To start off on a debate since it is allowed, I am going to go with one of the main subjects that appear in most people's discussions. Is God real?
RULES
-No flaming or trolling. Emphasis on flaming. Keep the argument down to a mild level.
-Back up what you say. I know it's hard for this, but don't just say something like "God is fake". Tell WHY you think God is fake, and use science to back it up if you have to. If you want to say "God is real", then the same goes for you. If you are going to use sources, then make sure they are credible, not just from someones blog (unless they source on that, and THAT source is credible).
-Keep this as mature as possible. This is basically like repeating the first rule, but don't let your emotions/beliefs get in the way of your argument. It makes you and your whole case look childish.
STARTING ARGUMENT:
God is not real because there is no scientific proof that he ever existed and did what he did (create people, make the world, etc.).
>>129
You're right about it, I apologize for being a little off topic with my post. About the "christian troll", do not misunderstand me, I just felt like using that christian tale to express my thoughts.
>>130
I do not know much about Neuroscience or brain's latest studies but I believe that there's still much to study about that matter and please correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually even if we assume that each and every sort of emotion is a neurochemical state of the brain, and that we can force it, I do believe that science is still far from defining a (100% failproof) list of natural trigger for each and every emotion and feeling.
>>128
The parable makes no logical sense whatsoever.
> That's just to say that we cannot determine god's existence using science or logic
To suggest that god is outside the realm of logic and scientific proof is outside the nature of the debate. It's mere mysticism, and when a person resorts to mysticism, that's usually when they've lost the argument.
> in my opinion
Well, at least this is truthful.
> you can believe in god because "you feel it" with your soul
Soul? Now you just have another state of existence to prove besides god, goddess, gods, or goddesses.
>>130 is 100% correct.
> I believe that there's still much to study about that matter
There's always much to study about all matters.
>>132
The "soul" I was talking about it's
>that part of us that's "more than human"
as I've mentioned above while explaning my opinion, and I used the parable for the same purprose...
While 129 and I guess 130 understood my post, even if they don't feel the same, and they made some deep critics about it, pointing our other facts. You should have been a little more "open minded" to catch it properly, instead of shielding yourself behind the fact that I am offtopic.
However, allow me to avoid any useless escalation of replies to justify, explain and specify better, any of my statment, as long as they're easy to undestand, if you do it properly, any critic would have been welcome.
>>> To be continued
God isn't real. Google for "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Here's the abridged 4 chan version:
"There is no such thing as a Muslim Child. There is a child of Muslim Parents. There is no such thing as a Christian Child. There is a child of Christian Parents.
My specific hypothesis is about children. More than any other
species, we survive by the accumulated experience of previous
generations, and that experience needs to be passed on to children for their protection and well-being. Theoretically, children might learn from personal experience not to go too near a cliff edge, not to eat untried red berries, not to swim in crocodile-infested waters. But, to say the least, there will be a selective advantage to child brains that possess the rule of thumb: believe, without question, whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents; obey the tribal elders, especially when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone. Trust your elders without question. This is a generally valuable rule for a child. But, as with the moths, it can go wrong.
Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them.
Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses.
Sociologists studying British children have found that only about one in twelve break away from their parents' religious beliefs."
"It would be a severe disadvantage, for example, when hunting or making tools, to keep changing one's mind, so under some circumstances, it is better to persist in an irrational belief than to vacillate, even if new evidence or ratiocination favours a change."
Douglas Adams:
"Religion . . . has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'.
Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be."
Andrew Mueller:
"Pledging yourself to any particular religion 'is no more or less weird than choosing to believe that the world is rhombus-shaped, and borne through the cosmos in the pincers of two enormous green lobsters called Esmerelda and Keith'."
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." George Bush Snr.
Part 2
Bernard Russell:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is
a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit,
nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were
careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even
by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
Richard Dawkins on the Bible:
"The gospels that didn't make it were omitted by those ecclesiastics perhaps because they included stories that were even more embarrassingly implausible than those in the four canonical ones. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, has numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus abusing his magical powers in the manner of a mischievous fairy, impishly transforming his playmates into goats,
or turning mud into sparrows, or giving his father a hand with the carpentry by miraculously lengthening a piece of wood."
"Darwin's cousin Francis Galton was the first to analyse scientifically whether praying for people is efficacious. He noted that every Sunday, in churches throughout Britain, entire congregations prayed publicly for the health of the royal family. Shouldn't they, therefore, be unusually fit, compared with the rest of us, who are prayed for only by our nearest and dearest? Galton looked into it, and found no statistical difference. His intention may, in any case, have been satirical, as also when he prayed over randomized plots of
land to see if the plants would grow any faster (they didn't)."
"when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further."
In other words, think for yourselves.
> that part of us that's "more than human"
Which part is that?
The gall bladder?
BOKU WA KAMI-SAMA
>>137
If you're going to try and wow us with your hardcore weeaboo-ism, at least learn some fucking Katakana.
神様で中学生
>>139
Better. I can thoroughly not understand you.
According to RikaiChan it translates to something like god in highschool.
Okay, some Japanese and anime trivia:
"God in highschool"/"Kami-sama de chuugakusei" is from the anime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamichu
Not very related to >>137 because in "Kamichu" the god is a schoolgirl and BOKU refers to oneself as male.
The only link is "kami-sama".
Note that -SAMA indicates reverence, and that BOKU is a boasting or childish "I". Therefore "BOKU WA KAMI-SAMA" is showing that the speaker is not proficient in the language and/or quite vain.
So, god is real then, right?
"There is no such thing as a Muslim Child. There is a child of Muslim Parents. There is no such thing as a Christian Child. There is a child of Christian Parents.
Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them.
>>143 I'm not sure if the Japanese definition of "kami" can be applied to the Western definition of "god". The translators use "kami" to translate "god" from Japanese but that's because it's the closest equivalent.
"Kami is the Japanese word for the spirits within objects in the Shinto faith. "Kami may, at its root, simply mean 'spirit', or an aspect of spirituality. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kami
A spirit within a forest would be a kami. The spirit within the Earth would be a kami. The spirit within the Universe would be a kami.
This leads to interesting speculation: what if there is more than one spirit claiming ownership of the object?
> So, let me see if I get this right...there is no such thing as an Atheist Child There is a child of Atheist parents.
Correct... do you have a point or is that all?
I asked them, they said that as long as I don't listen to retarded christians everything is fine.
I think his point is that rationality is in the eye of the beholder.
Anyway, what would be enlightening is to discover which beliefs children adopt in the absence of parental influences.
Maybe something like http://www.miaminewtimes.com/1997-06-05/news/myths-over-miami/ ?
>>150
Are you still arguing with yourself?
God made me an atheist, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO CHALLENGE HIS WISDOM?
Ha ha oh wow, what a thread.
Prove that "God" DOES exist. I dare you all.
That is as impossible as proving god doesn't exist.
Both of them are quite stupid, by many reasons. Just be a "good" person and if there isn't a God you will have lived a good life, and if there is a God you will be rewarded for your excellent behavior.
Circular logic is circular.
>>154
31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.
32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
>>157
That's easy, I'll just borrow the words of someone wiser then me:
"Reason is, and ought only to be, slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." - David Hume
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4705
Now, this doesn't exactly explain the trustworthiness of my ability to reason, but it applies to you just as well as it applies to me and all others here; that taken into consideration, this 'debate' suddenly makes a whole lot more sense.
You might also wish to peruse one of Hume's other great works, "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion."
According to the Bible, the Snake was the nice one who gave Man the knowledge, and god was a narrow-minded, jealous bastard who threw Man out of the Garden in retaliation.
>>160
While refreshing my memory of the work to answer that silly question, I found a passage a little more pertinent to your argument as stated in >>45. Rather then playing games of semantics, shall we revisit the original subject of this thread?
"They are still more frivolous, who say, that every effect must have a cause, because it is implyed in the very idea of effect. Every effect necessarily pre-supposes a cause; effect being a relative term, of which cause is the correlative. But this does not prove, that every being must be preceded by a cause; no more than it follows, because every husband must have a wife, that therefore every man must be marryed. The true state of the question is, whether every object, which begins to exist, must owe its existence to a cause: and this I assert neither to be intuitively nor demonstratively certain, and hope to have proved it sufficiently by the foregoing arguments." - Part III, Sect. III; please read it for the 'foregoing arguments', it's a little long and I do not want to copypasta it all
If you disagree with Hume's proof that not all beings must be preceded by a cause, please answer me this: What is the cause of the effect known as God? Would it not be more proper to pay our respects to that cause instead of its avatar?
If you do not disagree, why is it any less valid to postulate that logic, morality, or the physical world have always existed than it is that God has always existed?
>>161
DURRRRRRRRRRRRRR
>>163
Disregard that, I suck cocks.
> God is not an effect.
In that case, neither are logic, morality and the physical world.
Since the law of cause and effect does not apply to the divine entity, that law can no longer be considered universal and inviolable, and thus it is foolish to demand that some phenomenon of nebulous origin must be 'accounted' for while another is not. You are attempting to use the rule to prove the exception to the rule. This does not work.
>>166
Similar to >>46, I believe logic is a reapplication of natural laws, making it at its heart part of the physical world. I think morality is a social construct, but do not discount that societies other than our human one might exist or have existed to ponder it ever since the beginning of cosmology (lol aliens.) And I do not know what took place before the Big Bang, nor does anyone else. In short, I am an agnostic concerning those matters.
>>168
I will concede morality, because I do not wish to debate it. You may consider my inclusion of it to be in error.
I did not state that natural laws caused the laws of logic. Rather, I believe the laws of logic are a subset of the laws of nature, which humans have adapted to other purposes.
I did not state that Big Bang caused the physical world. It is a singularity, which makes it impossible to postulate meaningful theories about the nature of the physical world prior to the event.
>>170
If I had to pick, it would be the physical world. However, thanks to the Big Bang essentially erasing the history of the universe prior to it, I have no grounds whatsoever on which to make that judgement and so I won't do so.
Anyway, my point was that if God is uncaused, it opens the door for all sorts of other seemingly inexplicable phenomena to be without cause as well. You can't just say "All things must be traceable back to an origin EXCEPT for God, He is Special." If you are going to prove the existence of God using scientific laws, He must obey those laws as well.
>>172
Perhaps my choice of words in >>165 was poor. I meant not to state my own beliefs, but rather propose that if God is exempt from causality, then perhaps the phenomena I listed are exempt from causality as well. You can't rule out the convenient explanation for some phenomenon and not others.
My understanding is that if God is not required to obey natural laws, such as the law of causality, it means either two things: those laws are invalid, or God is supernatural. That which is supernatural is by definition outside the bounds of science. Your argument may be true, but if you hold that God is omnipotent (making him exempt from every natural and scientific law), it is neither scientific nor a proof and is an inadequate rebuttal to the opening argument of this thread: "God is not real because there is no scientific proof that he ever existed."
> My argument is that one cannot make sense of ANYTHING let alone causality, without God (a personal, omnipotent, immaterial, timeless being) as the first cause.
You know, there's a funny pattern throughout history. All sorts of phenomena (though particularly the dramatic) that contemporary scientific knowledge was unable to adequately explain - rain, lightning, earthquakes, life itself - was thought to be the work of gods or of God. As scientific explanations for these phenomena were developed, tested, and refined, the belief in a divine origin of these phenomena slowly faded away and in many cases disappeared entirely.
I see no reason why this pattern should not continue, until some distant day science has succeeded in explained everything, and there is no room left beyond it for gods to dwell. That is my faith.
> I see no reason why this pattern should not continue, until some distant day science has succeeded in explained everything, and there is no room left beyond it for gods to dwell.
I don't see that ever happening. At best/worst the believers still around would be either theists or deists. There will always be stones left unturned.
I see no reason why this pattern should not continue, until some distant day science has succeeded in explained everything, and there is no room left beyond it for gods to dwell. That is my faith.
> The problem is that the non-theist has absolutely zero basis for assuming that nature is uniform.
wrong
> random, chance world
your view, not science
> You base your faith in a science
semantics
> that is only possible because God exists
prove it
> You see the problem with such a position is that you cannot account for the science that you have faith in.
I account for it with my own senses.
All science is based on facts; all facts can be verified with the senses. And if you cast doubt upon our own senses, demanding that they need accountability, then we have no business debating the nature of reality at all (also, we are probably Buddhists.)
If there's one thing we must be certain of for science to work, it is that we exist, we percieve, and we percieve correctly.
Is there any knowledge that isn't gained through either taste, smell, sight, hearing or touch?
You have been proved wrong several times already and you keep pretending it didn't happen. Please leave now!.
> The problem is that the non-theist has absolutely zero basis for assuming that nature is uniform
And you have zero basis for believing in your god. What else is new?
> You would never put someone in a rocket and send them to space unless you were able to predict exactly what would happen when you lit the rockets.
I think you misunderstand science. Science can never 'predict exactly'; it can only be really, really sure. Those who sent a man to space were taking a risk - a risk well calculated and considered extremely minute, but for all they knew Ahura Mazda might have been waiting invisibly above the stratosphere with his hammer of smiting for the first human foolish enough to try and escape his domain. They literally did choose to brave the unknown, and thanks to them, now we have definite facts about space instead of inductions which we're pretty confident about but that might, somehow, be in error.
> You have no basis for such an assumption.
I base it on the fact that everything I, and every other scientist, has ever observed is in line with such an assumption. Theories with no known exceptions to them are called laws or principles; this one is the 'principle of uniformity.' They are no more rock-solid then the rest of science, but when we observe something that seems to violate a law, we start to examine the anomaly very closely rather then immediately cast our suspicions on the law.
> Still though, let me ask you this, is all knowledge gained by the senses?
Sounds like more semantic games.
Well, I would say that it is impossible to determine the truth or falsity of knowledge not gained through the senses, thus it has no business in science.
Then the answer is yes. Now you answer mine.
Science can never 'predict exactly'; it can only be really, really sure.
I base it on the fact that everything I, and every other scientist, has ever observed is in line with such an assumption.
Then the answer is yes.
> Still though, let me ask you this, is all knowledge gained by the senses?
No, sometimes we have hallucinations of a 900-foot tall Jesus that picks up an office building and then brags about it.
> Maybe you could tell me by what sense you came to know that ALL knowledge is gained through the senses
Well, it wasn't from an oral tradition invented by tribesmen that stoned people for believing in the wrong god and thought the world was ending at every solar eclipse.
> asking by what sense you came to know that ALL knowledge is gained through the senses.
Irrelevant.
Senses are our means of gathering information about the world. The only knowledge that isn't gained through the senses we are born with.
Whether through textbooks or tomes, the words of a preacher or the words of a teacher, everything we learn comes through our senses.
You have the same senses I do. Whatever conclusions we come to both use the same imperfect senses.
If you have any other mysticism you'd like to share... please don't.
> Aside form that flip-flop
I'm not the poster you think I am, so there was no "flip-flop" since I am not that poster.
Either way, demanding an immediate answer then balking when clarification is presented is not a "flip-flop", and does not reveal a weakness in any argument or capacity for reason.
As for the substance of this loaded political implication (that the ability to change ones mind is a weakness of character), it couldn't be further from the truth.
> The only knowledge that isn't gained through the senses we are born with.
I question this statement. I assume you are referring to animal instinct, but can reactions programmed into our mind on an unconscious level really be described as 'knowledge'?
I suppose we should ask proofthatgodexists.org to define 'knowledge' to his satisfaction.
Whoops, somehow I became terminally confused while writing that reply. Ignore the mixed-up post references.
Now will you answer what knowledge isn't acquired through senses?
>>198
I am pretty sure the answer is going to be along the lines of spiritual knowledge.
If so, I'll save us a post and inquire in advance how he is able to verify the truthfulness of such. Or perhaps more importantly, how others are able to verify the truthfulness of such.
Truth is sort of a nebulous concept, but I think the best benchmark we've got for it - so far as it pertains to the nature of reality - is near-unanimous opinion. The chief reason we place our trust in our senses and the natural world it reveals is that everyone (barring physical weakness or disability) perceives it in the same way, whereas it is blatantly obvious that the six billion of us on this planet perceive God, Allah, Buddha or whatever name you prefer to call him/her/it in some very different ways.
> We'll talk about my basis later
No, we won't. You'll just drag out that old chestnut about how your god somehow "accounts for" something else, and you'll dodge the question, never admitting that your belief is entirely irrational and on much shakier ground that anybody else's.
> Not to mention the fact that 'changing one's mind' flies in the face of any evolutionary model.
Changing our minds is the very strength behind science, if we can't do this, it doesn't work.
Changing our minds is the very strength behind science, if we can't do this, it doesn't work.
Man, you're so incredibly confused about different philosophies here, it's not even funny. None of that has anything whatsoever to do with evolution. You're just grouping together everything you disagree with under one label. All you manage to do is look incredibly ignorant.
Hey, look, man. If you want to argue against something, how about you first go out and learn what the hell it is.
> You happen to 'fizz' atheism
No, I don't. I 'fizz' ignorance. From ignorance I can 'fizz' anything I want.
Doug Wilson? Are you referring to the hockey player, the interior designer or the Christian Theologian?
Interesting how your post does not include any refutation. Tell me how free choice comports with any evolutionary model?
>>205
Interesting that you think I'd bother discussing anything with one such as yourself.
Go and finish high school so I can explain it to you and you'll understand it.
On a side note, wasn't christianity the responsible for burning Galileo for defending heliocentrism? Tell me, has your retarded religion changed its mind already or are you so retarded that still believe the world is flat and square and the middle of everything?
Please leave and stop making an ass of yourself, do it for your kids: it must be shameful for them to have you as a parent.
The correct description of your statement is "not even wrong". It is so non-sensical, it cannot be refuted. It's like trying to refute a statement like "an apple is five".
>>210
Because it was a reproductive advantage.
> no one here can tell me
How Insightful
You are missing the point. Explain how biochemistry = choice.
>>213
Evolution itself does not purport to explain how biological traits function, it merely describes the process by which they became more commonplace in a given population.
However, choice seems pretty easy to account for. Many types of insects and other simple organisms are unable to interrupt preprogrammed patterns of behavior in response to rapidly changing environments; for instance, a digger wasp that is eating its prey and is then caught by a predator will not flee, but will continue to eat until it is itself eaten. The ability to interrupt instinctive behaviors in response to emergencies would obviously be a survival advantage in this case, thus it was selected for in more complex forms of life. "Choice" is a far more refined version of this ability to adapt mental processes to the situation at hand.
We do not know much about the biochemical basis of choice, but it's thought to take place primarily in the orbitofrontal cortex of the brain.
> We do not know much about the biochemical basis of choice
So you don't really know ANYTHING AT ALL? Nice Flip-Flop.
[Insert mystic escapism to defend lack of valid response and failure to address post >>1]
proofthatgodexists.org = unable to learn.
Please, make the tiniest effort to understand that what you're asking is like asking how economics can explain the taste of oranges. Evolution has never pretended to have anything to do with the question of choice. It makes no statements about it. That's the domain of philosophy.
http://www.truthseeker.com/truth-seeker/1993archive/120_5/ts205f.html
The evidence for evolution goes beyond the scope of philosophy (and beyond your comprehension as well).
(FYI, >>221 ain't the same Anonymous Scientist as me. I'm not sure why he/she directed that post to >>220 instead of >>218.)
> Um, evolution IS philosophy.
This is why people keep telling you to go back to school before trying to make an argument. This is a ridiculous statement, and just shows that you are either a) a complete fool or b) blindly parroting fundamentalist dogma with no basis in reality.
Possibly "and" instead of "or".
I typed "proof of macroevolution" into Google, and the first hit was http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. You know how to use Google, don't you? You could have done it yourself, if you had actually wanted to learn anything.
Somehow, I'm thinking you're not really interested in learning.
>>224
c) a troll
Here's a summary of a proof stated by Ian Johnston at http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
1) All living things come from living parents. (Evidence: Spontaneous generation was disproven centuries ago. Apart from that, lack of opposing evidence or alternate theories.)
2) There are many species alive today that are very different from each other. (Self-evident, I would hope.)
3) Very long ago, fewer and simpler organisms existed than exist now. (Evidence: Fossil record.)
Conclusion: Unless God is constantly creating new species out of nothing, "macroevolution" has to have occurred. Darwin's theory is the best naturalistic explanation of how that has happened.
Addendum in Ian Johnson's words: "To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation."