quote:Originally posted by Novel: Besides Michael Vick, has anybody ever seen a dog fight? This African versus African American is its equivalent. Somebody is benefited and wholly entertained but it is not the African or African American.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Circumstantial evidence convicts a lot of people in a court of law according to what I've read over the years. I guess a translation of circumstantial evidence could be a faith without the religious overtones. So the answer is still, views from the opposing camps; it's a standoff; take your pick.
There is nothing conclusive about circumstantial evidence and I'd bet more people get off than get convicted when confroted by it in a court of law. The only "stand-off" that could possibly exist is that which is between Theists and Atheists. There is absolutely positively no direct evidence whatsoever that supports either POV...
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Neither AA basher guy is of African extraction. It's an old and well known ruse for some Euro to spoof African identity on the 'net and cause dissension between continental and diasporan Africans where there was relative harmony and understanding.
Once again, it's the old Jason and the Golden Fleece thing where he sows the dragon's teeth and they sprout up as warriors. He tosses a stone over their heads and it hits one in the back ranks. That one accuses and pushes the warrior behind him who inadvertantly steps on the foot of the warrior behind him who punches him in the face, and so on until next thing you know all the warriors have slain each other and Jason wins without drawing a sword.
How did it work? Because they were warriors not disciplined soldiers! Be a soldier not a warrior. Don't let a comment against an ethny be an excuse for you to attack the insulter's assumed ethny only to offend someone who's actually of that ethny but harbors none of the ill will of the spoofer. thing
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed, I have to ask exactly what 'oh so clean' background do you come from Naga? I assume West African by "Wolofi".
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I will agree there is nothing conclusive about circumstantial evidence in a lot of cases, yet in the absence of eyewitness testimony it comes down to that. That same evidence has convicted and freed some people no doubt.
As noted the standoff is between atheists and theists and as such your 'absolutely positively' has already been addressed in terms of faith-based beliefs from both sides.
However, what is interesting about religion and the belief in a deity ot two or three is the circumstantial aspect itself. This weighs heavily in determining their faith whereas an atheist uses no other circumstance to offer substance to its position other than a simple disbelief and in the process ''steal'' the theists circumstantiality. So, if I had to choose between the two it certainly wouldn't be atheism; I say this without even a hint of what it would take to subscribe to some religiosity. Finally if the two belief systems were in court and had to present circumstantial evidence I'm thinking the judge, after looking at the 'evidence', would ask the atheist where his circumstantial evidence is. After all, the theist would have many cultures around the world to draw circumstantial evidence from and yet the atheist would have none to offer support for his belief other than a mismanagement of the theist's material, which is circumstantiality itself—yet it remains above and beyond what the atheist can offer.
Seen another way the judge would have no alternative but to ask the atheist to adopt an agnostic line of defense because a simple disbelief offers nothing to the contrary. At least an agnostic would display something other than tunnel vision.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The obvious evidence is that all god beliefs are no more than the creations of man.
There are a thousands different religious/god beliefs. If there was a REAL god, why would he permit all this misleading information to mislead and confuse his flock? Man can communicate with the whole world via TV, Radio, Cell Phone and the Internet.
Certainly any real God should be able to do equally well! Why would he not announce directly from his heaven that he is the real god and all the others are fakes? Why would he not smite all the fakes?
Why does he permit all this confusion and doubt? The objective evidence is that all gods are purely the creation of men to assuage his panic fear of the finality of death.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him a God?
Posts: 118 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: However, what is interesting about religion and the belief in a deity ot two or three is the circumstantial aspect itself. This weighs heavily in determining their faith whereas an atheist uses no other circumstance to offer substance to its position other than a simple disbelief and in the process ''steal'' the theists circumstantiality. So, if I had to choose between the two it certainly wouldn't be atheism; I say this without even a hint of what it would take to subscribe to some religiosity. Finally if the two belief systems were in court and had to present circumstantial evidence I'm thinking the judge, after looking at the 'evidence', would ask the atheist where his circumstantial evidence is. After all, the theist would have many cultures around the world to draw circumstantial evidence from and yet the atheist would have none to offer support for his belief other than a mismanagement of the theist's material, which is circumstantiality itself—yet it remains above and beyond what the atheist can offer.
Seen another way the judge would have no alternative but to ask the atheist to adopt an agnostic line of defense because a simple disbelief offers nothing to the contrary. At least an agnostic would display something other than tunnel vision.
I would think that in terms of circumstantial evidence in support of their belief system, the Atheist would be better armed than the Theist. Big Bang theory and Evolution being two examples of such evidence.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Player 13 says: ''Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.''
I have no trouble with this line of reasoning because I use it myself in an argumentative fashion.
''Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.''
Ditto for this one too.
''Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?''
If evil does originate outside the traditional concept of a creator then there can be no argument that evil isn't an honest disposition of the creator/s.
''Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him a God?'
Bingo.
Nay-Sayer wrote: ''I would think that in terms of circumstantial evidence in support of their belief system, the Atheist would be better armed than the Theist. Big Bang theory and Evolution being two examples of such evidence.''
Could you elaborate a bit on the atheist being better armed in terms of circumstantial evidence with the Big Bang? He may be, I just don't know how as of yet. While I would agree that the universe needs no explanation for a creator I'm not so sure on evolution not having design in control of it.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Could you elaborate a bit on the atheist being better armed in terms of circumstantial evidence with the Big Bang? He may be, I just don't know how as of yet. While I would agree that the universe needs no explanation for a creator I'm not so sure on evolution not having design in control of it.
Intelligent Design is a flawed "theory" and there is nothing scientific about it. "Reasoning" that the more intricate and complex natural systems must have been designed by some "Intelligent Designer" - while dismissing any other possible explanation - is unreasonable. Nature has had billions of years to develop [or evolve] it's more complex systems - they didn't come into being overnight and require no creator.
OTOH, while the Big Bang is just a theory there is plenty of observable evidence for it. Residual microwave energy spread throughout the known universe and the observation that the universe is expanding comes to mind.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed, I have to ask exactly what 'oh so clean' background do you come from Naga? I assume West African by "Wolofi".
Can you please stick to the topic and answer my questions.
posted
It's about time. Thank you Player 13 and Nay Sayer for bringing some sensability to the discussion.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nay-Sayer says: ''Intelligent Design is a flawed "theory" and there is nothing scientific about it.''
Now you will be correct in saying Intelligent Design isn't a stand-alone unit but yet it doesn't have to prove any science behind it simply because one group of professionals, the evolutionary biologists, see methodological naturalism and the design people see indications of intelligence. I might add those who do see design are peering under the same evolutionary microscopes but draw vastly different conclusions based on personal observations. We aren't talking about some guy standing on a street corner being asked questions about a faith in the sense it's understood with the religious underpinnings. But given how we humans as a species are well on its way to doing things unheard of just a few short centuries ago and not even contemplated, I for one definitely see how design inferences can be drawn. Design isn't about creationism in the sense Darwinists would have one believe, although some will go the magic wand route. Creationists have ridden the coattails of design in hopes of attaching itself to the classroom which I don't agree with.
From what I've looked at concerning the workings of the human body it sure seems to me quite a stretch to travel under the assumption the human body is nothing more than random mutations and natural selection. Speaking of which, natural selection in oder to work would have to have something to select from in order to further evolution wouldn't it? So how is it the information can selected if there is nothing to select from initially. Puzzling.
''"Reasoning" that the more intricate and complex natural systems must have been designed by some "Intelligent Designer" - while dismissing any other possible explanation - is unreasonable.''
See above; with the added comment that what other possible explanation is there as it regards evolution. As far as I know evolution and design are the ones at odds with each other.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:"While speaking out against the Christian fundamentalist movement and its political agenda, Hedges noticed another group -- this one on the left -- conspicuously allied with the neocons on the subject of America's role in world politics. The New Atheists, as they have been called, include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and bestselling author and journalist Christopher Hitchens -- outspoken secularists who depict religious structures and the belief in God as backward and anti-democratic."
and to listen to a podcast of the interview, click here and here .
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is very interesting, Arwa, but nonetheless ... not surprising IMHO.
It's just interesting because white christian and athiest fighting seems to be at a peak, and numbers seem equal...
However, aside from abortion (and sometimes gay rights) they always seemed to express similar attitudes.
What are your takes on the Atheist party?
quote:Originally posted by Nay-Sayer: Nature
Nature? Not that this is my position Nay-Sayer (I defo don't adhere to "Intelligent Design") but what if Nature is the "creator".
quote: has had billions of years to develop [or evolve] it's more complex systems - they didn't come into being overnight and require no creator.
^Substantiation? ( Get my point? ) (Ask your self, is probability on your side? ... Well, I know, it ("life") would have had to have happened some where, but the sheer chances ...)
quote:OTOH, while the Big Bang is
a funny sounding name today, I'm not so sure about it with the DarkMatter and whatnot.
Actually, those were just interesting links, the real annoyance to the Big Bang Theory is this little bugger.
When I first read of the phenom and hypothetical energy in an article, I was quite excited, because I thought (then) the Bang theory was the most secure theory out there. I thought then.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:both atheists and theists are full of shi'ite
Well I'd say athists, the flat-earth society, and anti-Darwinists all have one thing in common. See my "Perspective" (or MS's quote below).
I think these quotes pretty much sum it up:
quote:Originally posted by Young H*O*R*U*S: I think this pretty much sums it all up:
"The absolute is not within the reach of intellect, For intellect is grounded in the relative."
Perspective: I believe science and theism seeks to solve the same thing, like mystery solver said:
quote:MS: these are the questions that both science and theology ultimately seek to answer.
I also believe what alTakruri has said on the biblical tip, but what are my beliefs compared to his conformation about biblical theology.
Props to Takruri, and that's why I'm careful when I scan the Book. I don't buy into what any man says but I do trust people like alTakruri and my Uncle who haved studied such a topic and know Hebrew, when it comes to perspective.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yes indeed, in fact, according to buddhism, science will never be able to answer the ultimate question of WHO is the ABSOLUTE GOD? (The Dao/Tao?).
A lot of the anxieties that arise from not being able to answer this question however is removed by looking at things from nature's implied and seemingly immutable perspective (i.e. the law of nature). I believe these laws are the "manual" for the human being for living a productive and happy life on earth. But still ...
If the ABSOLUTE GOD has placed in us the desire to know of the ABSOLUTE GOD, then obviously it is possible to know of this ABSOLUTE GOD. No???
This is a very painful dilemma for me.
Do you think we look for the ABSOLUTE GOD only when we're not having a good time (i.e. breaking the laws of nature)? Do you think the "search" itself is a symptom of not "getting it"?
It has been my observation that when I am absolutely in the moment of happiness, when I'm on holiday in a beautiful city with many new things to see, or spending quality time with a beautiful woman ... these are the only moments when I don't feel the need to search for the ABSOLUTE GOD. I am simply happy and satisfied in the moment. But when I come down from my "high", the excruciating search continues ...
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The absolute is not within the reach of intellect, For intellect is grounded in the relative."
Actually, I don't fully agree with this statement.
The latter part of it is true, but the first part, not necissarily.
Anyone who's learned of Calculus can tell you how many times the absolute truth is derived from would-be approximations.
Also, what makes the search sad and painstaking?
Why can't it be wonder, intellectual curiousity, and excitement at either confirmations (like alTakruri's which I just read) or clues as to the fact that the matter gets much deeper.
Do you think about this sht all day? Or just get thoughts which spark like (oh!)?
I think your answer may be in the way you define "God", or see God, and possibly combined with the fact you may be predisposed to want to search for a God.
^And I do not adhere to atheist-in nature-rationalizations of God ie. like the obvious / simplistic "[the world ain't perfect but man want it to be so maybe that's why he be believing in things]" speach lamin did on the first page.
It's no different from some claiming atheisms "un-faith" to be the result of unpleasant life experiences.
I think everyone has their own unique way they view this world and the things therein (though as you know the views of some things can become perverted -> prmiddleeastern's and other's like him bias against those they chose to define as black - more simple things that confuse people that have the gaul to call others stupid themselves
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Nay-Sayer says: ''"Reasoning" that the more intricate and complex natural systems must have been designed by some "Intelligent Designer" - while dismissing any other possible explanation - is unreasonable.''
See above; with the added comment that what other possible explanation is there as it regards evolution. As far as I know evolution and design are the ones at odds with each other.
Right now there is no explaination, period. Nobody knows exactly how life came to be. However, what we do know is that the very first life forms on Earth were very simple in their structure. This fact alone shoots a gaping hole in the whole Intelligent Designer "theory", IMO. Why does a so-called "Intelligent Designer" need to "create" life forms of the simplest kind only to have the process of evolution be responsible for the more complex life forms? Why didn't the "Intelligent Designer" create or design complex life forms in the very beginning?
Please allow me to offer a counter "theory" to Intelligent Design which, I believe, is just as reasonable.
Extra Terrestrials from elsewhere visited Earth back when there was no life on the planet. When these Extra Terrestrials left the earth, they also left behind some micro organisms. These mirco organisms would go on to evolve into all living things currently on the planet Earth.
So, there you have it. Aliens are responsible for life on Earth. There is as much evidence for this as there is for Intelligent Design.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Nature? Not that this is my position Nay-Sayer (I defo don't adhere to "Intelligent Design") but what if Nature is the "creator".
quote: has had billions of years to develop [or evolve] it's more complex systems - they didn't come into being overnight and require no creator.
^Substantiation? ( Get my point? ) (Ask your self, is probability on your side? ... Well, I know, it ("life") would have had to have happened some where, but the sheer chances ...)
Nature isn't some "supernatural" force that nobody can see or measure to some degree. So, in that regard, I woud have no problem with nature being the "creator".
Now as far as what are the sheer changes of life appearing on Earth. Probably pretty slim. However, if you play the lottery, as slim as are the odds of you winning, given enough time - eventually you will win. It's only a matter of time given the right conditions. No "creator" needed.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Perspective: I believe science and theism seeks to solve the same thing, like mystery solver said:
Science is simply an attempt to explain the world we live in objectively. It is a living, evolving process.
Theism, OTOH, is an attempt to explain the unknown using the unknown. It is rigid and dead, lacking in the ability adjust with new information.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is nothing to get all confounded about
quote:Nay-Sayer:
if you play the lottery, as slim as are the odds of you winning, given enough time - eventually you will win. It's only a matter of time given the right conditions. No "creator" needed.
Touche.
quote:Theism, OTOH, is an attempt to explain the unknown using the unknown. It is rigid and dead, lacking in the ability adjust with new information.
I guess in this line of thought I wouldn't evaluate any of my beliefs as theisms, (leave for some my own scientific hypotheses about girls things people and whatnot that I know I need education in relevant subjects before confirming).
I am interested to know how theisms are "rigid and dead, lacking in the ability adjust with new information"?
Is Buddhism a theism?
It would sound to me like you were attempting to explain dogma, which doeshave to confront and deny anything that is in contradiction to it or rather, anything it is in contradiction to.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's so bad about the un"known" anyway? Is *science* more about "knowing" things or evaluating things.
Knowing vs. thinking?
And by "knowing" I don't mean simple comprehention, I mean knowing (knowing,, the definite, defined, rigid), else this whole post would be rediculous. ahh, the limits of language.
But of course you were likely speaking of proving what is unconfirmed based on what is confirmed as science.
Where do the confirmations begin, NS. Who's to say that comprehension of "God's" within the boundaries of modern science; who uses biology to prove or disprove logic?Could we perhaps be working backwards here, with your approach? If you don't know, then ...
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): I am interested to know how theisms are "rigid and dead, lacking in the ability adjust with new information"?
Is Buddhism a theism?
It would sound to me like you were attempting to explain dogma, which doeshave to confront and deny anything that is in contradiction to it or rather, anything it is in contradiction to.
I don't consider Buddhism theistic in it's nature. However, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc are all theistic beliefs that are based on dead books.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Where do the confirmations begin, NS. Who's to say that comprehension of "God's" within the boundaries of modern science; who uses biology to prove or disprove logic?Could we perhaps be working backwards here, with your approach? If you don't know, then ...
There is no comprehending of "God" within the boundaries of science because "God" is unscientific. There is no direct evidence for "God", only superstition and hearsay.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
What if he's the essential building block, could we prove that?
Humans created "God" before "God" created humans. So, I would define "God" as being a product of the human imagination. Nothing more.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
What if he's the essential building block, could we prove that?
Nice stuff Alive, Alan Watts talks about this concept of God being the "building block" too ... very interesting.
Search for 'Alan Watts' on YouTube and watch the animated videos with his 'voice over'. He generally speaks from a buddhist perspective. Very nice Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was indeed a very good topic, tho it got a little heated // still it was very good.
I was going back over some of my writings (R U 2 religious) and it kind of laughed because it was the extreme opposite of what I actual believe ... yet it made for a decent debate.
I know that it is possible to believe in a God[s] and science at the same time. Acknowledging this fact is to acknowledge the 'God Science' which deal with creation and many other facets of life.
Example: (Torah) The God/Elohim\Gods created man in his own image. The God[s] formed out from the dust or 'Clay' for the correct translation (Genesis 2:7) which is the same story of the Egyptian Khun which formed man out of Soft Clay and then another God/Goddess blew breath into the body and it came to life. The Genesis story say the same thing but the Rauch(f) blew breath into man and he lived. 'Clay' is a combination of liquid/water and dirt ... which both Kemetic and Hebraic teaching say man was made of...
Now I have to ask, what is the difference these religious teaching and what science believe?
Science believe that all life started from methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. water is a component of 'Clay' as is one of the main features of man is Carbon/Earth i.e dust. Water is a combination of Hydrogen (Energy (primary element of the sun/Ra/Horus/Jesus)) and Oxygen (breath of life). Next we have the 'Rauch/Moving Wind' or 'Breath' which is a combination of 'Oxygen' and 'Nitrogen' which are natural elements.
Now if the spirit of God is 'the breath' or 'moving wind', then the spirit is simply air which is a nature element that sustains life as we know it. Who is right and who is wrong; science or religion? neither is wrong and possibly right in this sense so then the real question is 'what is god' being that the spirit of god is no different from air?
That is the true question because the creation theory is the same with science and religion, they just have two different ways of coming to the same conclusion.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really have to figure this out soon before I go crazy.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Arwa, but nonetheless ... not surprising IMHO.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Or just get thoughts which spark like (oh!)?
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
What's so bad about the un"known" anyway? Is *science* more about "knowing" things or evaluating things.
Printer-friendly view of this topic