God.

[Grulps]

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

Actually, the God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims is the same. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all use the Torah in their canon.

You missed my point. Haven't you ever noticed that the Bible refers to there being many gods?

[Killer90_angel_Cat]

true.... if there is a TRUE God then there must be more than one.... who knows who made the bible.... nobody was around the time it was made so why argue?

[banditcom]

Originally Posted by devonin

I didn't say Intelligent Design was at theory, I said that there are 'several logical theories' that hold, for example, that the more elegant, or the more simple solutions are more likely to be the correct ones. When I say "logical theories" I am speaking philosphically not scientifically, and in that particular arena do have more than a vague idea what I'm talking about.

You act like since you magically left out the word theory after Intelligent Design makes it not referred to as that. It still is. And define your use of the word theory from now on when you use it, because there are countless morons who misuse the word theory.

Yeah, the more simple solutions are often to be the correct ones. Occam's Razor. "God did it" is not a simple solution.

Originally Posted by devonin

And here, fresh on the heels of your criticism of people using "theory" and "idea" as though they are interchangable, you use "religion" and "church" as though they are interchangable. They aren't. Religion and faith exist outside the bounds of the church, generally more so than they do inside the church, and to equate them as being necessarily the same is foolhardy at best.

I wasn't not using them interchangeably. Church needs religion. Religion to church... Get it? Without religion, there is no church. You said "Except that God and those working through God also have various works attributed to them as well...", which is a load of bull****. Those "works" can and are done through numerous other means, without all the money needed for useless buildings like churches. And these things are being done by people who actually know what they are doing.

Originally Posted by devonin

Mother Teresa promoted suffering? And please explain how vows of poverty are somehow equivalent to having "took loads of money"? if you're referring to donations to her order, the "what use" the money was put to is, let's see here:

yeah, that sure sounds like a fat load of nothing, we should cut all funding to that group and shut it down, greedy beggars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q1m-8npkJ4

"Missionaries care for those who include refugees, ex-prostitutes, the mentally ill, sick children, abandoned children, lepers, AIDS victims, the aged, and convalescent. They have schools run by volunteers to educate street children, they run soup kitchens, as well as many other services as per the communities needs. They have 19 homes in Kolkata alone which include homes for women, orphaned children, the dying, an AIDS hospice, a school for street children, and a leper colony. These services are provided to people regardless of their religion."

Again, without religion, all the positives here would exist and even moreso. Without all the money wasted, all the uneducated people running these things, etc... You can't argue for something that is supposedly positive when the negatives greatly outweigh the positives. Not just her, but all of religion. Especially when there are countless alternatives for all aspects of religion. It's like having a psychic heal your cancer lol.. Just doesn't work, and they don't know what they are doing.


Every aspect of life would be better if religion didn't exist.

[Reach]

They are happy to provide you with evidence of various scientific phenomena and then suggest to you that it is the simpler, more elegant, and thus according to several logical theories, more likely that such things are the result of intelligent design rather than random chance

Sure, they'll tell you this. But evolution doesn't have anything to do with random chance, and if these logical principles are interpreted correctly, design by an omniscient God is far less likely than selection by natural processes (i.e. evolution)...something we already have mountains of evidence for.

[MilfeulleSakuraba]

Originally Posted by Reach

Sure, they'll tell you this. But evolution doesn't have anything to do with random chance, and if these logical principles are interpreted correctly, design by an omniscient God is far less likely than selection by natural processes (i.e. evolution)...something we already have mountains of evidence for.

Except the religious don't inherently denounce evolution.

If you're going to try to counter his statement, you should pick something the religious don't agree with.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by banditcom

You act like since you magically left out the word theory after Intelligent Design makes it not referred to as that. It still is. And define your use of the word theory from now on when you use it, because there are countless morons who misuse the word theory.

People who understand what a theory is in the scientific context don't apply it to intelligent design. I'm not going to pander to the lowest common denominator, if people don't know what words mean, they should post elsewhere.

Yeah, the more simple solutions are often to be the correct ones. Occam's Razor. "God did it" is not a simple solution.

When they point to some of the incredibly unlikely probabilities that all had to line up in exact the way that they did in order for this universe to exist "Those values were selected" is both more simple and more elegant than "Lucky us, they just happened to work out, that was a close one"

I wasn't not using them interchangeably. Church needs religion. Religion to church... Get it?

No, I don't get it, because that statement is false. I spent many years, and know people who spent many years being quite devoutly religious who never went to church, who had many fundamental problems with the church and the way the church chose to carry out their religious tendencies. You can -absolutely- have religion without church. And when you see how corrupt many churches are, it isn't a far stretch to claim that they are a church without religion.

You said "Except that God and those working through God also have various works attributed to them as well...", which is a load of bull****. Those "works" can and are done through numerous other means, without all the money needed for useless buildings like churches. And these things are being done by people who actually know what they are doing.

So because religious -and- non-religious people do good things, religion is bad and should be removed? You don't think UNICEF or UNESCO, or the Red Cross, or VON or Doctors Without Borders or any of the other secular major world charitable organizations don't take donations? Don't have major corporate headquarters? Don't have all these "Useless" buildings to?

(As a small aside, the logic you just tried to apply to why religious charities shouldn't exist could be applied in the same way to argue that because birds can already fly, we shouldn't have airplanes. Just saying.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q1m-8npkJ4

So, your blindingly powerful evidence against the work of Mother Teresa is made up of:

1/ Penn and Teller - A Shock Comedian and A Comedian who doesn't speak
2/ One Author who consistantly neglected to mention, as he spoke about her work in India, specifically Calcutta, that conditions in those quarters of Calcutta were so horrifically bad to begin with, that even -having- a bed was a step up, or that she was further active in over 100 other countries, nor was his book shown, referenced, or was any discussion of whether his book was actually a valid source of information disucssed.
3/ An Ex Nun who is also a Comedian who was getting a very big break by being associated with Penn and Teller.
4/ A guy in a blue shirt who is never named, identified or otherwise presented as being in any way a valid resource for them to consult, but who nevertheless made a number of very generalized and unsupported statements.

Yeah, pardon me but that's not exactly a wide array of valid CT resoruces. Feel free to try again with reasonable evidence.

Again, without religion, all the positives here would exist and even moreso.

But just because they do exist with religion and do exist without religion doesn't mean the ones that exist with religion should be made to stop. If I do good works, why should you give a damn -why- I'm doing good works?

Without all the money wasted, all the uneducated people running these things, etc...

Nuns are uneducated? I mean, nuns ran the Catholic Education system for years, and their students (generally the parents of people now aged 19-35ish) seemed to have turned out fine, what with becoming our entire existing generation of doctors, lawyers, teachers etc etc.

I love how you're trying to present these hospices as though they are hospitals, and so since they were staffed by nuns and not doctors, it is some horrible terrible place.

It's like having a psychic heal your cancer lol.. Just doesn't work, and they don't know what they are doing.

Do you really get what these places were doing? These places were taking starving, dying, homeless people in the streets that nobody would even notice, cleaning them up, giving them food and water, and a bed that is if nothing else, more comfortable than the street is. They aren't doctors, they never pretended to be doctors, and they never pretended to heal people or make them better. They claimed and -did- help alleviate their suffering, and to make their final days a little less horrific.

You can't argue for something that is supposedly positive when the negatives greatly outweigh the positives.

So you're for, as an example, the complete illegality of alcohol? That's something that is supposedly positive, where the negatives quite demonstrably outweigh the positives.

Every aspect of life would be better if religion didn't exist.

Since religion has permeated the entirety of human existance, I don't se how you have even the slighest logical basis to make such an absurd absolute statement. That's like saying "Every aspect of life would be better if we had four toes on each foot"

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Reach

Sure, they'll tell you this. But evolution doesn't have anything to do with random chance, and if these logical principles are interpreted correctly, design by an omniscient God is far less likely than selection by natural processes (i.e. evolution)...something we already have mountains of evidence for.

Why does the discussion about the possibilities of intelligent design always have to centre around evolution? "Going from nothing on earth to humans on earth" is such a minisculely small step in the greater scheme of the universe that the scientific people constantly hammering on it as a whole proof against religious views is akin to my pointing to the absurdity of the infield fly rule to condemn the entirety of baseball as a sport.

[TC_=MaxXFreaK=]

wow.

*coughcough*Imanathiest*coughcough*

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by TC_=MaxXFreaK=

wow.

*coughcough*Imanathiest*coughcough*

Posts of true intelligence only. Saying you're an atheist (Which we honestly don't care that much) doesn't at all help with the discussion we're having.

[jpcduran]

devonin that is the BEST Chart ever!

[banditcom]

Originally Posted by devonin

People who understand what a theory is in the scientific context don't apply it to intelligent design. I'm not going to pander to the lowest common denominator, if people don't know what words mean, they should post elsewhere.

Go look at what Intelligent Design is referred to as: a theory. An equal theory to Evolution. Any person who brings up Intelligent Design is the lowest common denominator.

Originally Posted by devonin

When they point to some of the incredibly unlikely probabilities that all had to line up in exact the way that they did in order for this universe to exist "Those values were selected" is both more simple and more elegant than "Lucky us, they just happened to work out, that was a close one"

uh

Originally Posted by devonin

No, I don't get it, because that statement is false. I spent many years, and know people who spent many years being quite devoutly religious who never went to church, who had many fundamental problems with the church and the way the church chose to carry out their religious tendencies. You can -absolutely- have religion without church. And when you see how corrupt many churches are, it isn't a far stretch to claim that they are a church without religion.

Corrupt in what way? They don't teach religion the "right" way, or are in it for the money? Again, I said church needs religion, not the other way around. In two posts. And you still think I'm saying religion needs church. -_-;

Originally Posted by devonin

So because religious -and- non-religious people do good things, religion is bad and should be removed? You don't think UNICEF or UNESCO, or the Red Cross, or VON or Doctors Without Borders or any of the other secular major world charitable organizations don't take donations? Don't have major corporate headquarters? Don't have all these "Useless" buildings to?

I never said they were perfect. But have they caused wars? >_>

Originally Posted by devonin

(As a small aside, the logic you just tried to apply to why religious charities shouldn't exist could be applied in the same way to argue that because birds can already fly, we shouldn't have airplanes. Just saying.)

No. I was addressing your backing of God over an invisible elephant. That your God and his followers have done stuff while the elephant hasn't. Okay well, that's not a backing for your God to exist and I listed why.

Originally Posted by devonin

So, your blindingly powerful evidence against the work of Mother Teresa is made up of:

1/ Penn and Teller - A Shock Comedian and A Comedian who doesn't speak
2/ One Author who consistantly neglected to mention, as he spoke about her work in India, specifically Calcutta, that conditions in those quarters of Calcutta were so horrifically bad to begin with, that even -having- a bed was a step up, or that she was further active in over 100 other countries, nor was his book shown, referenced, or was any discussion of whether his book was actually a valid source of information disucssed.
3/ An Ex Nun who is also a Comedian who was getting a very big break by being associated with Penn and Teller.
4/ A guy in a blue shirt who is never named, identified or otherwise presented as being in any way a valid resource for them to consult, but who nevertheless made a number of very generalized and unsupported statements.

Yeah, pardon me but that's not exactly a wide array of valid CT resoruces. Feel free to try again with reasonable evidence.

LOL like I need to provide evidence against religion being a bad thing... Vice-versa bud. That's like coming up with evidence that rain is wet.

Originally Posted by devonin

But just because they do exist with religion and do exist without religion doesn't mean the ones that exist with religion should be made to stop. If I do good works, why should you give a damn -why- I'm doing good works?

Because much of it is pseudo. Fake. People who pretend to know what they are doing. Look at that damn Creation Museum for example. Yeah, great. Let people who don't know **** about real science teach everyone bull**** science. And AGAIN I WAS ADDRESSING your comment that your God has done stuff while the elephant hasn't. Your God has done nothing.

Originally Posted by devonin

Nuns are uneducated? I mean, nuns ran the Catholic Education system for years, and their students (generally the parents of people now aged 19-35ish) seemed to have turned out fine, what with becoming our entire existing generation of doctors, lawyers, teachers etc etc.

Um some are, obviously. But non-nuns too. And uhh yeah, much are in many areas like treating a patient, teaching science, etc. The education system in the US is laughable compared to other countries.

Originally Posted by devonin

I love how you're trying to present these hospices as though they are hospitals, and so since they were staffed by nuns and not doctors, it is some horrible terrible place.

Nah, just presenting a clip from two very logical and smart atheists. A partial clip.

Originally Posted by devonin

Do you really get what these places were doing? These places were taking starving, dying, homeless people in the streets that nobody would even notice, cleaning them up, giving them food and water, and a bed that is if nothing else, more comfortable than the street is. They aren't doctors, they never pretended to be doctors, and they never pretended to heal people or make them better. They claimed and -did- help alleviate their suffering, and to make their final days a little less horrific.

Yeah some of them do well. But again, it's not your God and his followers doing it. Without religion, these would still exist. An elephant can do the same. ^_^ Oh, and religious people do pretend to be healers and doctors. Non-religious don't. Hey let's go visit this place for miracles! How many miracles have happened? Oh like 2 or 3... Out of the billions that have visited over the years... xD

Originally Posted by devonin

So you're for, as an example, the complete illegality of alcohol? That's something that is supposedly positive, where the negatives quite demonstrably outweigh the positives.

Again, only addressing your statement of God > invisible elephant.

Originally Posted by devonin

Since religion has permeated the entirety of human existance, I don't se how you have even the slighest logical basis to make such an absurd absolute statement. That's like saying "Every aspect of life would be better if we had four toes on each foot"

Uh.. Yeah... Okay. A much closer world for one. That's one big thing. No stopping in the progression of science. That's another. The list can go on.

Originally Posted by devonin

Why does the discussion about the possibilities of intelligent design always have to centre around evolution? "Going from nothing on earth to humans on earth" is such a minisculely small step in the greater scheme of the universe that the scientific people constantly hammering on it as a whole proof against religious views is akin to my pointing to the absurdity of the infield fly rule to condemn the entirety of baseball as a sport.

www.creationmuseum.com

Because of these morons hammering on about creation as proof over evolution. Also because people are more interested in the beginning of humans than the beginning of the universe.




Anyways, I'm done with this. A lot of this is you playing oblivious. I don't even know where you stand on the whole thing either, since you were the one that posted that pie-chart.

PS Elephant > God

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by banditcom

LOL like I need to provide evidence against religion being a bad thing... Vice-versa bud. That's like coming up with evidence that rain is wet.

You introduced the idea that "religion is bad," therefore the burden of proof falls upon you, not the one who is refuting your argument.

I can equate this to the American justice system actually, see here:

You are saying that "religion is bad." Now imagine you prosecuting a personification of religion in a court of law, with the charge that it is "bad" (Assume for the sake of this example that being "bad" is a punishable offense). The burden is upon -you-, as the prosecutor, to provide evidence and proof that religion is in fact "bad." The defendant, in this case being represented by devonin, needs only to refute that evidence.

[dfrXtreme]

I believe that there is one but thats just me

Yah agreed

[banditcom]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

You introduced the idea that "religion is bad," therefore the burden of proof falls upon you, not the one who is refuting your argument.

I can equate this to the American justice system actually, see here:

You are saying that "religion is bad." Now imagine you prosecuting a personification of religion in a court of law, with the charge that it is "bad" (Assume for the sake of this example that being "bad" is a punishable offense). The burden is upon -you-, as the prosecutor, to provide evidence and proof that religion is in fact "bad." The defendant, in this case being represented by devonin, needs only to refute that evidence.

Uhh I stated it as an argument against his God being good and doing good things for us believing in him. How about he proves his God is better than this imaginary elephant first?

Oh and uh just look up a bunch of wars. K.

Jesus christ people learn to read what I'm actually arguing against. See the quotes? The stuff I post under it is goes towards that!

SERIOUSLY where is all the backing you guys have? Right from the get-go with the main topic: nothing.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by banditcom

Corrupt in what way? They don't teach religion the "right" way, or are in it for the money? Again, I said church needs religion, not the other way around. In two posts. And you still think I'm saying religion needs church. -_-;

Well maybe I think that because of where you said "Religion needs church, church to religion" That's some imprecise word choice, you either left out an 'a' (church to a religion) or jusy were unclear, I apologise if I misinterpreted.

I never said they were perfect. But have they caused wars? >_>

I would say that over the course of the world, more wars have been fought on secular grounds than on religious grounds.

No. I was addressing your backing of God over an invisible elephant. That your God and his followers have done stuff while the elephant hasn't. Okay well, that's not a backing for your God to exist and I listed why.

Your argument against religious charities was that non-religious charities already exist, so religious ones aren't needed. The only way that statement is valid is if we take as already proven that religion is bad, which would be begging the question.

LOL like I need to provide evidence against religion being a bad thing...

Yes you do. Welcome to Critical Thinking. You don't get to put out a claim and say "And it is right unless you prove me wrong" If you want to be the plaintiff, the burden of proof lands squarely on your shoulders.

That's like coming up with evidence that rain is wet.

So you've already decided internally that you know you are correct, and feel this justifies you not making even a passing attempt to -prove- that you are correct with evidence? Sorry, that doesn't fly like the birds do, and the airplanes don't need to.

Because much of it is pseudo. Fake. People who pretend to know what they are doing. Look at that damn Creation Museum for example. Yeah, great. Let people who don't know **** about real science teach everyone bull**** science.

I wasn't aware that the entirety of all people who consider Intelligent Design to be an idea worth considering were required to be crazy overly-fundamentalist right wing ultra-conservative christians. I believe in Intelligent Design -and- Evolution...anyone who thinks the two are incompatible is the one who doesn't understand the terms being used.

And AGAIN I WAS ADDRESSING your comment that your God has done stuff while the elephant hasn't. Your God has done nothing.

You are aware, I hope, that an entire branch of supporters for intelligent design are avowedly non-religious right? Intelligent Design in no way demands any kind of direct interference in the course of the universe past the moment of creation. Just because God isn't provably ****ing around with everyone all the time doesn't render the concept invalid. Also, -My- God is not the god you seem to think it is.

Um some are, obviously. But non-nuns too. And uhh yeah, much are in many areas like treating a patient, teaching science, etc. The education system in the US is laughable compared to other countries.

So if your non-religious people doing the good work of teaching and educating are incompetant and laughable, what right do you have to try to condemn religious people doing good works on the same grounds, while defending the secular ones?

Nah, just presenting a clip from two very logical and smart atheists. A partial clip.

I'm surprised you would claim to know the religious leanings of both Penn -and- Teller, there aren't exactly a glut of interviews where both of them wax eloquent on their beliefs. And your clip was unsourced, provided no further links to fact check what they said, and the entire thing was presented as a largely unreasonable rant full of ad hominem attacks. It simply isn't useful evidence in any kind of reasoned or formal debate or discussion.

Yeah some of them do well. But again, it's not your God and his followers doing it. Without religion, these would still exist.

Without religion, these religious institutions of caring and compassion would not exist. You have absolutely no way to prove that if this group didn't exist there would be a secular one in its place doing the same things. Only a being with a scope of knowledge bordering on omniscience could possibly know what the situation would be like if there had never been religious charity groups.

An elephant can do the same. ^_^

An elephant is traditionally described as being all-powerful and all-knowing? I mean...I know they have stereotypically good memory, but last I checked, not many people attribute elephants as having the same ability as a God (I don't especially count Lord Ganesha as an elephant, so quiet you!)

Oh, and religious people do pretend to be healers and doctors. Non-religious don't.

Some religious people pretend to be healers and doctors, so do some non-religious people. Hasty generalization, -5 points. I've personally known non-religious people who've pretended to be doctors, and been found out. One of them taught at my school, had faked their credentials and everything. Just because there are some cases of that behavior going on, doesn't mean all people of that group engage in that behavior.

Hey let's go visit this place for miracles! How many miracles have happened? Oh like 2 or 3... Out of the billions that have visited over the years... xD

I think your "billions" is a stark exaggeration, but you know what? It doesn't matter. Who are you to think you deserve a miracle? 3 miracles is pretty stellar, considering you only need 2 or 3 to become a saint. I'm pretty sure that, if you assume an all-knowing God, that people who go "Oh yeah, I'm totally going to go here just for the miracle" aren't fooling anybody, and simply aren't worthy.

Again, only addressing your statement of God > invisible elephant.

Actually, as described, God is greater than the invisible elephant. The example of the elephant is described to prove that since there is no proof for the existance of God, it is somehow equally likely that any other unprovable far-fetched claim is equally valid. But here's the thing, what do you say to someone who says "Yes, absolutely there could be an invisible elephant orbiting Jupiter?" Your claim rests on the hope that the religious person will think your claim is rediculous, but, as the point of the claim states: I have no way to disprove the elephant just as you have no way to prove the elephant, so sure, I guess there is the possibility that it exists. What of it?

Uh.. Yeah... Okay. A much closer world for one.

Prove it.

No stopping in the progression of science.

Prove it.

The list can go on.

And for each and every one, I say prove it.

You can't. It is a physical, logical and philosophical impossibility for you to state with even -pretend- certainty "It is a fact that if there had never been religion, the world would A, B, C etc" Hell, George Bailey thought nobody would notice a lack of even one person, and the dude changed the entire world landscape.

Because of these morons hammering on about creation as proof over evolution. Also because people are more interested in the beginning of humans than the beginning of the universe.

Creationists of the "Evolution is evil bad and wrong" -are- in fact morons. That changes not one iota of my point. Non-religious people like to strawman intelligent design as being pure creationism because it is much easier to attack, and I was curious why that happens. Intelligent Design is -completely- compatible with evolution.

Anyways, I'm done with this. A lot of this is you playing oblivious.

No, a lot of this is me making you provide evidence for your rediculous claims of absolute fact when you have no way whatsoever of actually knowing the absolute fact of the situation.

I don't even know where you stand on the whole thing either, since you were the one that posted that pie-chart.

I'm a Deist, I believe in Intelligent Design, I also believe in Evolution over the micro and macro scales. Deism has virtually nothing to do with religion in the slightest.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by banditcom

Uhh I stated it as an argument against his God being good and doing good things for us believing in him. How about he proves his God is better than this imaginary elephant first?

Proving that God as described is better than the elephant as described is incredibly simple. The point you -want- to try to make is "How about he proves that God exists, and the elephant doesn't" But that assumes that god and imaginary elephants are mutually exclusive. Why can't they both be just as likely to exist? I'm happy to consider it.

Oh and uh just look up a bunch of wars. K.

Well, I looked up the American Civil War, World War 1, World War 2, The Korean War and The Vietnam War...And I uh...didn't see all that much religious fighting going on.

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by devonin

Well, I looked up the American Civil War, World War 1, World War 2, The Korean War and The Vietnam War...And I uh...didn't see all that much religious fighting going on.

It might help if Banditcom explains which wars he's pointing out.

[devonin]

He's probably pointing out the Crusades, and so forth. There have in fact, been plenty of wars carried out for religious reasons. But by the same token there have been wars carried out for political reasons and banditcom doesn't seem to be vocally anti-politics, and there have been wars carried out for territorial reasons and banditcom doesn't seem to be vocally anti-country.

Concluding that just because there have been some bad things done by a group of people, that entire group of people is therefore bad is an incredibly hasty generalisation and worth at least -10 points.

[-Live_Free-]

Ok well I'm agnostic and I also have a tendency to want scientific proof of things, however I say let people believe what they want to believe. Don't try and prove there is or isn't a higher being, its just wrong to crush someone else's faith.

[devonin]

Strong or Weak Agnostic? Sounds like Weak, but I could be wrong.