Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Church of FSM
( ) 2 Votes
| Re: Church of FSM [message #176721 is a reply to message #176696] |
Fri, 28 October 2005 08:53   |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 08:51 |
| MrBob wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 05:59 |
So you accuse me of being brainwashed by quoting something to make an argument, yet you're quoting something to make an argument.
Strange... 
|
That's where you're wrong. Knowing how I feel about the Bible and its origins makes it the single worst way to approach me on this subject.
|
Knowing how I feel about "godless geeks" makes it the single worst way to approach me on this subject.
| Crimson |
Did you really expect quoting Bible passages would make me a
believer?!
|
Did you really expect quoting a bullshit list would make me a nonbeliever?
| Crimson |
I can't believe that so many people can't see that this "God" character is the perfect way to control you.
That's NOT what I said, AGAIN you got it wrong. The concept of "God" is what controls you. Yes, you have free will. But if you decide you want to kill someone, there are consequences. However, if you kill someone and you're not caught (which I imagine was a lot more likely back in the days before forensic science and DNA testing) then you are essentially able to kill someone without any punishment whatsoever!
Even a fool can see that this is NO way to run a society! Not 2000 years ago when detective skills and sciences were primative at BEST! So... what's the solution? Ah, yes, the "God" who can see everything. Just like a grown-up version of Santa Claus who sees you when you're sleeping and knows when you're awake. Sure, now if you kill someone and no one sees it or proves it, you get away scot free in this life, but NOW there's a greater punishment. Eternity in the flames of hell!
|
A "concept" for fear didn't free me from pornography addiction, nor did it assist me in casting off hatred. As I said before, I still have free will. I still had to make the choice to be free. Not because of fear for eternal punishment, but to be closer with God and follow Him. You see, I love God. There is no fear in love (1 John 4:1). Therefore, I don't fear God. (Yes, I used the Bible as a source again--sue me)
Fear doesn't drive me, love does. If you still want to continue the way you're going, I'll still love you. If you ban me from the forums, I'll still love you. If you sent the mophia to try to kill me (These are just examples, Jesus used the same technique), I'd still love you. I even love Osama bin Laden. This is why people take so much offense with what Jesus taught. They're not willing to lay down their pride and change their lives. My earlier posts may have sounded like I hated you (I hope not), but sometimes you have to be hard. Being nice isn't always the way of love.
If you were only willing to read the Bible and see what Jesus really said, and what he really did, and who he really was, instead of looking at Christendom. Paul wrote there are people preaching another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:3-5). If you really search and open up you'll see what he meant.
I probably should've realized that you've never grown up in a "church". I was blessed enough to grow up in an environment where people really love God, and aren't fill of hypocrisy and deceit. I've been to other "churches" before, and I can understand why people hate them so much. Those places with the high ceilings leave such an empty feeling. Instead of focusing on love, they focus on things of the world. It's a shame that these institutions drive people away from God (It's not unintentional, either). I know they're places that aren't like that, but they're few. I hope and pray that you'll find a place that is truly for and with God.
Anyway, if you skimmed through this post, don't. It took me awhile (55 min) to write this, many people would just walk away or insult you. I expect you to read into this. Things aren't always what they seem to be. I can't force you to do anything, neither will God, but remember that He loves you.
God is the "0wnage". Plain and Simple.
Visit http://www.theoriginalmrbob.com
"If there's one freak to be, it's a Jesus freak"
All your base are belong to us.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #176722 is a reply to message #176696] |
Fri, 28 October 2005 08:57 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Well, all I can say is that I was given the advantage of growing up without going to church. Many/most people are brought to church or at least raised with the "existence" of "God" from birth. If you are taught from birth that this deity exists and what he wants you to do, etc, then you are controlled. You live in fear of eternal punishment and you're more likely to behave even when no one is watching.
|
Not always so. Perhaps with some people yes. However, there are many people who take what they know and choose to believe, such as me. I don't do it because I fear eternal punishment, nor do I behave in private because I feel God is watching me.
I beleive in God because I believe it is the right thing to do. I choose the Catholic religion because I believe they have the better understanding of the idea of God (the practice of the faith is a different question...), even though it is, in my opinion, not 100% correct.
I behave in private, not for fear of being caught doing something wrong (by some omnipresent being, or otherwise), but because it is the right thing to do. It is my own choise, not brought about by any reasoning other than it is the right thing to do.
Edit: just to touch on something that Mrbob stated, as he wrote that while I was writting mine.
Keep in mind that "love thy neighbour" does not mean you have to like them. So before the accusations that he LIKES Osama Bin Laden start, keep that in mind. You can "love" someone without liking htem, or supporting what they do.
This isn't an accurate depiction of it, but to use it as an example: If any of you have been in a fight with a loved one, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. You may not like them at that particular moment of the fight, but you still love them.
[Updated on: Fri, 28 October 2005 09:02] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #176758 is a reply to message #175124] |
Fri, 28 October 2005 16:42 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Well see, now you're interpretting that my disbelief in a "god" makes me evil. I am far from evil. My personal motto is "do no harm". When I do something (usually), I ask myself if what I want to do will harm someone. I just don't need "God" to tell me how to act.
And I didn't skim your post. I have already explored belief and found no evidence to support it. It all seems a little too Pascal's Wager for me. Of all the gods that mankind has worshipped over the centuries, I just believe in one less than you do. And once you understand why you don't believe in the other gods, maybe you'll begin to understand why I don't believe in yours.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #176916 is a reply to message #176653] |
Sun, 30 October 2005 00:07 |
 |
PointlessAmbler
Messages: 318
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| NeoSaber wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 16:10 |
How did a topic that started with talk on intelligent design and evolution degenerate so fast into "God exists", "No he doesn't", "Yes, He does", "No, he doesn't"... Is it just a way of avoiding the issue?
So, back on topic for a sec: Evolution isn't a scientific theory, yet it's taught in schools. Intelligent Design is equally a hypothesis that has little to no testable evidence, so why not teach it as well? At least ID includes information that's more modern, whereas evolution is typically taught with information that is, at best, decades out of date. Honestly, I don't think either should be taught until college, at the earliest. Neither merits being taught to children, since there's no scientific experiments to support them.
But people never actually look at that stuff. Debates always seem to turn into one side saying "Evolution is a theory, not a fact", and the other saying "ID is religion, not science"
If you use the argument "Evolution is a theory, not a fact", you might as well concede the entire debate right there. A scientific theory is so well tested, it might as well be 'fact'. A real scientific theory is Einstein's General Relativity, evolution is a joke by comparison.
Then there's the people who say ID is religion, not science. Intelligent Design is a statistical analysis of scientific evidence that indicates things were designed with intent. It's essentially 'the scientific evidence of God'. It is approaching the whole issue of 'is there a God' from a scientific perspective. Whether you agree with the hypothesis or not you can't just dismiss it as 'religion'.
|
It's nice to know someone actually knows the definition of a scientific theory.
Red Alert: A Path Beyond Manual Writer
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #176936 is a reply to message #175124] |
Sun, 30 October 2005 05:12 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I stated the definition of a scientific theory on page 2.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177048 is a reply to message #175124] |
Mon, 31 October 2005 00:02 |
 |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Yeah, let's go back to that quote for a sec...
| Crimson wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 20:19 |
(emphasis mine)
| "Mark Thomas" |
It’s important to remember that the term “theory” in science is not the same as it is in general usage. A scientific theory is a unifying concept that explains a large body of data. It is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views. The Theory of Evolution is the basic unifying concept of biology. The CEO of The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Alan Leshner, wrote, “Although scientists may debate details of the mechanisms of evolution, there is no argument among scientists as to whether evolution is taking place.” The National Academy of Sciences, the nation’s most prestigious scientific organization, has declared evolution “one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have,” and notes that evolution is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus. The Theory of Evolution has as much validity as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease.
|
|
Your quote generalizes the most important part of a theory in order to ignore its true definition. A theory requires experimentation. Its not a hypothesis that withstood the test of time, its a hypothesis that withstood the test of science.
It doesn't matter whether or not scientists agree on something, it matters whether or not science itself, the experimentally verified data, agrees on something. 'Piltdown Man' was a huge hoax that lasted for decades because scientists only 'tested' the bones with their hypothesis that a human ancestor would look like that. There was no argument among scientists that its was the 'missing link' and other real discoveries were ignored because they didn't fit the preconceived 'theory'. When someone actually bothered to do a real test, it was shown to be an obvious forgery. One that should never have been allowed to happen. These days man made global warming is starting to get passed off as a theory because 'everyone agrees'.
When it comes to evolution, finding fossils is observation, and explaining them is hypothesis. Finding more fossils is more observation. Predicting finding fossils is predicting observation. What is the scientific test used to determine that the fossils are actually what people think they are? What is used to test the fossil to show it is an earlier/later evolutionary stage of an animal in question?
When they've come up with real tests for bones, the hypothesis that led to the tests have, at times, been falsified. Neanderthals were once considered evolutionary ancestors of humans. This was based solely on the way their remains looked. When science reached the point that these remains could be genetically tested, it was discovered they are not human ancestors. Their DNA was too different from ours. The hypothesis based on the 'look' of the bones was wrong. This only happened a few years ago. How can evolution be a hypothesis that withstood the 'test of time' if its ideas get thrown out the window, in present day, when real scientific testing is done? The fossil record can't be used as evidence for a theory. It only supports a hypothesis.
Then there's "Natural Selection", the one idea of Darwin's that has actually withstood to this day. Natural selection comes after evolution, to kill off the weak and let the strong, or better adapted, survive. Evolution has to already have occurred for natural selection to be effective, and any idea on where animals come from can incorporate this. If animals were all artificially assembled in an alien lab and then placed on earth, natural selection would still occur. All natural selection does for evolution is not outright dismiss the concept.
Theories on gravity and atoms are actually experimentally tested and verified through those tests, that's how they became real theories. (Interesting side note: theories on gravity, aka General Relativity, and theories on atoms, aka Quantum Physics, actually contradict each other and claim the other is impossible, yet both are accurate about their subject). Experiments with light particles and super colliders are used in atomic theory. Experiments with space travel are used in gravitational theories.
A scientific theory must be falsifiable. There has to be a repeatable test that can be done that will show it's right. A theory must have these tests or it's simply a belief and might as well be classified as philosophy.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177090 is a reply to message #177048] |
Mon, 31 October 2005 08:27 |
 |
mrpirate
Messages: 1262
Registered: March 2003
Location: Ontario
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NeoSaber wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 02:02 |
Yeah, let's go back to that quote for a sec...
| Crimson wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 20:19 |
(emphasis mine)
| "Mark Thomas" |
It’s important to remember that the term “theory” in science is not the same as it is in general usage. A scientific theory is a unifying concept that explains a large body of data. It is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views. The Theory of Evolution is the basic unifying concept of biology. The CEO of The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Alan Leshner, wrote, “Although scientists may debate details of the mechanisms of evolution, there is no argument among scientists as to whether evolution is taking place.” The National Academy of Sciences, the nation’s most prestigious scientific organization, has declared evolution “one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have,” and notes that evolution is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus. The Theory of Evolution has as much validity as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease.
|
|
Your quote generalizes the most important part of a theory in order to ignore its true definition. A theory requires experimentation. Its not a hypothesis that withstood the test of time, its a hypothesis that withstood the test of science.
It doesn't matter whether or not scientists agree on something, it matters whether or not science itself, the experimentally verified data, agrees on something. 'Piltdown Man' was a huge hoax that lasted for decades because scientists only 'tested' the bones with their hypothesis that a human ancestor would look like that. There was no argument among scientists that its was the 'missing link' and other real discoveries were ignored because they didn't fit the preconceived 'theory'. When someone actually bothered to do a real test, it was shown to be an obvious forgery. One that should never have been allowed to happen. These days man made global warming is starting to get passed off as a theory because 'everyone agrees'.
When it comes to evolution, finding fossils is observation, and explaining them is hypothesis. Finding more fossils is more observation. Predicting finding fossils is predicting observation. What is the scientific test used to determine that the fossils are actually what people think they are? What is used to test the fossil to show it is an earlier/later evolutionary stage of an animal in question?
When they've come up with real tests for bones, the hypothesis that led to the tests have, at times, been falsified. Neanderthals were once considered evolutionary ancestors of humans. This was based solely on the way their remains looked. When science reached the point that these remains could be genetically tested, it was discovered they are not human ancestors. Their DNA was too different from ours. The hypothesis based on the 'look' of the bones was wrong. This only happened a few years ago. How can evolution be a hypothesis that withstood the 'test of time' if its ideas get thrown out the window, in present day, when real scientific testing is done? The fossil record can't be used as evidence for a theory. It only supports a hypothesis.
Then there's "Natural Selection", the one idea of Darwin's that has actually withstood to this day. Natural selection comes after evolution, to kill off the weak and let the strong, or better adapted, survive. Evolution has to already have occurred for natural selection to be effective, and any idea on where animals come from can incorporate this. If animals were all artificially assembled in an alien lab and then placed on earth, natural selection would still occur. All natural selection does for evolution is not outright dismiss the concept.
Theories on gravity and atoms are actually experimentally tested and verified through those tests, that's how they became real theories. (Interesting side note: theories on gravity, aka General Relativity, and theories on atoms, aka Quantum Physics, actually contradict each other and claim the other is impossible, yet both are accurate about their subject). Experiments with light particles and super colliders are used in atomic theory. Experiments with space travel are used in gravitational theories.
A scientific theory must be falsifiable. There has to be a repeatable test that can be done that will show it's right. A theory must have these tests or it's simply a belief and might as well be classified as philosophy.
|
It's pretty difficult to prove evolution using experiments, considering the time-frame that would be necessary. This is not to say, however, that there is no empirical evidence for evolution. And Darwin did provide a way to prove evolution wrong, just so you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177130 is a reply to message #175124] |
Mon, 31 October 2005 12:49 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
oh? and I suppose reading all that junk means you've somehow bettered yourself?
The Bible mentions slavery, THEREFOR IT SUPPORTS IT!
Give me a break.
By that logic, Crimson has talked about others using cheats, THEREFOR SHE SUPPORTS THEM!
Same logic, therefor it can not be disputed, correct?
I alsofound this amusing:
| Quote: |
Not only does God condone slavery, but here God places a value on slaves -- 30 shekels of silver. Note that God is not sophisticated enough to understand the concept of inflation. It is now 3,000 years later, and a gored slave is still worth 30 shekels of silver according to God's word.
|
Highly entertaining. It must means something that because a book has not been changed, that whatever in it must accound for things that happen after it! Amazing!
Give me a break.
Things written in the bible are there because they existed at the time the bible was written.
Once again, the humour carries on.
| Quote: |
There really is no middle ground. The Bible has to be an all-or-nothing book. Either the entire Bible came from God, or none of it did.
|
Excep, perhaps the idea of free will, or did the writer of this forget about this little idea?
| Quote: |
God is all-powerful. Therefore, God can do anything, and regenerating a leg is trivial.
God is perfect, and he created the Bible, which is his perfect book. In the Bible, Jesus makes very specific statements about the power of prayer. Since Jesus is God, and God and the Bible are perfect, those statements should be true and accurate.
God is all-knowing and all-loving. He certainly knows about the plight of the amputee, and he loves this amputee very much.
God answers prayers. If he is answering millions of other prayers like Jeanna's every day, God should be answering the prayers of amputees too.
God has no reason to discriminate against amputees.
God is ready and willing to answer your prayers no matter how big or small. All that you have to do is believe. He says it in multiple places in the Bible. Surely, with millions of people in the prayer circle, at least one of them will believe and the prayer will be answered.
|
Gasp! Not every single prayer in the world is answered! God must be false!
Or, perhaps, he does not think that the person NEEDS assistance?
Here's a little experiment. Go make billions of dollars and have a kid. Then, give that kid everything they want, do everything that kid asks you to do, and get that kid out of every bit of trouble that he/she may get in.
I await your answer that this kid will turn out perfect.
I did not read all of it, because it all says pretty much the same thing. "God doesn't exist, because the Christian Religion is not perfect".
I DARE you to call me close minded.
[Updated on: Mon, 31 October 2005 12:58] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177136 is a reply to message #177107] |
Mon, 31 October 2005 14:33 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 11:58 |
If you have a couple hours, read THIS. If you close the page before getting to the end of all the chapters, you will have proven to yourself that you do NOT have an open mind.
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
|
Firstly, I agree very much with a lot of the information described on that site (I've only read about half of it thus far).
Secondly, the concept of God as a being described by the Bible, and basing your belief of His non-existence on that alone is *very* closed minded. I have nothing wrong with you harping about how the Bible is inconsistent (because I think it is too), but I do have a problem with the idea that God cannot exist because the Bible is inconsistent.
I would agree with you when you say not to follow the morals of the Bible to the letter-- because I, like you, probably find them to be senseless in many cases. Many more cases I'm sure you'd agree, do make coherent sense. Don't steal, don't murder, and so on. I like those morals, and I would prefer to live in a society that works with them.
The ancient Greeks were able to rationalize a world without any gods, while other ancient Greeks were able to rationalize a world that consisted of at least a single arche. I personally find the latter to be more reasonable. Whether or not we all get a big juicy reward at the end is another story, but I would very much maintain that God exists even if He is wrongly documented in an ambiguous book of prophecy that is either self-validating or considered proven after the fact. Which is pretty interesting, because Christians have this annoying habit of dismissing phophets like Nostradamus for doing the exact same thing they do-- validating events after the matter of fact.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177144 is a reply to message #175124] |
Mon, 31 October 2005 15:30 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I'm only on Chapter 7 by now and I continue to be fascinated at the accuracy of this "book" in mirroring the thoughts I've had as long as I can remember.
The Bible does a bit more than "mention" slavery, it in fact condones it as far as beating your slave within an inch of his/her life.
But I sure as FUCK do not base my atheism on the bible. Especially because I never read the dumb thing in the first place! Simply put, I feel ZERO connection with a nameless deity. I feel ZERO willingness to pray to someone/thing who MAY or MAY NOT exist. There is NO evidence to suggest a deity exists at all to me. I see beyond the religion to the part of humans that latches onto this concept. From this vantage point there is no way to go into this valley of 'believers'.
If you grew up every day of your life "knowing" there's a "God" and whatnot, then I don't know if there will ever be help for you. I truly pity those who can't even fathom the possibility that this "God" character is a big fat lie and explore it.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177165 is a reply to message #175124] |
Mon, 31 October 2005 18:17 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
First, I must congratulate you. That link was of such absurdity, it got even me arguing redundant points.
That aside though, I have yet to see even one shred of proof that "God" doesn't exist. All that has been provided is instances where, perhaps, a particular religion may have got it wrong. (Slavery thing aside, because the concepts of what we consider to be slavery varies greatly from the Hebrew and Roman style of slavery -do some research the next time you want to argue something like this)
| Quote: |
If you grew up every day of your life "knowing" there's a "God" and whatnot, then I don't know if there will ever be help for you. I truly pity those who can't even fathom the possibility that this "God" character is a big fat lie and explore it.
|
Never ONCE did I claim I "knew" if God existed. I find it interesting, though, how you claim to "know" otherwise. You hve no proof that there is no such thing as a "God", yet you claim to "know" that he doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177176 is a reply to message #175124] |
Mon, 31 October 2005 20:22 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
That sounds very close to my own beliefs. If nothing else, I do have to applaud the good things that religion brings people. I do understand why some people need to have this imaginary friend in their lives.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177181 is a reply to message #176657] |
Mon, 31 October 2005 20:59 |
 |
YSLMuffins
Messages: 1144
Registered: February 2003
Location: Moved a long time ago (it...
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Moderator - Mod Forum |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 15:53 |
Doesn't the rabid dismissal of religion equate to religion itself?
|
YES! This may not be what you were intending, but I wish more people would see how often science and religion overstep each other's boundaries. Religion masquerading as science is just as stupid as science trying to impose a belief system on religion. The two ideologies are completely different, but that doesn't mean they aren't complementary. They're just two microscopes in the same pair of binoculars used to gaze upon the same question.
I don't think it should be a paradox or an oxymoron to be a person of both science and faith.
-YSLMuffins
The goddess of all (bread products)
See me online as yslcheeze
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177186 is a reply to message #177144] |
Mon, 31 October 2005 22:24 |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 16:30 |
I'm only on Chapter 7 by now and I continue to be fascinated at the accuracy of this "book" in mirroring the thoughts I've had as long as I can remember.
The Bible does a bit more than "mention" slavery, it in fact condones it as far as beating your slave within an inch of his/her life.
But I sure as FUCK do not base my atheism on the bible. Especially because I never read the dumb thing in the first place! Simply put, I feel ZERO connection with a nameless deity. I feel ZERO willingness to pray to someone/thing who MAY or MAY NOT exist. There is NO evidence to suggest a deity exists at all to me. I see beyond the religion to the part of humans that latches onto this concept. From this vantage point there is no way to go into this valley of 'believers'.
If you grew up every day of your life "knowing" there's a "God" and whatnot, then I don't know if there will ever be help for you. I truly pity those who can't even fathom the possibility that this "God" character is a big fat lie and explore it.
|
Interestingly enough, I was just discussing this subject with Joey.
Why is it always that because someone can't simply understand something, therefore it must be false? This reminds me of the 2000 election. Liberals can't simply understand how Bush won, so they write it off as incorrect and some type of "rigging" went on to ensure that Bush won the Presidency.
Also, why is it because there's no proof that something, it automatically "proves" that it "doesn't" exist? I don't understand why many people think this. This ideal has been proven wrong so many times.
Here's an example: Many thought that the atom was the smalest thing, that nothing could be broken up any more. It wasn't accepted that there were protons, neutrons, and electrons, but that didn't stop it from being true, did it? Nope, now it's KNOWN that protons, neutrons, and electrons do in fact exist. Now we're finding evidence that quarks exist.
Also, read through the whole thing before you start making judgements on it and its validity. As warranto said, slavery was different back in the ancient world, not to mention that the Old Testament is what we call the "Old Covenant". It's what God had with the Isrealites and nobody else. This was scrapped when Christ died on the cross creating the "New Covenant" which Gold has with everybody. With the old covenant you could have more than one wife, have slaves, etc...
I can fathom God or any other diety existing, but there's so much evidence pointing to intelligent design, it's not even funny. It's just up to people to accept it.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177189 is a reply to message #175124] |
Tue, 01 November 2005 00:29 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Where is this evidence? Because from what I've read, science has figured out the beginning of the universe down to a billionth of a billionth of a second after the big bang.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Church of FSM [message #177193 is a reply to message #175124] |
Tue, 01 November 2005 06:38 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
Negative proof
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a type of logical fallacy of the following form:
"This exists because there is no proof that it does not exist."
Non-fallacious ways to prove something include the use of logical syllogisms and/or the incorporation of empirical observations. But it is not logical to argue that something exists simply because there is no proof to the contrary; one cannot say, "No one has proven that aliens do not exist. Therefore, based on that alone, they must exist, notwithstanding that I have no evidence that they do exist". Given (as it is above) that it was not proven that aliens do not exist, they might exist, but this alone does not prove them to exist.
Another common example is that, "A supernatural force must exist because there is no proof that it does not exist". However, the converse is also true, according to the Argument from Ignorance: One also cannot say that, "I have not seen proof that something supernatural exists, therefore a supernatural force cannot exist". Also, similar to the aliens in the above example, since no proof is available that this does not exist, it might exist, but this alone does not prove it to exist.
|
Here's another one for ya:
| Quote: |
Argument from ignorance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Argument from Ignorance)
Jump to: navigation, search
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is the assertion that if something is currently inexplicable to some people, then it did not (or could not) happen, or that if evidence of something has not been scientifically proven to their satisfaction, then it cannot exist. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is an adage used to explain that one's own "ignorance" (or, one's "absence of evidence") does not disprove anything (or, "is not absence of evidence"). In other words, mere personal belief, poor logic, or closed-mindedness masquerading as certainty is not logical.
This is similar to (but not the same as) the Argument from Personal Incredulity (also known as Argument from Personal Belief or Argument from Personal Conviction), where a person asserts that because they personally find a premise unlikely or unbelieveable, it can be safely assumed not to be true.
|
Aside from that, though, let me ask you, what happened a second before the billionth of a billionth of a second after the Big Bang? Did all the matter concentrated at that one point exist, or did it appear out of nothing (which science has proven cannot happen)? What caused it to explode in the first place? What was the cause of that cause? What was the cause of the cause of that cause, and so one infinitely if nothing outside the physical laws of this world exists?
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
[Updated on: Tue, 01 November 2005 06:53] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 07 00:19:28 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01840 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
