Woody wrote:This is, and will always be, the most worthless thing to ever try and debate in the entire world. Even if you could prove God doesn't exist, which of course you can't, the very nature of faith allows any evidence to be dismissed instantly. Furthermore, has anyone who believed in God ever been swayed by the arguments of an atheist, or vice-versa? It's pointless, like devoting your life to following the MLB draft.

Dude. Do you want floppy to go on another one of his hiatuses or something.

phatj wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

phatj wrote:but to me, belief in the absence of evidence (how I define "faith")

Kinda the definition of "belief" as well. With undisputable evidence, you don't believe something, you know it.

Well, *indisputable* evidence is a pretty high standard, but I'm with you in general.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:There is evidence (for lack of a better term), but non-conclusive (like some think the shroud of Turin is fer realz, others don't, etc.).

For instance?

I assume only physical evidence will do?

crash, i think the way to go is to discuss religion moreso than faith. people will always fall back on faith, which is something obviously you and i don't have, but most people seem willing to agree that religion is simply their way of accessing their faith. you will never be able to prove to someone that faith in an almighty or an energy or a collective consciousness or whatever doesn't exist because there's no real way to do it (despite what dawkins may say). showing the fallacies of a religion, such as a conservative viewing of pretty much any mainstream out there, to a person would likely make them think way more about that than would attacking their faith specifically.

i think you pick the wrong battles and go about things from a combative way that people aren't likely to embrace. you may be saying something logical to you, but you will be tuned out depending on the way you say it. and i think you must admit that non-belief is itself a belief because there is no way to scientifically prove a the lack of a god to the extent that there will be a theory or fact out there. i would say i float between agnosticism and atheism on a regular basis, and it basically depends on whether my more rational mind is working or not. i think phatj makes a pretty persuasive argument.

traderdave wrote:

phatj wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

phatj wrote:but to me, belief in the absence of evidence (how I define "faith")

Kinda the definition of "belief" as well. With undisputable evidence, you don't believe something, you know it.

Well, *indisputable* evidence is a pretty high standard, but I'm with you in general.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:There is evidence (for lack of a better term), but non-conclusive (like some think the shroud of Turin is fer realz, others don't, etc.).

For instance?

I assume only physical evidence will do?

I'm not necessarily interested in poking holes in the evidence, I'm just curious what PiP (or you, or anyone) would hold up as evidence that a Creator exists. It seems that some have a different standard of evidence for faith-type stuff than for other things.

phatj wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

phatj wrote:but to me, belief in the absence of evidence (how I define "faith")

Kinda the definition of "belief" as well. With undisputable evidence, you don't believe something, you know it.

Well, *indisputable* evidence is a pretty high standard, but I'm with you in general.

Geez, and I misspelled it twice. Perhaps this !@#$ sinus headache has broken my brain or something.

phatj wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:There is evidence (for lack of a better term), but non-conclusive (like some think the shroud of Turin is fer realz, others don't, etc.).

For instance?

Don't make me post that pic of Salma Hayek and her glorious endowments

As I mentioned, the shroud of Turin. Some see it as evidence of the resurrection, and thus by extension, evidence of God. Others don't. There are facets at both ends. On one hand, the actual image on the shroud is only like 1 thread fiber deep... not thread, but one of those little fuzzy fibers of a thread (as some dude in a documentary said, if you passed a razor over it, you'd erase it), meaning it is highly unlikely to have been created by someone as a hoax. There was also biological evidence (plant) found in the fibers that date back to the first century. On the other hand, carbon dating done on the shroud didn't place its age to the first century. On the third hand, could whatever made the image or the fire influenced the carbon dating somehow. The shroud in and of itself is evidence of something (resurrection, hoax, etc.), but it's inconclusive as to what.

BTW, the documentary mentioned above was something on the TV a couple of months ago about some experts in graphics/imaging/whatever extrapolating from the shroud what Jesus the C would have looked like fer realz. A quick google... it was called "The Real Face of Jesus", and there are pics here. That's prolly why I mentioned the shroud of Turin, wasn't bringing it into debate or discussion, just remembered seeing this on the TV (the science and technology stuff was actually kinda cool).

evidence from within a religion is not really proof of anything. if it can't be corroborated by a non-biased body, it really shouldn't be presented. there wre plenty of crucifications during that time, why would this be linked to whoever we believe jesus (joshua?) was?

pacino wrote:evidence from within a religion is not really proof of anything. if it can't be corroborated by a non-biased body, it really shouldn't be presented. there wre plenty of crucifications during that time, why would this be linked to whoever we believe jesus (joshua?) was?

Oh, you're just trying to make me post the Salma pic.

IIRC, the Catholic church's position on the shroud is "uncommitted", no official position one way or the other. I only used that because I was thinking of something physical and remembered seeing that documentary thing a few months ago. Myself, sorta like the church in that I don't hold hold a view one way or the other.

There will likely never be any evidence, for or against the existance of God (or a being/entity than which no greater can be conceived) that will be totally irrefutable, because then it goes from faith/belief to fact, and thus such things like free will become moot.

One can take a philosophical angle... that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.

Or the teleological angle... the sheer complexity of the universe. A few percentage points difference in our atmospheric elements would preclude the existence of life. Just like the distance of the earth from the sun, etc. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10-to-the-243rd power (dunno how to do superscript here, but I contemplated putting 243 zeroes after it just for kicks and giggles). Protein is the building block of life.

Or the cosmological angle... if every effect must have a cause, and the universe and everything in it is an effect, then something must have caused everything to come into existence and that cause would have to be something "un-caused".

Regardless of how one looks at it, or what one would consider "evidence", there will likely never be any evidence, for or against the existance of God, that will be totally irrefutable (yep, I copied/pasted from above cuz I'm lazy).

BTW, I'm not really taking a faith approach here, more like trying to serve some food for thought to keep this discussion at a good or "stimulating" level of interesting discourse (trying to keep it from sinking to a level often seen in religious discussions). With what happened with my dad, I am still very pissed off and will likely remain upset at God for a long time (just so you know where I'm coming from).

Just to put my spin on PiP's cut and paste job, as a holder of a science degree it I have a hard time reconciling the creation versus just how lucky, and frankly perfect, everything is on this moist rock. My end is that, and this gets me in a little trouble with some, is that God created an experiment here on Earth and has patiently (how human of me) waited out evolution. I can live with that myself, certainly I cannot deny evolution as scientific fact. I am mystified why people would think that God would be offended by the idea that He has created intelligence that allows for adaptation and survival.

I wish God would make these fucking allergies go away. I cant take it anymore.

thephan wrote:as a holder of a science degree it I have a hard time reconciling the creation versus just how lucky, and frankly perfect, everything is on this moist rock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY#t=3m45s

thephan wrote:I am mystified why people would think that God would be...

insert human emotion here

The nuns at my old Catholic school were hardass...




But on rare occasion they allowed themselves to cut loose a little..

I wonder if, like on the LA Freeway, if one of the nuns bumps into one of the other nuns, they take out those shotguns and start shooting each other.

CrashburnAlley wrote:

thephan wrote:as a holder of a science degree it I have a hard time reconciling the creation versus just how lucky, and frankly perfect, everything is on this moist rock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY#t=3m45s

Good enough for Hawkings, its good enough for me. The video selection misses my point and does not go far enough into other elements that are more challenging, but the again its youtube, not exactly the intellectual zone. Between the jump cuts, the science is all completely logical.

Do I get to say misquoted where I say evolution is fact? I don't think I am allowed into Bibleland in Orlando.

Woody wrote:I have some questions for the religious folk among us. What are their thoughts on the following

Which religion is correct?

Do you think what you believe is more accurate than what others believe? If so, why?

Or are you all possibly on the same train and just don't realize it?

Are newer religions more correct or less correct than old religions?

What about paganism/earth worship?

Do you think in, say, 750 years Scientology will have gained mainstream acceptance? If not, why?

As fake mamma said to Jacob and Jacob to Jack and Jack to Hurley ...

"...now you're like me ..."

nice post!

The reason a lot of atheists are annoying is a pretty similar reason to why many fundamentalist Christians are annoying. They attempt to force their 'beliefs' upon you and judge you if you do not agree with them.

jerseyhoya wrote:The reason a lot of atheists are annoying is a pretty similar reason to why many fundamentalist Christians are annoying. They attempt to force their 'beliefs' upon you and judge you if you do not agree with them.

That's a pretty broad generalization. What people 'say' they are, and what they really are, are often not aligned anyway. Need common language and set of reference points to have a meaningful dialog in this realm.

Not a broad generalization. Just making fun of CrashburnAlley for being an annoying atheist.

jerseyhoya wrote:Not a broad generalization. Just making fun of CrashburnAlley for being an annoying atheist.

WATCH IT FUNDY