U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-17-2012, 11:27 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
1,530 posts, read 2,606,909 times
Reputation: 907

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
Even the most sound scientific theories still have pieces missing and rely on faith. The big bang cannot say where it came from and leaves everyone on a limb. At that point I see that God created it and science explains it. To me they work nicely together. I do not need the philosophies to fill it in for me. I can think for myself and fill in some of the blanks. Life works very well for me that way.
The Big Bang Theory makes no attempt to explain where it all came from. There probably will be a proven theory some day that does though thanks to people who look for answers instead of assuming them.

If everyone was like you and assumed god is the answer to anything not yet explained, we'd still be living in grass huts in willful ignorance about the world around us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-18-2012, 04:35 AM
 
39,205 posts, read 10,887,543 times
Reputation: 5096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
Even the most sound scientific theories still have pieces missing and rely on faith. The big bang cannot say where it came from and leaves everyone on a limb. At that point I see that God created it and science explains it. To me they work nicely together. I do not need the philosophies to fill it in for me. I can think for myself and fill in some of the blanks. Life works very well for me that way.
No they do not. They rely on evidence. The Big Bang is based on evidence. There are pieces missing as you say and nobody knows (as we atheists get tired of saying) what started it all off or whether it was always there.

To say 'you see' 'God' as the answer IS faith because nobody knows one way or the other, and to believe as fact what nobody knows is false reasoning. That it works well for you may satisfy you. I know myself how satisfying it is to decide on a particular theory that one likes and take it as fact until it is disproven, but I found that. when it was disproven, it was tough and there is the risk of rejecting the disproof and believe in spite of the evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
Yes science and technology has come a long way, but I would not be holding my breath on the Nobel prize.
Reading between the lines here, I can sense a real hope that no answer is found soon which might require you to give up this First cause belief. I have to ask again, why is it so important to you (if you don't subscribe to religion) to have this belief that some sorta 'god' started it all off?

Now you may say that you don't know and 'God' is just a possibility that you find convincing. I can live with that and agree amicably to differ, but please don't misrepresent science and what it claims to know and suggest that it has 'faith' is what it doesn't know.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-18-2012 at 04:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2012, 08:02 PM
 
16,300 posts, read 24,978,161 times
Reputation: 8282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
I think you are fogetting about one thing. Where did the earth, the universe, and all matter come from. That is what we are talking about.
Not from the magic of fairy tales you attribute it to.

There is no absolute answer..... yet ...... but what ever the answer, it won't be found in a book of ancient superstitions and ignorance from thousands of years ago, back when the earth was flat and center of the universe.

The Origin of the Universe: Scientific American
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2012, 10:25 PM
 
16,105 posts, read 17,919,494 times
Reputation: 15897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
I think you are fogetting about one thing. Where did the earth, the universe, and all matter come from. That is what we are talking about.
Chinese Creation Story - Chinese Culture

Quote:
In the beginning, the world had no heaven or earth. The universe was a black egg, in which Pan Ku slept. After 18,000 years of existing like this, Pan Ku awoke and the egg broke in two. The top part, which was light and clear, became heaven and the bottom, which was dense and dark, the earth. Thus, the concept of yin-yang, the two sides that made a whole.

Pan Ku was born larger than any man and with a hammer and chisel in hand. With these tools, he further separated the sky and the land. He was helped by four mythical creaters: tiger, phoenix, dragon, and tortoise. After another 18,000 years, he had built enough to assure the heaven and earth would never meet again.

When he died, he filled in the rest of the world. His breath created the wind and clouds. His flesh became soil, his bones rock, and his blood filled the rivers and seas. His limbs and body became the five major mountains in China. His hair became the stars in the sky. From his sweat came the rain to nourish the land. His eyes became the sun and the moon. And finally, from the small creatures on his body, which has been equated to parasites in some translations, came man.
The above makes as much sense as the bible's creator god does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2012, 10:35 PM
 
707 posts, read 573,406 times
Reputation: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native View Post
Not from the magic of fairy tales you attribute it to.

There is no absolute answer..... yet ...... but what ever the answer, it won't be found in a book of ancient superstitions and ignorance from thousands of years ago, back when the earth was flat and center of the universe.

The Origin of the Universe: Scientific American
The earth being flat was the science of the day not religion. And just to bring you up to speed on myself I do not support any religion. So as angry as you sound at the religions of the bible I have no belief in that. And good point to say there is no answer yet. But remember there is no answer either way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2012, 06:18 AM
 
39,205 posts, read 10,887,543 times
Reputation: 5096
Then why believe one? And if you don't believe but just consider First cause a good probability, why do you feel so impelled to roll up here and argue about it? Come on, be honest. This is about some residual God- belief that you can't shake, isn't it? Even if you don't buy the Bible or organized religion anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Hamilton Ontario Canada
5 posts, read 3,725 times
Reputation: 11
Hey, what Happened. I wanted to hear the rest of the story.........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 07:36 PM
 
16,105 posts, read 17,919,494 times
Reputation: 15897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
The earth being flat was the science of the day not religion. And just to bring you up to speed on myself I do not support any religion. So as angry as you sound at the religions of the bible I have no belief in that. And good point to say there is no answer yet. But remember there is no answer either way.
The thing is that people did not believe the earth was flat except in very ancient times. It is a myth that people in medieval times believed the earth was flat. The Greeks calculated the circumference of the globe quite a long time ago.

The Myth of the Flat Earth

Quote:
The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew Dickson White's weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology published in 1896. This book has become something of a running joke among historians of science and it is dutifully mentioned as a prime example of misinformation in the preface of most modern works on science and religion. The flat Earth is discussed in chapter 2 and one can almost sense White's confusion that hardly any of the sources support his hypothesis that Christians widely believed in it. He finds himself grudgingly admitting that St Clement, Origen, St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Isodore, St Albertus Magnus and St Thomas Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe - in other words none of the great doctors of the church had considered the matter in doubt. Although an analysis of what White actually says suggests he was aware that the flat Earth was largely a myth, he certainly gives an impression of ignorant Christians suppressing rational knowledge of its real shape.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2012, 04:02 PM
 
40,103 posts, read 26,772,494 times
Reputation: 6050
Thought I would answer Arequipa in this thread because it would be off topic where he originally posted it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
IGiven that all that weak atheism which (unlike some atheists, it seems ) does not flatly claim: 'I know there are no gods, it does not need to produce a smidgeon of evidence for itself. It has only to consider the claims brought forward for God - belief and see whether they are enough to make God's existence at least a probability.

To that extent, yes, assessment of all the evidence, fairly, logically and rationally, leaves too many questions open, too many doubtful claims and too much evidence suggesting that no God is involved in human affairs, the world we inhabit or the cosmos we know about. Thus the conclusion has to be: 'God exists? Unproven, and very doubtful'.
The logical response to that agnostic knowledge position ' On the basis of this case and evidence I doubt whether God exists and indeed cannot say whether or not ANY gods exist.' the mandatory logical belief -position is non - belief. Not a claim that there is not and cannot be any god(s) because at best one cannot be sure, either way, but that there is no good logical reason to believe in one.
Absolutely not true, Arequipa. There is NO logical way to account for your naturalist atheist views. I have asked for the syllogisms numerous times now and they can NOT be shown . . . so stop using the word. Use "uninformed common sense" view if you must . . . because logic has nothing to do with it. It is completely inapplicable to the existential issue. Furthermore, it is only your focus on the beliefs about God that underlie God's involvement "in human affairs" that fit your conclusion. The major evidence of life, consciousness, intelligence, the cosmos, and the unimaginable scope and power of it all can more than adequately qualify as evidence of God.
Quote:
<snip>
I am willing to go through every one of them, because in the end, as a 'soft' atheist (but a sinewy debator ) that evidence is either open to serious question or can be shown to be so unreliable that it argues against the existence of a god, rather than FOR it.
Rather than that just provide the syllogisms that logically account for the existence of life from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness, intelligence from non-intelligence, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2012, 08:03 PM
 
39,205 posts, read 10,887,543 times
Reputation: 5096
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Thought I would answer Arequipa in this thread because it would be off topic where he originally posted it. Absolutely not true, Arequipa. There is NO logical way to account for your naturalist atheist views. I have asked for the syllogisms numerous times now and they can NOT be shown . . . so stop using the word. Use "uninformed common sense" view if you must . . . because logic has nothing to do with it. It is completely inapplicable to the existential issue. Furthermore, it is only your focus on the beliefs about God that underlie God's involvement "in human affairs" that fit your conclusion. The major evidence of life, consciousness, intelligence, the cosmos, and the unimaginable scope and power of it all can more than adequately qualify as evidence of God. Rather than that just provide the syllogisms that logically account for the existence of life from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness, intelligence from non-intelligence, etc.
We have been through this countless times before and I am not going to do it again. Your insistence that natural/material is not logical/based on sound evidence is becoming as wearisome as the ever - repeated creationist claims that there are no transitional forms.

If you want to try to attack the materialist default, intervene in the discussion between Capo and Tigetmax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top