Arguing from ignorance - Page 2

KontanKarite · 08-13-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCC.

Objectively, what's to say some sort of being or collection of didn't kick start something. Theoretically, it's possible to create a universe in yr basement. If a God was all powerful, couldn't they create evolution? It could be thought of in the same way a scientist brings together a collection of elements and bam, some shit or other happens. For all we know, God or Allah or Zardon the Planet Eater was actually called Steve and wore a lab coat. This can allow for both, with some leniency. I think I read some place that they can trace the big bang back to a nano second after it happened, and really, it's beyond pointless trying to go back farther. You can't remember the moment you were conceived, you didn't officially exist. If what came before the Universe was nothing which became something, you'll never find that nothing, because it's not there to find. If it was a collection of elements in a microwave, you couldn't find that either, because of space shifting so as not to collide with the already existing Universe. If some sort of God other than Steve in his lab coat exists, which would mean at least some of the Bible is true, then finding the point of origin of the universe is pointless again, because apparently, there was dick all there. What's that idea that at any point, anything can happen, no matter how illogical or improbable? Like one day your fridge turns into Harold Ramis or something for no reason at all. I forget. Any way, the chances of these things happening are fucking tiny. Before the universe, there was nothing but time, and given enough time, whatever happened to spark this shit could have happened, whether it being the nothing becoming aware of it's existence, or two nothings bumped into each other and exploded in a massive non space.

If God exists, so what? Evolution has it's zealots all the same. From my experience, it's those guys that get their titties all twisted up when it comes to discussing creation. I say let people believe what the fuck ever they want, just don't expect me to give a rat's asshole.

I'm from the Don't Give A Shit camp at this point. I'm past caring whether or not people believe in a God, and whether or not a God exists. The same old crap still bugs me, using religion as a way to argue the correctness of your own bigotry, but that still happens even when religion isn't involved, so there's no difference other than someone thinks a book is true. Religion doesn't kill people, nut balls do. Non religious nut balls kill people just the same.

You hit the point a little bit. The discussion of the existence of god and I mean that entirely towards the Abrahamic religions that dominate most of western and mid eastern spirituality, is NOT about faith and weather god exists at all. It is not a philosophical argument, it is not a spiritual argument, and it's not a religious argument. It's a POLITICAL argument. The discovery of God existing as a fact is LOADED with a plethora of implications of social retardation. If God existed, Tam could impose her bigoted will towards homosexuals and their rights to marriage on a much more extroverted style in a much more forceful way by any means she sees fit because she would be enforcing the will of the ultimate authority. If her god existed, the Bible would be LAW and not a spiritual instruction manual.

To be honest, no one really CARES about the existence of God in a spiritual truth sense because NO ONE can really know that and the idea of it is not immediately threatening to our livelihoods as humans. We REALLY don't care if Thor exists or even the Green Man because there are no actual divine laws from them demanding a certain lifestyle and behavior.

Christians and other Abrahamic religions do not CARE about spiritual converts. They REALLY only care about their political equity. If their God was proven to be real, they would have the keys to the city and they would become the authority and will of the law. That is WHAT their final goal is. That is what they want in the end. If they cared so much about peace and love, the idea of converting non-believers would not matter so much at all.

Evangelism is political and social assault. To say that you faithfully subscribe to an Abrahamic belief structure is to say that you support a future system of theocracy. Even if you hold democracy and God in a fair and dualistic mindset, you're still supporting the idea of a theocracy peripherally. Politically, the belief structure does not care about democracy and human rights, it only cares about the execution of divine laws.

KontanKarite · 08-13-2010, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ape descendant

....yup...

I do, however, have a real teapot in my cupboard..

Stop being stupid. Tam isn't being nice, she's being an insidious, bigoted, fascist like she always is. Stop excusing her.

ape descendant · 08-13-2010, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Stop being stupid. Tam isn't being nice, she's being an insidious, bigoted, fascist like she always is. Stop excusing her.

Oh pull your panties out of your ass... she knows she's been owned six ways from sunday.

If you have a problem with my arguments... come up with an explanation and rebuttal...

However, I will talk with whomever I wish, in whatever manner I like.

JCC. · 08-13-2010, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

You hit the point a little bit. The discussion of the existence of god and I mean that entirely towards the Abrahamic religions that dominate most of western and mid eastern spirituality, is NOT about faith and weather god exists at all. It is not a philosophical argument, it is not a spiritual argument, and it's not a religious argument. It's a POLITICAL argument. The discovery of God existing as a fact is LOADED with a plethora of implications of social retardation. If God existed, Tam could impose her bigoted will towards homosexuals and their rights to marriage on a much more extroverted style in a much more forceful way by any means she sees fit because she would be enforcing the will of the ultimate authority. If her god existed, the Bible would be LAW and not a spiritual instruction manual.

To be honest, no one really CARES about the existence of God in a spiritual truth sense because NO ONE can really know that and the idea of it is not immediately threatening to our livelihoods as humans. We REALLY don't care if Thor exists or even the Green Man because there are no actual divine laws from them demanding a certain lifestyle and behavior.

Christians and other Abrahamic religions do not CARE about spiritual converts. They REALLY only care about their political equity. If their God was proven to be real, they would have the keys to the city and they would become the authority and will of the law. That is WHAT their final goal is. That is what they want in the end. If they cared so much about peace and love, the idea of converting non-believers would not matter so much at all.

Evangelism is political and social assault. To say that you faithfully subscribe to an Abrahamic belief structure is to say that you support a future system of theocracy. Even if you hold democracy and God in a fair and dualistic mindset, you're still supporting the idea of a theocracy peripherally. Politically, the belief structure does not care about democracy and human rights, it only cares about the execution of divine laws.

Everything else is collective dick measuring.

KontanKarite · 08-13-2010, 01:35 PM

Duckman, yes in a sense you're right about the dick measuring.

But seriously, no one REALLY cares that much in a spiritual sense. Without the divine law, Christianity is about as relevant in how we feel about this world as Paganism.

So spiritually, as an atheist, I care not about Valhalla, Tartarus, Heaven, Nirvana, or Hell. However, some form of afterlife WOULD be nice. But if that were the case, I could only hope it is entirely divorced from the way we do business in this life. I am speaking hypothetically of course.

JCC. · 08-13-2010, 01:40 PM

Yeah, I agree with you.

Also, I hope that if there is an after life, it's optional.

KontanKarite · 08-13-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ape descendant

Oh pull your panties out of your ass... she knows she's been owned six ways from sunday.

If you have a problem with my arguments... come up with an explanation and rebuttal...

However, I will talk with whomever I wish, in whatever manner I like.

She's trying to absorb your argument and your stance by getting an atheist to agree with her, hence passively leeching credence from you yielding. She got one over on you in the most bitchiest of passive aggressive tactics.

ape descendant · 08-13-2010, 02:03 PM

Is she going to magically make me a theist? Am I magically going to support intelligent design?

Does the act of her agreeing with a couple of statements I made magically change the meaning of the words I said?

What are you getting at, what is the real problem?

KontanKarite · 08-13-2010, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ape descendant

Is she going to magically make me a theist? Am I magically going to support intelligent design?

Does the act of her agreeing with a couple of statements I made magically change the meaning of the words I said?

What are you getting at, what is the real problem?

No. She used her verbal judo and caused you to side with her.

You were actually saying that science can't measure something supernatural as if supernatural was something that exists, but observably, it doesn't. She took your argument and made you look like you said that science can't measure something supernatural, so that means because it can't, we can assume that the supernatural exists anyway without it being held up to any real scrutiny.

Basically, you served her up a win on silver platter.

Good move, Tam. But those bitch tactics doesn't work on our smarter members. You're still a bigoted bitch. Go die in a fire.

Fruitbat · 08-13-2010, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

I guess I should make myself a little more clear. The more that science discovers about the world, the more convinced I am that there had to be an Intelligence to make it all come about so neatly and wonderfully.

But I also see the other side of how some folks feel that science undoes the traditional idea of a literal 7-Day creationist God. I can see it, but due to personal events, I can't say that God doesn't exist. [I don't expect others to agree with me, and have no desire to convert others to my way of thinking; just offering my thoughts.]

Tam - I agree the world is wonderful.

ape descendant · 08-13-2010, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

No. She used her verbal judo and caused you to side with her.

You were actually saying that science can't measure something supernatural as if supernatural was something that exists, but observably, it doesn't. She took your argument and made you look like you said that science can't measure something supernatural, so that means because it can't, we can assume that the supernatural exists anyway without it being held up to any real scrutiny.

Basically, you served her up a win on silver platter.

Good move, Tam. But those bitch tactics doesn't work on our smarter members. You're still a bigoted bitch. Go die in a fire.

That's not what she said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Honestly, I completely agree with both of these statements, especially the first one; no matter which side of the fence you're on, using something natural to prove or disprove something supernatural just isn't going to work.

I can no more prove to another person the idea of an Intelligent Creator with science than I can prove that there's an invisible teapot circling Pluto, and vice versa.

That's what she said... and it looks like we agree that trying to prove the supernatural won't work... and that she's can't prove the idea of an intelligent creator.... and she can't...

And science CAN'T study the supernatural, it can't be measured or quantified if science could study it.. it would have to be NATURAL, we'd be able to measure it, study it and test it.

Admitting the limitations of the scientific method is NOT offering a win, its called honesty.

Alan · 08-13-2010, 02:55 PM

So are you saying that because science can't measure the "supernatural" because, you know, it DOESN'T EXIST, we must give the benefit of the doubt and think that the "supernatural" is on a plane higher than science?

I really don't think that's what you meant, but hey, guess what, that's what Tam said when she said she agrees with you.
That's what Kontan's talking about. Just tell her to fuck off becuase her bullshit rhetoric does not deserve your time. Remember this is the same woman who doesn't give a shit about equal rights for LGBT people.

Hearts_Purple · 08-13-2010, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

So are you saying that because science can't measure the "supernatural" because, you know, it DOESN'T EXIST, we must give the benefit of the doubt and think that the "supernatural" is on a plane higher than science?

I really don't think that's what you meant, but hey, guess what, that's what Tam said when she said she agrees with you.
That's what Kontan's talking about. Just tell her to fuck off becuase her bullshit rhetoric does not deserve your time. Remember this is the same woman who doesn't give a shit about equal rights for LGBT people.

This, exactly.

Despanan · 08-13-2010, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Some people will claim they have, but yet others who have never seen a train or its effects will doubt that the trains are real at all, and that all those wounds are from something else entirely.

Who are these rail-deniers of which you speak?

Tell me, that I might enlighten their locomotionless existence.

ape descendant · 08-13-2010, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

No. She used her verbal judo and caused you to side with her.

You were actually saying that science can't measure something supernatural as if supernatural was something that exists, but observably, it doesn't. She took your argument and made you look like you said that science can't measure something supernatural, so that means because it can't, we can assume that the supernatural exists anyway without it being held up to any real scrutiny.

Damnit... I re-read everything to double check my arguments... and you're goddamned right..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

I can no more prove to another person the idea of an Intelligent Creator with science than I can prove that there's an invisible teapot circling Pluto, and vice versa.

Right there at the end... damned "vice versa"....

I apologize for and withdraw my horrible panties comment.

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. And there is a glaring absence of evidence for god and other supernatural creatures.

viscus · 08-13-2010, 06:25 PM

The supernatural can't be tested by science, and therein lies the problem. God is unfalsifiable, there is no reproducible or falsifiable test of his existence that anyone could ever come up with.

What if I told you that I created the universe? I just willed everything into existence 8 minutes ago, including your fully-formed brain with all of it's false memories. You can't prove that I didn't!

The concept of God is exactly the same.

ape descendant · 08-13-2010, 06:34 PM

While, I may not be able to to prove that you didn't do what you said you did, it would be rather silly of me to believe you if you had no proof to back up your claim as it is a rather wild one.

vindicatedxjin · 08-13-2010, 07:41 PM

...I think I'm going to try to not think about any of this...and go get high...

viscus · 08-14-2010, 06:02 AM

By all means, fill your bloodstream with THC to give yourself an excuse for being a moron.

ssj_goku · 08-14-2010, 07:31 AM

You guyas ned to stopp being som ean to Tam. SHe's trying to prov god like Kent Hovind! (Plus shes a mod and will ban joo!)

Underwater Ophelia · 08-14-2010, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Yeah, that can be frustrating.

What's worse are folks who think that proving how well science works undoes God's existence.

[I refuse to accept the idea that I have to be either for God OR for science, as if it's a sports competition instead of a search for truth.]

Only an idiot believes that proving science works disproves the existence of a god. The thing that disproves it is the lack of a god.

Underwater Ophelia · 08-14-2010, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

I guess I should make myself a little more clear. The more that science discovers about the world, the more convinced I am that there had to be an Intelligence to make it all come about so neatly and wonderfully.

But I also see the other side of how some folks feel that science undoes the traditional idea of a literal 7-Day creationist God. I can see it, but due to personal events, I can't say that God doesn't exist. [I don't expect others to agree with me, and have no desire to convert others to my way of thinking; just offering my thoughts.]

The world is pretty great, but it isn't as neat and wonderful as you say.
Cancer exists, the sun is going to destroy all life, and we're all rusting on the inside, which leads to our deaths unless we're killed by something else.