a whole at their forefront. If you disagree, propose an alternative method through which we can validate claims. If your suggestion works better and there is more evidence to support it, then TRUST ME, everyone will adopt your method.

People want to progress and use the best possible tool through which they can understand the world. As it stands, this is the best way to do so...its not the ABSOLUTE way to do so. Until another way comes along, and it may, then this is the best tool we currently have. Not the ONLY tool. 

Do you see what i'm saying? 

 

[nikeairforce1]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by sillyputty

As someone said before. Science doesn't claim truth. If a claim is suggested and supported with evidence and tested consistently and it still holds up then it has merit. If it fails to support the claims that evidence suggest then it is dispelled.


I've used this example before but look at the difference between newtonian and einsteins physics. Newton was right...up to a certain point. Einstein just made a better and more accurate system that had more evidence behind it so its supported more than newtons conclusions. It didn't disprove newton, it simply said einstein was MORE right. Thats the point. 

The same thing happens with religion at large.

Let me ask you this?....

Has there not been countless revisions of religion?

Protestantism evolved as a debate about the beliefs, procedures and ideologies of Early Orthodox Catholicism. 

There are hundreds of sects of any particular religion, hundreds of which place heavy belief of modern science but see existence in a more nuanced manner, very similar to that of the developing fields of quantum science.

But like I said, you are as much of a zealot as those you look down on, which blinds you from seeing the infinite gray area in which most human concepts dwell.

How does an absolute, perfect god's rules change so much?  Either it's always right or it's always wrong if the rules are coming from an absolute, perfect god.  
All of those changes or reforms you mentioned are because of secular forces.  They come from outside of religion.  They're forced to change their views or else they will be ridiculed and dismissed.

 @ you comparing people who accept science to religious zealots.  Lemme know when the next atheist bombs a church, kills some priests or flies some planes into some buildings because of the lack of belief in god.