1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

Do any of you believe in God?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by DBoon, Oct 16, 2010.

  1. WorkingClassDude

    WorkingClassDude Senior member

    Messages:
    386
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Location:
    California
    People have only had science and technology for 70 years or so. I think at this juncture it is just as ignorant to rule out "a god" (whatever that means), than to deny evolution.

    I guess in the sense that if you want to call 'god' the catalyst that began existence, then there IS or WAS something, because something happened to cause existence. As for now what that was is unknowable. But as far as a human or humanoid, sentient being that 'watches' this planet and it's people specifically, it seems like silly. Because why would heaven just apply to our planet, when there is infinity out there? Unless there are other gods watching other planets it seems silly. Maybe there are.

    So, specific skybro? Nah... or meh...

    Something beyond, something not understandable? Maybe...
     
  2. tagutcow

    tagutcow Senior member

    Messages:
    10,618
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Location:
    Greensboro NC
    This thread started out nicely enough, but has now taken a turn for the unbelievably moronic.

    1) People who say God exists and God doesn't exist BOTH have the burden of proof when they want to convince others of their view. We have explained this ad nauseum in previous threads.

    2) Establishing an equivalency between God's existance and Leprechauns' (or orbiting teacups', or the flying spaghetti monster's) existence is based on some unspoken and fairly questionable assumptions. You are free to believe that God's existence is no more credible than theirs, of course, but if you want to form a persuasive argument, you have to deal with the issue's complexities rather than going for arch reductionism. If you don't know what these complexities are, you shouldn't be debating this issue either way.

    2) Both the ancient Greeks and the ancient Hebrews knew the Earth was round. This was a settled matter long before 300 years ago.

    3) Science has always existed to whatever degree people were able to practice it. The scientific method was codified by Francis Bacon in the 16th Century. He was not an atheist. The only difference between science then and science now is that the conceptual tool of scientific inquiry has become overextended and know-nothings are demanding we accept scientific truth to the exclusion of all other forms of truth. This notion of science's exclusive claim to truth is in no way advised by the scientific method.

    4) Science is a complete red herring in this discussion. Anytime an atheist brings up "science" as a way of explaining his beliefs, it's a pretty good indication that he has no idea what he's talking about.

    This is is quite ignorant. When we thought the world was flat, it was because of the same reasons we used to (some still do) believe in God. It's made up because we didn't actually try to find the answer. We just assumed the easiest thing we can think of. We now know better because we looked for the answer, through science.

    But we know now the the Earth is round, and people are still debating God's existence as they have for time immemorial, and as they always will. So obviously the two issues are nothing alike.

    This is just really such a baffling non-argument you have here.

    I find it funny that all of a sudden we're innundated with noowatheists who swear up and down that science is incompatible with a belief in God. Where were all these people a mere six or seven years ago? I mean, the scientific method has remained unchanged for hundreds of years, and there has been no scientific discovery in recent memory that has changed the debate about God's existence one bit. Yet suddenly, great masses of people have decided that science and religion are incompatible. Doesn't this just prove that the spread of atheism has nothing at all to do with science in any substantive sense, and everything to do with social trends? -- and aren't social trends precisely what atheists accused religions of being in the first place?

    What is this evidence? What does it say?
     
  3. tagutcow

    tagutcow Senior member

    Messages:
    10,618
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Location:
    Greensboro NC
    When I reach home after a long day work and mingle with my family makes me believe that God exists who's given me yet another day to be with them...! [​IMG]

    See... spambots believe in God!
     
  4. Valor

    Valor Senior member

    Messages:
    836
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    This is is quite ignorant. When we thought the world was flat, it was because of the same reasons we used to (some still do) believe in God. It's made up because we didn't actually try to find the answer. We just assumed the easiest thing we can think of. We now know better because we looked for the answer, through science.

    We can never prove there is no God, as you can not prove that something is not there. What you can do is look at the evidence. I think what the evidence says is clear.



    WAT? We only have science for 70 years or so? Where the hell did you go to school? As far as I know the ancient greeks did NOT live 70 years ago.


    Dumbest argument I've seen in a while. Please learn how the "scientific method" works.

    Credo.
     
  5. Blackfyre

    Blackfyre Senior member

    Messages:
    2,421
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2010
    what makes science a red herring when it comes to the questioning of a gods existence, or lack thereof?
     
  6. Valor

    Valor Senior member

    Messages:
    836
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    If you understood the scientific method and how science works, you'd realize it will never actually disprove anything, it just produces better and better models to help describe reality, never to reach the correct model. Basically, science is never "true," just scientifically true.
     
  7. Tck13

    Tck13 Senior member

    Messages:
    5,750
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Location:
    Philly
    This thread started out nicely enough, but has now taken a turn for the unbelievably moronic.

    1) People who say God exists and God doesn't exist BOTH have the burden of proof when they want to convince others of their view. We have explained this ad nauseum in previous threads.

    2) Establishing an equivalency between God's existance and Leprechauns' (or orbiting teacups', or the flying spaghetti monster's) existence is based on some unspoken and fairly questionable assumptions. You are free to believe that God's existence is no more credible than theirs, of course, but if you want to form a persuasive argument, you have to deal with the issue's complexities rather than going for arch reductionism. If you don't know what these complexities are, you shouldn't be debating this issue either way.

    2) Both the ancient Greeks and the ancient Hebrews knew the Earth was round. This was a settled matter long before 300 years ago.

    3) Science has always existed to whatever degree people were able to practice it. The scientific method was codified by Francis Bacon in the 16th Century. He was not an atheist. The only difference between science then and science now is that the conceptual tool of scientific inquiry has become overextended and know-nothings are demanding we accept scientific truth to the exclusion of all other forms of truth. This notion of science's exclusive claim to truth is in no way advised by the scientific method.

    4) Science is a complete red herring in this discussion. Anytime an atheist brings up "science" as a way of explaining his beliefs, it's a pretty good indication that he has no idea what he's talking about.



    But we know now the the Earth is round, and people are still debating God's existence as they have for time immemorial, and as they always will. So obviously the two issues are nothing alike.

    This is just really such a baffling non-argument you have here.

    I find it funny that all of a sudden we're innundated with noowatheists who swear up and down that science is incompatible with a belief in God. Where were all these people a mere six or seven years ago? I mean, the scientific method has remained unchanged for hundreds of years, and there has been no scientific discovery in recent memory that has changed the debate about God's existence one bit. Yet suddenly, great masses of people have decided that science and religion are incompatible. Doesn't this just prove that the spread of atheism has nothing at all to do with science in any substantive sense, and everything to do with social trends? -- and aren't social trends precisely what atheists accused religions of being in the first place?



    What is this evidence? What does it say?


    And, there goes the thread...

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Blackfyre

    Blackfyre Senior member

    Messages:
    2,421
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2010
    If you understood the scientific method and how science works, you'd realize it will never actually disprove anything, it just produces better and better models to help describe reality, never to reach the correct model. Basically, science is never "true," just scientifically true.

    So scientific truth is not genuine "truth" is that what your saying?
     
  9. scarphe

    scarphe Senior member

    Messages:
    5,115
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    So scientific truth is not genuine "truth" is that what your saying?

    there is no such thing a scientific truth it is all working theory...that at some point can be modified based upon new evidence or thrown out completely.

    where do the fuck do people go to school to lear terms like scientific truth or the law of gravity....
     
  10. Blackfyre

    Blackfyre Senior member

    Messages:
    2,421
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2010
    I am just using his wording. I know and understand that science is just evolving theories. I dont care for the whole "law" thing either.
     
  11. Nosu3

    Nosu3 Senior member

    Messages:
    3,265
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    It scares people that when they die, that's it — you just cease to exist. Hence why they make up "God" and "heaven" and so on.
    "but don't you want to live forever?" "but then isn't life meaningless?" "but don't you need the comfort of god?" It's questions like these that relate to the suspicion of many god supporters are really wanting god to be true, rather than actual believing. People may act, speak and think like god is real but the certainty of god is still lacking, even if they do not express it. Self defense mechanisms can blur reality to cover up hardship and it's why god supporters may get defensive because they don't want their belief shield to be broken by questioning. It's also a reason why some make effort into getting others to be a god idea supporter. If only few humans claimed there was a god, those few might be forced into questioning it when others around them feel it's untrue. Someone confiding in the idea of god and an afterlife worked well as a personal self defense mechanism but it makes the mind vulnerable. Soon religion exploited it and the self defense mechanism was taken advantage of by others. Now there is corruption and things went awry. People are now losing control of the self defense when they value an afterlife more than a current life, this is abnormal. Now we see people affiliated with religiosity even preventing other people and beings from fulfilling their lives of innocent enjoyment. This planet, people and beings on earth are being disregarded and seen as insignificant because of the god idea, it has gone too far. We need to transition the god idea into support of science and medical advancements to help prolong our lives and ensure they are enjoyable without impeding on the fulfillment of life of other people or species. In order to do this we must first control the human population as it spins out of control to a threatening 6.8 billion people. By the year 2030 the number of people on earth will be double what this planet can support. The more people that exist, the more insignificant an individual life will become and we all know the seriousness of just one self-aware mind facing death or eternity of non-existence. We need drastic changes NOW before the environment, wildlife, and habitats are destroyed any further. The natural self defense mechanism of the god idea has gone completely haywire and the consequences have become harmful to societies and a danger to other people. The reality has been blurred too much from a simple comforting idea to a menacing aspect of civilizations in form of killing and disregard of other lives.
     
  12. dah328

    dah328 Senior member

    Messages:
    4,603
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    Someone confiding in the idea of god and an afterlife worked well as a personal self defense mechanism but it makes the mind vulnerable. Soon religion exploited it and the self defense mechanism was taken advantage of by others. Now there is corruption and things went awry. People are now losing control of the self defense when they value an afterlife more than a current life, this is abnormal. Now we see people affiliated with religiosity even preventing other people and beings from fulfilling their lives of innocent enjoyment. This planet, people and beings on earth are being disregarded and seen as insignificant because of the god idea, it has gone too far. We need to transition the god idea into support of science and medical advancements to help prolong our lives and ensure they are enjoyable without impeding on the fulfillment of life of other people or species. In order to do this we must first control the human population as it spins out of control to a threatening 6.8 billion people. By the year 2030 the number of people on earth will be double what this planet can support. The more people that exist, the more insignificant an individual life will become and we all know the seriousness of just one self-aware mind facing death or eternity of non-existence. We need drastic changes NOW before the environment, wildlife, and habitats are destroyed any further.

    The natural self defense mechanism of the god idea has gone completely haywire and the consequences have become harmful to societies and a danger to other people. The reality has been blurred too much from a simple comforting idea to a menacing aspect of civilizations in form of killing and disregard of other lives.

    Ha, people have been saying this for years and it's been untrue every time. If we start raising dolphins for food, we could probably get up to 3x or 4x the current population.
     
  13. itsstillmatt

    itsstillmatt Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    14,384
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Location:
    The wild and the pure.
    If you understood the scientific method and how science works, you'd realize it will never actually disprove anything, it just produces better and better models to help describe reality, never to reach the correct model. Basically, science is never "true," just scientifically true.
    lolwut?
     
  14. Manton

    Manton Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    lolwut?

    There something to that, I think.
     
  15. itsstillmatt

    itsstillmatt Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    14,384
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Location:
    The wild and the pure.
    There something to that, I think.
    That science is about scientific truth and that the scientific method is not interested in disproving/falsifying? That is not any science with which I am familiar. The idea that we are ever approaching is correct, but the mechanism he describes is entirely incorrect.
     
  16. Nosu3

    Nosu3 Senior member

    Messages:
    3,265
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Ha, people have been saying this for years and it's been untrue every time. If we start raising dolphins for food, we could probably get up to 3x or 4x the current population.
    No, the population has increased almost a billion since 1999.
     
  17. Manton

    Manton Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    That science is about scientific truth and that the scientific method is not interested in disproving/falsifying? That is not any science with which I am familiar. The idea that we are ever approaching is correct, but the mechanism he describes is entirely incorrect.

    That all scientific "truth" is essentially provisional.
     
  18. itsstillmatt

    itsstillmatt Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    14,384
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Location:
    The wild and the pure.
    That all scientific "truth" is essentially provisional.
    Yes, of course I agree with that, just not the idea that the scientific method does not include disproving things. That is sort of the definition of scientific progress.
     
  19. dah328

    dah328 Senior member

    Messages:
    4,603
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    No, the population has increased almost a billion since 1999.
    Yes, but growth rate doesn't say anything about whether any particular population figure is sustainable or not.
     
  20. Nosu3

    Nosu3 Senior member

    Messages:
    3,265
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Yes, but growth rate doesn't say anything about whether any particular population figure is sustainable or not.

    There is more to sustainability than just food...
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by