The Passion...

[msmpls]

Why don't trees just become pulp, a sappy mess when we cut them down? Why do they remain intact as something we can use for fire, shelter, build houses, make paper, etc?

Is it just "coincidence" that atoms stay together (the same charges)?

We're getting stupid again it seems.

I think the funny part about this post is that most of the answers to his questions is hydrogen bonding. I took a biochem exam one time and there were 10 questions where the answer was hydrogen bonding...life is impossible without them.

[Tarantulas]

Why don't trees just become pulp, a sappy mess when we cut them down? Why do they remain intact as something we can use for fire, shelter, build houses, make paper, etc?

Is it just "coincidence" that atoms stay together (the same charges)?

We're getting stupid again it seems.

I think the funny part about this post is that most of the answers to his questions is hydrogen bonding. I took a biochem exam one time and there were 10 questions where the answer was hydrogen bonding...life is impossible without them.

Why did amino acids combine to form proteins that became the the build blocks of life?

Christians just need to watch the entirety of Carl Sagan's Cosmos... weed of course is optional.

[torgosPizza]

Hey wait! Why is Dianetics such a popular book?

I think we all agree that those guys are nut jobs... maybe you will open your eyes one day as well.

Dude that book has all the answers. I read it and loved it. I'd like to share it with you one of these days! (Actually we had a guy in a Carl's Jr nearby that was trying to convert people. It's always funny watching someone with one belief "scooch away" from someone who shares a similar belief.

msmpls, you're right - hydrogen bonding. The questions like "why don't the trees just come apart in a big sappy mess?" are about as childish as can possibly be asked. If the answer is, "I don't know why the trees don't come apart, I guess they were designed that way" is a complete and utter cop-out.

Have you guys seen the "Loose Change" video? Run a YouTube search and get back to me. Basically it's some college dropouts developing crackpot theories about the 9/11 "conspiracy". For instance, when the plane hit the pentagon, why is there only a hole punched into it? Why don't we see the shape of the wings in the hole left by the plane?

No cartoon-like punchout hole in the shape of a plane = conspiracy? No, it just means a reinforced, bomb-proof wall is stronger than the wings of the plane. See? Logical explanation - completely avoided by the two morons who put the tape together, without doing any actual research first.

[Pak-Man]

Here's the halftime recap. ATHEISTS: Prove to me something exists that, by its very nature, cannot be proven. RELIGION: We can't. We have faith! So prove YOU'RE right! ATHEISTS: Ha! We don't have to! We have the uncertainty principle! So you have to prove the unprovable...

[Conor]

Also, my avatar keeps away tigers.  That's why there are no tigers on this forum.

[J-Proof]

Don't fault me for using your own oversimplification against your cause.  Again, they are out of your camp's play book.

The problem with this response is that you admit inadvertantly that two wrongs make a right, and that using, in your opinion, a bad argument to correspond with a bad argument is okay.

Also, I'd be careful what crackpots you hitch your wagon to... you're losing personal credibility by the bucket load.

In whose eyes? Yours? Does it matter to me? Not really....

All I'm saying is that the argument I (and many) use, that God utilizes the sciences to complete His will, is far more complex an argument than you have been willing to consider (mostly because you don't believe in God and so you don't choose to study Him objectively). Whereas Christians all around the US (at least) have the benefit of studying both sides of the story from the very moment they crack open their houghton mifflin science-editions.

I'd say over the course of the modern West, a vast amount of open-mindedness can be found through truly well-educated faith-filled people.

[J-Proof]

Also, my avatar keeps away tigers.  That's why there are no tigers on this forum.

Lisa...I'd like to buy your rock.....

[msmpls]

Why did amino acids combine to form proteins that became the the build blocks of life?

peptide bonding

[torgosPizza]

Here's the halftime recap. ATHEISTS: Prove to me something exists that, by its very nature, cannot be proven. RELIGION: We can't. We have faith! So prove YOU'RE right! ATHEISTS: Ha! We don't have to! We have the uncertainty principle! So you have to prove the unprovable...

That's not completely true, and I think you're missing the point. (As I think others have, so I'm not singling you out, Pakky

It's fine if you're religious, I'm not going to question that or mock you, or try to take that away. It seems like a lot of the pro-religion debate has focused on "well you can't prove the unprovable." But again, this is a logical fallacy. And I think what the religious side has heretofore failed to realize is, we've never said you CAN prove that there is no god, just as you can't prove that there isn't. That's not what the atheist argument is at all.

The way I see it, the main reference we have for anything related to ANY god - Oden, Zeus, Abraham or other - is literature. Whether it's a book, scrolls, some scratches on a cave - that's pretty much it. We can say "history" in general because we're all pretty sure someone called Jesus actually existed. That's not in question here. Some of the things could be historically accurate (we have ways of corroborating data these days) - but some of ti might not be. The idea of written history is interesting too, though - Penn and Teller made an interesting point when they said that Elvis, who was alive only FIFTY years ago, loved Peanut Butter & Banana sandwiches. But if you were to try and find his favorite recipe, depending on who you go to, you'll get varying reports, even though they are all for the same sandwich and the same person.

Their point was, historical accuracy is questionable for dealing with someone who was around so RECENTLY - who's to say that the historical accounts of something 2000 years ago is any more or any less accurate?

Historical errancy aside, since the literature is all we have to go on (or at least, all there was at the beginning) - the process of the atheist's conclusion goes something like this:

Well, who wrote the Bible? It's widely recognized that it was written by people, divinely inspired by God. So there's the possibility of it having the human error factor. Not to mention, that the versions we have now have been translated by kings who had their own political agenda, and then retranslated.

We can look at the scrolls too, right? Or the original translations that are pre-monarch (King James)? Sure, why not. Well okay then - if the original documents are divinely inspired, then they must be right about everything. But then, as we discover more and more things the Bible (or other works) are wrong about, slowly the degrees of certainty begin to chip away. Someone decided that the Bible claims earth is 6000-10,000 years old? But we have carbon dating, several methods of it, that all conclude the earth to be much, much. much older than that. The bible tells us the moon is a source of light (it reflects the sun's), tells us the earth is flat and has four corners (Isaiah 11:11) ... if it's wrong about these things, what else could it be wrong about?

There are inconsistencies in many of the lineage and things that took place in the bible. There are passages about not being able to touch a woman while she's menstruating, stoning unruly children, etc etc as has been mentioned before in this debate - I won't recap them all because there are too many. In today's society we know these things are wrong. So, why would they be placed in a book that is either written or inspired by god? Since he's god and all, wouldn't he foresee the problem that a civilized person might see in these things?

If these texts were written by humans and not a deity, then they would not be the sacred texts everyone claims to be, correct? It almost seems to me that there are many religious followers who already believe this to be true. How many times after 9/11 or the Katrina disaster did we hear about gays being punished, or the city being wiped clean because of its debauchery? It seems inconsistent that a god who preaches such love would somehow spawn followers that preach such hatred and bigotry.

I can overlook the errors in the bible, or the idea that SOME parts of the bible are meant to be allegorical, while others (such as the stars really being lights on the "firmament") are to be taken as literal truth. Maybe my problem is with many of the people who preach the wrong things and attribute it to their religion. I'm not saying that all atheists are moral, some of them aren't - and I'm not saying that religious people are immoral, even though there have been a lot of horrendous deeds done in the name of Christianity, or in the name of Allah. Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, 9/11... every civil war in the Middle East has been caused because of different religious sects arguing over who the sacred strip of land belongs to. Does that sound like something any loving god would approve of?

Okay so this was kind of a long, winding diatribe, not so much a "progress of thought" as a stream of consciousness. But while some may say, "There was god in the man who gave out shoes to the people running away from the terrorist acts of 9/11" - the atheists will say "Why? That's not satisfying to me on an intellectual level, and to me is not viable evidence to the existence of god. Please show me more."

That's really it. Pak-man said that atheists demand that others prove the unprovable, but I said that's not true. And it's not. If an atheist were to pick up a rock, and on the underside it said, "Made by God," then they would be proven wrong forever and would most likely shut up about the whole issue. But when one thing proves to be wrong in the bible, and then another thing, and another, and we learn that the "ultimate author" is god? It puts the entire concept on very shaky ground for me.

[eegah]

Hehe we are familiar with Ray comfort.

Here's my "cut" of that video that I did awhile back.

http://www.cuts.com/cutsPlayer/?loadCutId=29ff7e8898

[eegah]

Why the Atheist doesn't exist
...
To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

The problem here is his definition of atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, not an assertion that there is no god.

[Quicksilver]

holy crap guys 6 pages since I last looked at this last night, I'm far too tired to even try to catch up, though I'm betting I can take a guess, I see scientology has made it into the discussion.

Ever heard of the church of christ scientist. I saw it in town one day and said man maybe thats a cool religion, till I looked it up. Basically means christ is the only real scientist. Where people are healed by god and not medicine. Kind of the opposite of what I thought.  :-",

[Quicksilver]

Why the Atheist doesn't exist
...
To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

The problem here is his definition of atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, not an assertion that there is no god.

As said in the great film "the exorcism of emily rose"  If you dont know if you believe, then you dont believe. Basically atheism right there.

Dont worry Eegah, I'm trying to argue for you, not against.

[Tarantulas]

Don't fault me for using your own oversimplification against your cause.  Again, they are out of your camp's play book.

The problem with this response is that you admit inadvertantly that two wrongs make a right, and that using, in your opinion, a bad argument to correspond with a bad argument is okay.

Also, I'd be careful what crackpots you hitch your wagon to... you're losing personal credibility by the bucket load.

In whose eyes? Yours? Does it matter to me? Not really....

All I'm saying is that the argument I (and many) use, that God utilizes the sciences to complete His will, is far more complex an argument than you have been willing to consider (mostly because you don't believe in God and so you don't choose to study Him objectively). Whereas Christians all around the US (at least) have the benefit of studying both sides of the story from the very moment they crack open their houghton mifflin science-editions.

I'd say over the course of the modern West, a vast amount of open-mindedness can be found through truly well-educated faith-filled people.

When the basis for your thinking is flawed to begin with, everything else that follows is null....

"God uses science..." <BUZZ>

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

[eegah]

Why the Atheist doesn't exist
...
To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

The problem here is his definition of atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, not an assertion that there is no god.

As said in the great film "the exorcism of emily rose"  If you dont know if you believe, then you dont believe. Basically atheism right there.

Dont worry Eegah, I'm trying to argue for you, not against.

That sounds like a criticism of agnosticism to me. Agnostics don't know and, yes, atheists don't believe. But there is a BIG difference in not believing in god and claiming there is no god.