Any other atheists here?

[Ekserb]

"No, not in the slightest."

Every single time. No exceptions.

But what if it does make you look fat?

 

[Hocky9377]

Science has disproved so many things that religion once taught that it isn't even funny.

Science can also prove that an elephant can hang over a cliff with its tail tied to a dandelion, but that doesnt mean it can actually happen.

 

[Ekserb]

Science can also prove that an elephant can hang over a cliff with its tail tied to a dandelion, but that doesnt mean it can actually happen.

WTF?!? You don't really help your argument when you spew gibberish.

 

[DaddysAngel23]

You know Ekserb you are arguing with someone who has gone through all of the bad things life can offer and still see's and loving God on the other side.

My brother is one of those that some one like you would label as born with 'birth defects'. After living with him and working around others I have at times found myself wholeheartedly jealous of these special people. Their mental developement generally doesn't pass 18 months or so. And they are the happiest people I have ever known. So yes things that are seen as terrible are allowed to happen for a reason.

 

[Hocky9377]

WTF?!? You don't really help your argument when you spew gibberish.

Just shows that all science cannot be believed entirely, either. Science can prove things could happen that we know are physically impossible. If you know your history, you will know that they say the assassination of JFK was done with one bullet. One bullet is responsible for 7 wounds, entrance and exit, breaking bones and tough skin. Making two turns in mid air. All can be proven by science. But something that everyone knows is physically impossible. A bullet cant stop in mid air and change direction all on its own.

So, my arguement is, you cant believe everything that science says can be proven. You believe that there is no higher power. Thats fine. But, you cant believe that science is the be all-end all of everything either. Both have their faults.

 

[Ekserb]

You know Ekserb you are arguing with someone who has gone through all of the bad things life can offer and still see's and loving God on the other side.

My brother is one of those that some one like you would label as born with 'birth defects'. After living with him and working around others I have at times found myself wholeheartedly jealous of these special people. Their mental developement generally doesn't pass 18 months or so. And they are the happiest people I have ever known. So yes things that are seen as terrible are allowed to happen for a reason.

Does "ignorance is bliss" ring a bell?

Does having a tough life and still believing in some higher power make you extra special? Is a tough challenge supposed to make you believe in god? I've had a pretty damn nice life and I don't credit any of it to anything other than chance and personal responsibility.

I was born with all my limbs intact and my mind works well. Is that because some deity made it so or is it because I just happened to have parents that didn't smoke or drink and didn't have some recessive this-leg's-shorter-than-that-leg gene? I finished school and hardly ever did homework. Is that because I'm blessed by god or is it because I can memorize things well and I'm a good test-taker? I can fly a multi-million dollar helicopter with ease. Is that because Jesus loves me or is it because I understand and apply the scientific principles of aerodynamics?

If you've had a tough time up 'til now, what do you plan on asking your god when you see him "on the other side?" "Yo, dude. What the fuck, man? I was loyal and loving, and you fucked me over. Why?"

Good luck with that.

In the book, "Touching the Void," climber Joe Simpson tells the true story of how he and his climbing partner Simon Yates nearly died while climbing the Andes mountains. Simpson fell and broke his leg and for the next few hours Yates was forced to lower him down the face of the mountain with a rope. At one point Yates was almost pulled off the mountain by the weight of his companion and he had to cut the rope to save his own life. Simpson lived through the fall, but spent the next three days crawling out of an ice cave and across snow and ice to their base camp at the foot of the mountain.

Simpson remarked in the book (and the TV docu-drama) that prior to this he had asked himself what he would do if he ever found himself in a life-threatening situation. Would he pray for god's help and wait for a response? As this unbelievable tale was unfolding, he learned the answer. He said that if he had thought for one minute that some higher being was going to help him, he would have died. He realized that there was no way out of this mess unless he made it himself, so he dragged his broken body across miles of uneven terrain without food or water or any survival gear.

I wonder how many believers through the ages have died waiting for help from god after they suffered a much less traumatic disaster?

Now, the typical response from some religious nut is that god helped him even if he didn't ask for it, and you know what? It's impossible to argue with that kind of logic. Apparently god likes to help the people who don't believe, and he lets die those who do. Mysterious ways, indeed.

 

[Ekserb]

Just shows that all science cannot be believed entirely, either. Science can prove things could happen that we know are physically impossible. If you know your history, you will know that they say the assassination of JFK was done with one bullet. One bullet is responsible for 7 wounds, entrance and exit, breaking bones and tough skin. Making two turns in mid air. All can be proven by science. But something that everyone knows is physically impossible. A bullet cant stop in mid air and change direction all on its own.

So, my arguement is, you cant believe everything that science says can be proven. You believe that there is no higher power. Thats fine. But, you cant believe that science is the be all-end all of everything either. Both have their faults.

Are you seriously going to use the JFK assassination findings to prove your point? We all know that courtrooms are not the place for science, any more than a lab is a place for religion. I suppose you also think OJ didn't kill his ex-wife and her boyfriend? Or that Michael Jackson isn't a pedophile? A lawyer's sole purpose is not to bring out the truth, but to defend or support his own arguments. Don't be stupid.

First the elephant hanging from a flower and now this? Come on, do a little research and hit me with something better than that.

 

[figarojonez]

And who are you to say that it has been misinterpreted? In my opinion, it's people who don't like what they're told that will say that the text in question has been "misinterpreted."

The trouble with all religions is that the writings they are based on are all so vague that they can be and are construed to any meaning you like. This is why we have the Shiites and Sunnis fighting amongst each other in Iraq. They're all Muslims, but they each believe a slightly different interpretation of the koran.

Hell, if we want, we could interpret them all (bible, koran, veda, talmud, etc) as the fairy tales they are and finally we'd get beyond this ludicrous idea of a higher power.

So every scientist is in complete agreement as to every science text currently out there? Great. Nice to know that all science is universally accepted.

 

[Lorali82]

But what if it does make you look fat?

Lie. Seriously.

 

[monique1971]

So every scientist is in complete agreement as to every science text currently out there? Great. Nice to know that all science is universally accepted.

Hardly. And, as I understand it, that doesn't invalidate science in the least. Science's claims are contingent. Any scientific answer only holds until a better (e.g., more effective at explaining phenomena) emerges and withstands repeated, verifiable testing. This doesn't make science a weak or ineffectual way of knowing; on the contrary, it is this openness to new evidence that makes science an extraordinarily powerful explanatory tool.

Religion's claims, however, are not contingent. If I were a Christian, I could not say, "I believe in Jesus Christ, at least until a better answer comes along."

I'm not Ekserb; I really have no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. But I do feel like alot of misunderstandings of what science is, and what it isn't are emerging in this conversation....

 

[monique1971]

Lie. Seriously.

Ekserb doesn't believe in lying. That's why he's better than everyone else.

 

[Ekserb]

Ekserb doesn't believe in lying. That's why he's better than everyone else.

Well, if the dress does make you look fat, and you go out to dinner and everybody else sees it and thinks it makes you look fat, why would you want to wear it? In my scenario, you know before you leave the house that the dress in question is seriously flawed and you decide to wear another instead. Problem solved.

A better idea would be to get an honest answer at the store before you buy the damned thing and then you never have to worry about it. This is why I enjoy shopping with women. I'll tell them right there if something is horribly wrong for them and avoid all the uncomfortable questions later. Aren't I a sweetheart?

 

[bluebell]

Muah

Aren't I a sweetheart?

Too many answers, I cannot choose...

 

[Ekserb]

Hardly. And, as I understand it, that doesn't invalidate science in the least. Science's claims are contingent. Any scientific answer only holds until a better (e.g., more effective at explaining phenomena) emerges and withstands repeated, verifiable testing. This doesn't make science a weak or ineffectual way of knowing; on the contrary, it is this openness to new evidence that makes science an extraordinarily powerful explanatory tool.

Religion's claims, however, are not contingent. If I were a Christian, I could not say, "I believe in Jesus Christ, at least until a better answer comes along."

I'm not Ekserb; I really have no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. But I do feel like alot of misunderstandings of what science is, and what it isn't are emerging in this conversation....

What she said.

Except the part about not being Ekserb.

 

[monique1971]

What she said.

Except the part about not being Ekserb.

What? You and I are the same person? So how come you're so much better-looking than I am? Life is so unfair.

 

[Ekserb]

What? You and I are the same person? So how come you're so much better-looking than I am? Life is so unfair.

LOL ... I tried to write that a few different ways. Looks like I picked the wrong one.

What I meant was that I agree with what you said, but not the part where you said you're not Ekserb, because I am and I couldn't possibly agree that I am not.

I thought it was more succinct the first time, but also a bit more confusing. Damn, I hate when I'm not perfectly clear in my writing.

 

[monique1971]

Well, if the dress does make you look fat, and you go out to dinner and everybody else sees it and thinks it makes you look fat, why would you want to wear it? In my scenario, you know before you leave the house that the dress in question is seriously flawed and you decide to wear another instead. Problem solved.

A better idea would be to get an honest answer at the store before you buy the damned thing and then you never have to worry about it. This is why I enjoy shopping with women. I'll tell them right there if something is horribly wrong for them and avoid all the uncomfortable questions later. Aren't I a sweetheart?

I actually would want to hear if the dress made me look fat. I'm NOT fat, but I'm not rail-thin either, and I seriously need to dress to hide flaws and play up assets. This can be done, successfully, but to do it, I need feedback.

Of course, I also like to be told when something I am wearing makes me look good. And then, the appropriate statement is not "That dress makes you look good," (with the corresponding implication that only with massive fashion intervention can I look good) but, "Darling, you are gorgeous and I plan to feast on you as soon as we get home."

I now return you to a discussion of weightier (hah hah, I crack myself up!) matters.

 

[Lorali82]

Well, if the dress does make you look fat, and you go out to dinner and everybody else sees it and thinks it makes you look fat, why would you want to wear it? In my scenario, you know before you leave the house that the dress in question is seriously flawed and you decide to wear another instead. Problem solved.

A better idea would be to get an honest answer at the store before you buy the damned thing and then you never have to worry about it. This is why I enjoy shopping with women. I'll tell them right there if something is horribly wrong for them and avoid all the uncomfortable questions later. Aren't I a sweetheart?

"I said "all things and occurrences." Whether or not existence has meaning is neither of those, but belongs instead to the long list of things we will never know, like what women want to hear when they ask if that dress makes them look fat."
-Ekserb

Hey, man, I tried to enlighten you. This is what women want to hear. If you would rather say something other than that, well. That would be on you.

 

[figarojonez]

Hardly. And, as I understand it, that doesn't invalidate science in the least. Science's claims are contingent. Any scientific answer only holds until a better (e.g., more effective at explaining phenomena) emerges and withstands repeated, verifiable testing. This doesn't make science a weak or ineffectual way of knowing; on the contrary, it is this openness to new evidence that makes science an extraordinarily powerful explanatory tool.

Religion's claims, however, are not contingent. If I were a Christian, I could not say, "I believe in Jesus Christ, at least until a better answer comes along."

I'm not Ekserb; I really have no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. But I do feel like alot of misunderstandings of what science is, and what it isn't are emerging in this conversation....

And I think that by my admission that I believe in God has pretty much eliminated any opportunity at being taken seriously here. Every time I state something, it's either misinterpreted or twisted to make it appear as though I'm small minded for thinking that people should believe what they want. I haven't attacked science, only justified belief in an alternate ideology. I haven't stated any as being right, but I have said that I believed in science. And yet, I'm the asshole who deserves getting attacked at every turn. For people that claim that anyone who believes in God is a bible thumping zealot, it seems that the most acerbic posters have been the ones who reject God. And before the reply that tells me "Religions have caused more wars..."(Which is true), I'm talking about the board, not the world in general.

What I was responding to was that I had stated that people misinterpret and use the bible as they see fit, at which point he laid into me about how I have no right to interpret it as I see fit, and vile acts all over the world are caused by people interpreting their holy books as they see fit. It's one thing to argue a point and another to make it personal by saying I have no right to interpret it my own way. I felt there was no point in responding from my standpoint as it would inevitably be ignored and I would again be told how ignorant I am. My point was that even within science, there are differing views on most every topic. There may be a general consensus, but there are always differing points of view. Even in something as commonly held as Global Warming, scientists that can produce proof that it's not happening. That was my point.

I look forward to how much of a tool I, or anyone who disagrees, is going to be painted this time.

 

[monique1971]

Whoa. I don't think I personally attacked you anywhere. Point out the place where I did, and I'll apologize.

Once again, proof that I am not Ekserb!

All joking aside, I don't believe in personal attacks during discussions of ideas, and I've tried to avoid them.

 

[Vandren]

hardly,ever, seriously.

But this is i an important issue. And the first thing I want to shout from the rooftops is EVOLUTION has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEISM!

Evolution is a naturalistic theory of how speicies come to be in their multifaceted form. It is a natual theory. It does nto explain why there is something instead of nothing, why *I*, this concrete individual, exists, and says nothing about how we ought to behave (unless you follow Herbert Spencer).

Excellent points. Additionally, Darwin was a Creationist, until he got home and reviewed his notes from the Beagle. Moreover, and this is something he states repeatedly in Origin of the Species, he says evolution "acts only by the preservation and accumulation of small inherited modifications" that it cannot act when nothing is there. It doesn't create. It preserves.

Additionally:
1) Natural selection acts over long periods of time to improve the species in terms of adapting to environment.

2) Mankind can speed up this process through breeding to acquire certain traits.

3) Natural selection (and thus evolution) is a natural system of checks and balances which act to control population growth.

finally, greater diversification allows natural selection to work best.

More often than not, I find that Creationists/Intelligent Designers try to argue against evolution/natural selection without ever having read Darwin.

The trouble with all religions is that the writings they are based on are all so vague that they can be and are construed to any meaning you like. This is why we have the Shiites and Sunnis fighting amongst each other in Iraq. They're all Muslims, but they each believe a slightly different interpretation of the koran.

Actually, the division between Shi'ite and Sunni has nothing to do with interpretations of the Qu'ran. It has to do with whether Muhammad's son-in-law or his brother (or uncle or some other relation, I can't clearly recall which) was supposed to inherit his political/religious leadership upon his death around 1600 years ago (according to Montgomery Watt, Huston Smith, David Pinnault, Roger Eastman, Frederick Denny, and Ishwar Harris).

 

[figarojonez]

Whoa. I don't think I personally attacked you anywhere. Point out the place where I did, and I'll apologize.

Once again, proof that I am not Ekserb!

All joking aside, I don't believe in personal attacks during discussions of ideas, and I've tried to avoid them.

Sorry about that, I had meant to actually attach a PS that I actually wasn't angry at you. It's that no one seems to actually take mine, nor anyone else's arguments seriously. You have been fairly cool ,and I apologize that it seemed aimed at you. I was frustrated and I vented and I'm sorry. I dig open discussions of ideas, which seems to be your deal as well, and it was unfair of me.

Again, I apologize.

 

[Vandren]

It's that no one seems to actually take mine, nor anyone else's arguments seriously.

And you expected something else in an online "discussion"?

(Only partially kidding, since it's sadly true that you'd/I'd/they'd have an easier job bashing a brick wall down with your/my/their head.)

 

[falafel12]

 

[Ekserb]

What I was responding to was that I had stated that people misinterpret and use the bible as they see fit, at which point he laid into me about how I have no right to interpret it as I see fit, and vile acts all over the world are caused by people interpreting their holy books as they see fit. It's one thing to argue a point and another to make it personal by saying I have no right to interpret it my own way.

This is what you said:

That tends to be the popular view of anybody who doesn't take the time to actually learn the bible and understand whats metaphor (Eden, Noah), Historical text (numbers), philosophy lesson (Sermons on the mount), and Fable (Moses). To them, it all happened as printed, and someone divinely inspired could never write elegantly. Plus, God could never inspire a single other person to write, so Buddha was just a demon trying to fool us. As was everything else.

... and what that says to me is that anyone who does take the time to study and understand the bible will come away with only a single view of it's meaning. I submit that no one can read this fairy tale and come away with the same meaning as anyone else. The vagaries are such that two people could read the same passage and it would mean two wildly different things to each of them. Of course, it also depends on who has done the translation and, since most people can't read the flowery language so often used, who has supplied the Cliffs Notes copy in the sidebars.

And yeah, as soon as someone says to me that they are a believer it does throw everything else they have to say into question. Not everyone gets the same level of contempt, however. I think that most people will say they believe in god only because that's what they think they're supposed to say or that's what they've always been taught to say. It's only that these people haven't taken the time to think about it that they still call themselves religious, but when you really put the screws to them they admit that they don't really believe they are going to heaven or hell after they die. (Besides, even people who do believe have usually done so many things that will get them an express ticket to eternal damnation that you have to question their loyalty to the faith.)