Let's Debate

[olylifter420]

to bad, they are still atheists and hold to certain BELIEFS... and if i remember, you put BELIEFS/RELIGION like so to see that beliefs and religion are synonymous...

oh and if your planning on bringing up the fact some may be communist atheists.. doesnt count cause they were not slicing their own wrists .. they were killing OTHER ppl due to their BELIEFS / RELIGIONS.. incase you diddnt understand but the article explains it in depth

 

[RawBudzski]

Numbers still dont lie. we went from talking about science and religion to pure religion.. which I was not on the side of in the 1st place.. so bring science back up and ill hop back in.. I just dont think its hard to see their has been more Human on Human hate due to religion than some random causes.. Im not saying we would be better off without it, nothing like that. But we gotta accept and acknowledge its downfalls or not give it enough credit as to say its a safe alternative to science.

 

[Heisenberg]

in a sense you are negating evolution because of the fact that such things cannot stand falsification, therefore since these hominids had these rituals or beliefs in a higher power which you claim is not true, they too would not believe in evolution and would not be considered a part of evolution due to their beliefs.

you want falsification, here is one for you...

you say that you will stand by science not matter what, you wholeheartedly follow all of einsteins laws and theories he proposed. You must know of the theory of relativity? WEll it is being disproven by a 12 year old boy.

what is that to say about the rest of the theories and laws out there? That they may not hold true when put under the right tests and done by the right mind. So, the same thing that you say about my religion and beliefs, the same can be said about all of the your beliefs in these theories and laws that you and countless others follow.

Oly do you re-read and consider your responses before you post? I only ask because the mistakes you made here have been pointed out to you before, and others seem downright obvious.

in a sense you are negating evolution because of the fact that such things cannot stand falsification

Evolution has been surviving falsification since the late 1800's, indeed this is why we have such confidence in it. Maybe you don't understand exactly what falsification is. With evolution we have had the opposite result. We have discovered mounds of evidence supporting it from many independent fields of research. This evidence allows us to make predictions, many of which turn out to be correct. It is in fact one of the most supported theories every formed.

therefore since these hominids had these rituals or beliefs in a higher power which you claim is not true

Do you fully read my posts? I didn't say it wasn't true. I said if it is true, it only proves that religion has been around for a long time, and nothing more. You're not purposely misrepresenting my position are you?

they too would not believe in evolution and would not be considered a part of evolution due to their beliefs.

I think before you bring up evolution again, you should take the time to learn what evolution is. If you think evolution excludes people based on belief then you are terribly uninformed.

what is that to say about the rest of the theories and laws out there? That they may not hold true when put under the right tests and done by the right mind.

Why do you think we have falsification and peer review? We have these things to purposely try to prove theories wrong. Being wrong is part of the process, and the only way we can get closer to being right. If someone, even a 12y/o, proves a scientist wrong, a true scientist is not disappointed, but accepts the facts and abandons the theory. This does not mean abandoning science, and in fact is following science accordingly.

Why would one theory being wrong have any bearing on a completely different theory? If your point is that scientific theories are subject to mistakes and to being incorrect, well duh, this is something science anticipates and depends on. Science makes every attempt at self correction.

And lets stop pretending Stephen Hawking is the end all authority on atheists point of view. Lets also stop pretending that to understand what Hawking meant when he said "nothing", does not take considerable study of the context. In fact, it takes this guy an hour to explain it. What I have also heard Stephen say is, science doesn't disprove god, but simply offers us an explanation which does not require god. Finally, lets stop pretending that the big bang has anything to do with atheism.

 

[olylifter420]

NO, i saw his show they made on discovery this past sunday where he said it, "god does not exist" in his weird ass computer voice... and im sorry if my response does not make sense to you

also, what is the purpose to following these theories and laws if they will eventually be disproven, maybe not in our time, but they will... just like that boy who is disproving several theories already... it is obvious that religion and religious practices have been around since man evolved, then why is it so hard to accept now?

you cannot prove God does not exist, but you can disprove theories.

i only use computer dude cause he is a leading authority in many things.


God cannot be proven or disproven through science, but certain theories can be disproved through time consuming research.

the evidence of God is anecdotal and a personal experience that no one else will ever understand. There is no method at disproving or proving God, so why make such a big deal about it?

I understand evolution, thank you... but i am a bit medicated, so please understand... and no i am not trying to misrepresent your point...

Oly do you re-read and consider your responses before you post? I only ask because the mistakes you made here have been pointed out to you before, and others seem downright obvious.

in a sense you are negating evolution because of the fact that such things cannot stand falsification

Evolution has been surviving falsification since the late 1800's, indeed this is why we have such confidence in it. Maybe you don't understand exactly what falsification is. With evolution we have had the opposite result. We have discovered mounds of evidence supporting it from many independent fields of research. This evidence allows us to make predictions, many of which turn out to be correct. It is in fact one of the most supported theories every formed.

therefore since these hominids had these rituals or beliefs in a higher power which you claim is not true

Do you fully read my posts? I didn't say it wasn't true. I said if it is true, it only proves that religion has been around for a long time, and nothing more. You're not purposely misrepresenting my position are you?

they too would not believe in evolution and would not be considered a part of evolution due to their beliefs.

I think before you bring up evolution again, you should take the time to learn what evolution is. If you think evolution excludes people based on belief then you are terribly uninformed.

what is that to say about the rest of the theories and laws out there? That they may not hold true when put under the right tests and done by the right mind.

Why do you think we have falsification and peer review? We have these things to purposely try to prove theories wrong. Being wrong is part of the process, and the only way we can get closer to being right. If someone, even a 12y/o, proves a scientist wrong, a true scientist is not disappointed, but accepts the facts and abandons the theory. This does not mean abandoning science, and in fact is following science accordingly.

Why would one theory being wrong have any bearing on a completely different theory? If your point is that scientific theories are subject to mistakes and to being incorrect, well duh, this is something science anticipates and depends on. Science makes every attempt at self correction.

And lets stop pretending Stephen Hawking is the end all authority on atheists point of view. Lets also stop pretending that to understand what Hawking meant when he said "nothing", does not take considerable study of the context. In fact, it takes this guy an hour to explain it. What I have also heard Stephen say is, science doesn't disprove god, but simply offers us an explanation which does not require god. Finally, lets stop pretending that the big bang has anything to do with atheism.

 

[olylifter420]

i never gave credit to the wrong doings of religious lunatics. the things i have given credit for are the interpretations that one makes from the stories of the Bible... if you interpret them literally, then something is totally wrong with you..

i have no idea how you say we got off topic, please, bring a subject up and i will be glad to join in again...

im pretty medicated right now, so

Numbers still dont lie. we went from talking about science and religion to pure religion.. which I was not on the side of in the 1st place.. so bring science back up and ill hop back in.. I just dont think its hard to see their has been more Human on Human hate due to religion than some random causes.. Im not saying we would be better off without it, nothing like that. But we gotta accept and acknowledge its downfalls or not give it enough credit as to say its a safe alternative to science.

 

[mexiblunt]

i never gave credit to the wrong doings of religious lunatics. the things i have given credit for are the interpretations that one makes from the stories of the Bible... if you interpret them literally, then something is totally wrong with you..

i have no idea how you say we got off topic, please, bring a subject up and i will be glad to join in again...

im pretty medicated right now, so

Which parts do you take literall? If any? What is it then metaphor? I've never read it, I don't know all the stories just some.

 

[RawBudzski]

Exactly cause im SURE OLY's understanding of the Bible is Different from the Next Christian's understanding. I would like to know one piece of knowledge hes with holding that would make a good case for his understanding of God & Religion. Dont try to prove your religion is correct if you cannot yourself speak up in its defence with some good points.

 

[mindphuk]

NO, i saw his show they made on discovery this past sunday where he said it, "god does not exist" in his weird ass computer voice... and im sorry if my response does not make sense to you

At least get your quote correct. "If you accept as you do that the laws of nature are fixed, it doesn't take long to ask what role there is for god. It's my view that the simplest explanation is there is no god. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization there is probably no heaven and no afterlife either."

First, his conclusion is clearly based on an "if", an assumption that the laws of nature are fixed. and he assumes the answer is simple. He never says there absolutely is no god, it's just that is what his conclusion is. This is no different than what many of the posters here on RIU have been saying, that this is the conclusion they have come to personally. No one, including Hawking is saying he is 100% right and anyone that disagrees with him is wrong. In the panel discussion afterward, Michio Kaku said that Hawking went too far,
"I believe that Stephen is going a little bit too far in saying that because time itself was born at the instant of the big bang, therefore there is no god."
He then goes on to explain what string theorists say about the existence of a multiverse that our universe is only a part and that there are rules for this multiverse and we can talk about a world before the big bang.

As much as Hawking has become the voice of cosmology over the years, his actual credentials in physics is much less impressive than many other scientists out there. He really hasn't made a major impact since his paper on Hawking radiation of black holes and even there he made a major misstep when he create the information paradox. I guess what I'm pointing out to you is that Hawking is NOT a leading authority on many things, his actual area of expertise is quite small and this is a good example of why arguments from authority should be thoroughly questioned.

 

[olylifter420]

I see, so hawkins sucks to quote then... And it is my interpretation that from what.he has said, he certainly believes God doesnt exist, so why try to defend him? Also, I gave credit to who said it, although not word per word, but in my understanding.

Why is it that you somehow always pick on what I say?

I respect everything you say, but I dont call you out for it do I?

But its ok, let us continue our debate if you will.

At least get your quote correct. "If you accept as you do that the laws of nature are fixed, it doesn't take long to ask what role there is for god. It's my view that the simplest explanation is there is no god. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization there is probably no heaven and no afterlife either."

First, his conclusion is clearly based on an "if", an assumption that the laws of nature are fixed. and he assumes the answer is simple. He never says there absolutely is no god, it's just that is what his conclusion is. This is no different than what many of the posters here on RIU have been saying, that this is the conclusion they have come to personally. No one, including Hawking is saying he is 100% right and anyone that disagrees with him is wrong. In the panel discussion afterward, Michio Kaku said that Hawking went too far,
"I believe that Stephen is going a little bit too far in saying that because time itself was born at the instant of the big bang, therefore there is no god."
He then goes on to explain what string theorists say about the existence of a multiverse that our universe is only a part and that there are rules for this multiverse and we can talk about a world before the big bang.

As much as Hawking has become the voice of cosmology over the years, his actual credentials in physics is much less impressive than many other scientists out there. He really hasn't made a major impact since his paper on Hawking radiation of black holes and even there he made a major misstep when he create the information paradox. I guess what I'm pointing out to you is that Hawking is NOT a leading authority on many things, his actual area of expertise is quite small and this is a good example of why arguments from authority should be thoroughly questioned.

 

[olylifter420]

I have much respect for Dr. Kakuo, sorry for the misspell.

But string theory? Have not bothered to read up on it.

So then, if hawkins suks in the field, why do they have him as the main person on this subject?

I think they used him to show to people that God is cruel, thats why he is in a wheelchair, therefore giving the audience a sense of compassion and hopefully willing to side him.

At least get your quote correct. "If you accept as you do that the laws of nature are fixed, it doesn't take long to ask what role there is for god. It's my view that the simplest explanation is there is no god. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization there is probably no heaven and no afterlife either."

First, his conclusion is clearly based on an "if", an assumption that the laws of nature are fixed. and he assumes the answer is simple. He never says there absolutely is no god, it's just that is what his conclusion is. This is no different than what many of the posters here on RIU have been saying, that this is the conclusion they have come to personally. No one, including Hawking is saying he is 100% right and anyone that disagrees with him is wrong. In the panel discussion afterward, Michio Kaku said that Hawking went too far,
"I believe that Stephen is going a little bit too far in saying that because time itself was born at the instant of the big bang, therefore there is no god."
He then goes on to explain what string theorists say about the existence of a multiverse that our universe is only a part and that there are rules for this multiverse and we can talk about a world before the big bang.

As much as Hawking has become the voice of cosmology over the years, his actual credentials in physics is much less impressive than many other scientists out there. He really hasn't made a major impact since his paper on Hawking radiation of black holes and even there he made a major misstep when he create the information paradox. I guess what I'm pointing out to you is that Hawking is NOT a leading authority on many things, his actual area of expertise is quite small and this is a good example of why arguments from authority should be thoroughly questioned.

 

[mindphuk]

I see, so hawkins sucks to quote then... And it is my interpretation that from what.he has said, he certainly believes God doesnt exist, so why try to defend him? Also, I gave credit to who said it, although not word per word, but in my understanding.

Why is it that you somehow always pick on what I say?

I respect everything you say, but I dont call you out for it do I?

But its ok, let us continue our debate if you will.

Please understand that correcting your error or misconceptions is not picking on you. I am honestly trying to explain what you seem to be questioning.

 

[RawBudzski]

Mind Oly is sheltered. until you have him explain his christian religion and its meaning you wont know to which extent his mind is actually phukd

 

[mindphuk]

I have much respect for Dr. Kakuo, sorry for the misspell.

But string theory? Have not bothered to read up on it.

So then, if hawkins suks in the field, why do they have him as the main person on this subject?

I think they used him to show to people that God is cruel, thats why he is in a wheelchair, therefore giving the audience a sense of compassion and hopefully willing to side him.

Hawking doesn't suck, he just isn't the end-all-be-all that some in the popular media make him out to be. He is extremely intelligent and has to do all of the complex mathematics in his head without being able to write it down (although he does use students for that, it is painstakingly slow). He has come up with some ideas that has helped physics and cosmology along but not nearly as prolific as some other physicists that you probably never have heard of before. His popularity is due to his image by the public.

His story is also quite remarkable as he should be dead by now and that along with his incredible brain makes for a good story and a good face of physics. I think it's less of a sympathy angle as you say but more of a look what even he can accomplish attitude. Sort of a 'fuck you' to the randomness and cruelty of the world, here's someone that overcame the bad cards he was dealt.

You say 'they' have him as the main person on 'this subject' but that is not the case although I can see why it might appear to be from someone outside of the physics community. He is popular because like I said, he couldn't have accomplished even a fraction of what he did unless he was supremely intelligent and he has written some books for the lay public on the subjects of cosmology. Books written for the public at large, if they become popular, certainly help the reputation of the author.

 

[RawBudzski]

Man Mindphuk I have been waiting for you all day. Common sense cannot crack Oly, he needs Long Paragraphs like that to intimidate him because we all know.. if its a structured paragraph than it must be true.

 

[tyler.durden]

Hey, Gents. It's nice to see some rational people here defending science and atheism. Big shout out to Heisenberg! I read his microbes thread many times, and after battling slime and root problems for many harvests, I now use his tea and growing is now a breeze His posts remind me of Sam Harris in insight and fairness, and he and mindphuk are owning this thread! Keep up the good fight...

 

[Heisenberg]

what is the purpose to following these theories and laws if they will eventually be disproven, maybe not in our time, but they will... just like that boy who is disproving several theories already... it is obvious that religion and religious practices have been around since man evolved, then why is it so hard to accept now?

False premise. You speak as if all theories will eventually be proven wrong. Again, you are depending on certain assumptions to give your arguments validity. We follow theories because they are the best mechanism we have for explaining and understanding our observations. Each time a theory is proven wrong, another becomes a little more right. Knowing something is incorrect is just another piece in the puzzle that helps us see the big picture. Are you saying you would respect science more if it made up it's mind once and for all and then never considered the subject again? What are we to do when new technologies are developed which help us find new evidence? Should science ignore the new evidence for the sake of not loosing face? There is no shame in admitting you were incorrect and then moving on to find the correct answer. Also, as it has been pointed out, all scientific conclusions are predicated on the understanding that things can change. Science provides no absolute answers, nor does it pretend to.

I do accept religion of course. I accept that there is religion now, and has been for a very long time. This argument is not about if religion exists. I do not accept the claim of a deity, and I have explained my reasons thoroughly.

you cannot prove God does not exist, but you can disprove theories.


God cannot be proven or disproven through science, but certain theories can be disproved through time consuming research.

the evidence of God is anecdotal and a personal experience that no one else will ever understand. There is no method at disproving or proving God, so why make such a big deal about it?

It has been explained to you that no one is trying to disprove god. If someone says they can disprove god, you should not see them as an atheist, but a dumbass. You may be able to find some atheists making invalid arguments, but ultimately those should be ignored. It is not valid to pretend that those arguments are the whole of atheism and refuting them refutes the entire stance. Someone who is interested in the truth recognizes bad arguments, may even call them out, but he pays the most attention to the arguments that make sense.

 

[olylifter420]

I do agree with everything you say. When discussing things with, I get a better sense of the subject. Others on here think they are really smart and make assumptions.

Im glad I can agree with what you have said and I know I have wondered off topic a bit and for that I apologize.

Thanks bro.

False premise. You speak as if all theories will eventually be proven wrong. Again, you are depending on certain assumptions to give your arguments validity. We follow theories because they are the best mechanism we have for explaining and understanding our observations. Each time a theory is proven wrong, another becomes a little more right. Knowing something is incorrect is just another piece in the puzzle that helps us see the big picture. Are you saying you would respect science more if it made up it's mind once and for all and then never considered the subject again? What are we to do when new technologies are developed which help us find new evidence? Should science ignore the new evidence for the sake of not loosing face? There is no shame in admitting you were incorrect and then moving on to find the correct answer. Also, as it has been pointed out, all scientific conclusions are predicated on the understanding that things can change. Science provides no absolute answers, nor does it pretend to.

I do accept religion of course. I accept that there is religion now, and has been for a very long time. This argument is not about if religion exists. I do not accept the claim of a deity, and I have explained my reasons thoroughly.



It has been explained to you that no one is trying to disprove god. If someone says they can disprove god, you should not see them as an atheist, but a dumbass. You may be able to find some atheists making invalid arguments, but ultimately those should be ignored. It is not valid to pretend that those arguments are the whole of atheism and refuting them refutes the entire stance. Someone who is interested in the truth recognizes bad arguments, may even call them out, but he pays the most attention to the arguments that make sense.

 

[olylifter420]

You truly are a jackass!

Man Mindphuk I have been waiting for you all day. Common sense cannot crack Oly, he needs Long Paragraphs like that to intimidate him because we all know.. if its a structured paragraph than it must be true.

 

[olylifter420]

Again, you are a jackass!

Mind Oly is sheltered. until you have him explain his christian religion and its meaning you wont know to which extent his mind is actually phukd

 

[marleyman5]

http://[URL="http://www.scribd.com/7142595/what did jesus realy say/"]www.scribd.com/7142595/what did jesus realy say/[/URL] @hiesenberg and @sativa high...chapter 13 of this book is called the miracle and chalenge of thhe quran...there is scientifiic proof that there is a diety worthy of worship..please read and post it so we believers and disbelievers can debate! pages 617 thru 632 need to be posted up here ther is outstanding proof that you guys challenge everyone to find..im waiting on you heisenberg to tell me what you think....