Atheist Day on the Peoria.com Forums - Page 3

I learned a long time ago, Deacon, that one can not change another's mind or beliefs concerning politics and religion on a internet board. I can't change yours, you will not change mine.

And for Christianity, evolution, "the big bang" theory, etc., one is a far fetched as the other. Pick the one YOU want to believe in and go with it.

I'm not going to try to change your mind. Even if I had everything you asked for above, I don't think it would make a difference. It would always be some other argument and that is why I hold first my belief in my first paragraph.

And did I say the Christian belief was the correct one? No. You just jumped to a conclusion since I bashed evolution....that is if your post above was in response to me.

Deacon, I have no need to teach you anything about God, I can say that all your claims about me are false.

You are ranting like a 10 year old spoiled brat, get a grip!

If you want to talk about something and not put words in my mouth, and make false claims against me, that would be fine.

Sorry, Kevin, I realize I've come off as rude, but you must understand the tireless, endless ramblings I get to hear on a regular basis regarding the design argument.  If ducks had six legs and monkeys had feathers, the argument would be why they don't have two legs or hair, respectively.

I am confused where you think I stated your beliefs. All I recall talking about was the argument from design, which is what you made.

The big bang theory really has much to back it up.  Right now, all the evidence fits the model and the model fits the evidence.  Since we have no way of seeing beyond our cosmic "light bubble" at this point, there is no empirical way of proving or disproving it.  A model is a model.

Evolution, on the other hand, can actually be observed through a microscope.  You may consider any basis for a worldview far-fetched, but do know that only one of these worldviews has tangible, empirical evidence to support it.

Rog:  when did I make a false claim against you?  I've made claims which can be traced to the exact bible verses.  Give me an example of when I put words into your mouth, please.  

If you're talking about "buying into some bull-****," I can give you examples if you'd like.  I suppose you could take solace in the fact that you're not the only one.  Your lack of understanding about science is evidenced by your statements regarding it.  Perhaps you'd like to clarify the issue by stating which "bull-****" you're referring to?

You do have a case to make, right?  Let's hear it.  I'm openly asking for you to present your case and using it to point out to where I'm wrong.  The ball is decidedly in your court, though I concede to Kevin's point that this thread has gone off-topic, so it would probably be best to start a new thread.

As for the name-calling, we can do without that.  Are you familiar with the concept of irony, or perhaps the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black?"  

Deacon,

If energy has been here forever, please do not overlook how long "forever" is, why did it wait "forever" to create any matter?

This concept of how things got started makes no sense to me, I could understand that matter has been here forever, but this is not what science is teaching, can you shed some light on this fact for me?

There are two competing theories regarding that question.  The first is, as you've mentioned, that there was no beginning and that things have simply been here forever.  I believe I've heard it explained as a problem with energy, like you said.  It was something along the lines of why it hasn't dispersed far enough by now, and since it hasn't, it begs the question of whether new energy is formed.

The other is the big bang theory, which gave birth to the oscillating (or pulsing, depending on the source) universe theory.  This theory hypothesizes an expanding and contracting universe, starting with an initial expansion, which we call the big bang.  Whether it is now expanding or contracting is anyone's guess, since we're only able to detect light that has been traveling for fourteen billion years or so (the presumed age of the universe).  What we're able to detect so far is movement of galaxies by comparing it to detectable radiation floating around in space (also believed to have originated with the big bang), which gives evidence that cosmic bodies (galaxies, etc.) are moving in one direction or another.  But, now I'm in danger of getting off-topic.

There is also a new theory about dubbed "the big bounce," which I have yet to read more on.  This article is interesting, to say the least:  http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce

Scientific American also has some decent answers to the questions you've posed here
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=according-to-the-big-bang-1999-10-21

and here http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=misconceptions-about-the-2005-03

If you're truly looking for answers regarding these questions, these are the among the most authoritative places to look.

Re: what science teaches

I do understand your frustration with the teaching of theories which aren't demonstrably conclusive, and I'm guessing this is the primary source of your distress.  But do remember that this has been the way it is done throughout history:  99% of success is failure, or trial by error.  In scientific texts and lectures, the most plausible, researched, tested theory is advanced as part of the curriculum until it is either expanded upon, corrected, or replaced by a more accurate theory. 

Take for instance the idea that the earth is the center of the universe.  The model worked for many, many years through measurements and demonstrations.  It accurately predicted what planets would be where and when.  Naturally, when the theory was challenged by the likes of Galileo (whose theories and ideas were rejected by the church, who banned access to them for many years), people defended the old model because it did what it said it would do.  Galileo's model, however, was more precise and, overall, worked better.  With the advent of telescopes and space exploration, his theories have been irrefutably confirmed.

That's really the way it works in most areas of science.  No scientist or scientific writer presents a theory as absolute truth, they present it as a theory--but a theory in the scientific sense, not in the "hunch" sense.  This means it has passed the extremely rigorous demands of the scientific method and has passed peer review.  These theories, with what they do prove, can also be used to disprove other theories or hypotheses.

While it may not be ideal to teach theories for which we do not possess total, synoptic knowledge of, promulgate the inverse:  imagine if doctors weren't taught anatomy or surgery only because there are still areas of uncertainty.  As you can see, this would lead to a scientific, technological and social regress, likely causing much pain and suffering along the way (as I humorously imagine a doctor with no idea where the heart is attempting an open-heart surgery).  I hope I've answered your question.

OK Deacon, Mr Atheist, I've been away for some time, but I had to respond to this thread.

Have you studied the human eye, and all of it's detail? etc?

When my ^%ck becomes erect, it fits perfectly into a females body.

Only GOD could have done these things.

If you have looked or studied the incredible human body, you absolutely have to come to the conclusion that there is NO WAY that some BIG BANG, or EVOLUTION could have done something so close to perfect, in His image.

Better yet.... Have a child? Take a good look and tell me some big bang or evolution created that from an egg and some sperm. Thank you.

As far as the other Atheists here, first of all, why are you on a religion board? Diez, Get a job and work on Christmas Day, since you don't believe He exists, or lives to this day! The day is truly to celebrate the birth of Jesus, which in fact we admit, would be insignificant if He wouldn't have subsequently died for us.

I'm so sorry for the lost ones. Wish they'd listen up, and look around.

I choose to believe, not only because I know fire's hot, and Heaven's not, but I love Him because He loves me. ( and I'll get to see my parents again!) You get in the fires of hell and sorry, but it's BoomDone by then. The free pass happened on the Cross,not for HIM, but for YOU !

Soooo.. PLHHHHHHH!!!!!

Also, Re: why did it wait forever

Obviously, we can only speculate at this point.  The most popular/plausible theory is some sort of nuclear reaction within the singularity that spawned the universe is what cause the big bang.  At this point it is beyond our physical means to actually see what caused it, but there are experiments currently underway to discover the kinds of conditions that were present shortly after the big bang (google LHC or "Large Hadron Collider" to find out more).

Needless to say, this is a problem which necessarily must be resolved by working backwards.  That's what's going on at this moment.  It's actually quite exciting to wait and see what they discover.

Kevster

1)  the eye is not irreversibly complex.  Eyes, eye-like organs and light-detecting structures can be found in many organisms, including amoeba.  There is most definitely an order of progression.  An understanding of natural selection will remedy this misperception.

2)  when every other animals ^%ck becomes erect, it fits perfectly too.  Congratulations:  you know how the reproductive process starts.

3)  There is no evidence of God.  State your case.

4)  "in His image."  Using scripture to prove the existence of God is like using a fork to prove there's a cosmic hamster who creates galaxies out of spectral bubblegum.  The bible is proof that the writers of the bible exist, nothing more.

5)  A college level introduction to biology or human sexuality should clear up any confusion on how babies are formed.

6)  your rationale for believing in god appears to be:  "I DO believe, I DO believe, I DO believe... therefore God exists."  Replace "god" with "fairies," "dragons," "plaid unicorns" or "talking jellybeans" and you'll end up with the same poverty of reasoning.

7)  To quote Albert Einstein:  "Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."  Feigning belief in god because something bad might happen isn't really belief at all, and the belief itself is quite shallow and lacking any meaning.

8)  as for why I'm here:  there was overt bigotry directed towards atheists.  I responded.

Now that I think about it, 9) insisting that because we don't know something (your examples are already known or mostly known), God must have done it really demonstrates a lack of inquiry or imagination (or, on the inverse, too much imagination) as well as a deep intellectual laziness or neo-luddite tendencies. You must be aware that god is finding fewer and fewer gaps to fall into as we gain ever more knowledge and understanding of how the universe works.

All good Deacon. No problem. One of the things I have been taught is the fact that you can't debate with a madman, so I won't go there.

Just don't cry out to Him on your deathbed, ( but if you do, He'll be there.) (That's just how good He is)

And.. fyi. He made the animals too!, and amoeba's, and everything else you can see, hear, touch, feel, imagine etc etc.. so that argument holds no weight.

BUT... Can I have all your money, since you don't need it? If you notice, it says "IN GOD WE TRUST" on it. If you're spending it, earning it, or striving to get it, you're a hypocrite at best.

I take it you have no children. I sure hope that if you do, you're not teaching them in your ways.

The fact is that much of our history as well as our future is a sophisticated wild assed guess by countless scientists and so called experts, each of whom thinks they know more than the next guy.

In Christianity, believing in God is not about proof, but by a gift given unto us by the Holy Spirit called FAITH.

Just as I could never begin to explain how an Atheist feels, I do not want non-believers telling me how I should feel. That would be like you, Deacon, trying to tell me what morning sickness feels like. Until you have faith, you cannot begin to understand what it means to us to be Christian.

So Deacon, if you want to continue believing in nothing, be my guest. You have that right, and I will not try to take it away from you. In return, we ask that you accept our faith and love for the Lord and allow us to worship in peace without your scorn.

Finally, I can't help but think that self professed atheists that visit a religious forum are either 1. looking for entertainment or 2. searching for a higher calling. If your answer is number 2, you can learn a lot here. Good luck.

Deacon,

Thanks for the info you have provided, I have missed one paper on the list, I will take look at it tonight.

The bottom line is, and you seem to agree, science does not know what (yet) they want us to believe they know, and some things they put forth as fact are simply nothing more than an educated guess that (in your words) are wrong 99% of the time.

I'm sure in another thousand years, man will look back at what science taught in our generation about how we came to be and get a good laugh, just as we now laugh at the flat earth concept, history seems to repeat like that.

God has been here forever, and will be here forever, I don't expect you to buy into that, and I hope you can see why I won't buy into the guess work of science.

With that said, I choose to let our religious/science debate rest.

I want to say thanks for at least taking a look at my question about matter and time, the last expert on here that I asked the same question, claimed to not understand the question.

Kevster:  No need to resort to petty insults.  And no, I do not have children, but if I do, I will raise them with secular values.  I must say, your bitterness and hateful attitude makes a greater case against religion than any argument I could ever construct.

One thing which I find interesting about your argument is the utter ineffectiveness of it.  The non sequitur therein is staggering and you have failed to realize that just because you can think of no scientific explanations for the things you list in no way means that others haven't or cannot.  Does anyone here wish to take me up on a bet that Kevster is not a scientist nor familiar with science?

JnJ:  This is a common misperception about atheists, that we have no clue about the religions we reject; it is categorically false.  

For your information, I understand perfectly well what it means to be a Christian.  Since this is a country dominated by Christianity, most atheists do indeed come from a religious background, whether it's by finding faith or ground-up religious upbringing.  

I happen to fall into the former category, though my family is traditionally religious.  I was a born-again Christian, arguably as fundamentalist as Kevster appears to be.  For numerous reasons--and after much personal grief and mourning--I rejected religion in favor of reason and faith in favor of evidence.  I can still talk the talk, I'm quite familiar with Christian references, undertones, cultural signifiers and boundaries, as well as the dogma and apologetics.

And how insulting that you assume I believe in nothing.  I believe in plenty of things, such as the potential for human goodness, the equal rights of all, the importance of family, et al.  Christians do not (nor have ever) had a monopoly on meaning.

My reasons for being in a religious forum were previously stated:  there was blatant bigotry taking place which targeted atheists.  I responded in our defense.

On the face of it, you're an atheist too;  I just go one god further.  When you understand the reasons you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours.

Big Rog:  Incorrect--I said the process by which they reach a theory is a result of trial and error--that success is 99% failure is a colloquialism.  While complete knowledge is impossible, we can see by observing the accomplishments of man thus far that we don't need complete knowledge to act upon what we do know.

As for your insistence that there is a god, again, I ask for evidence.  I can provide evidence of biological evolution and the big bang--all I'm asking is for something in return.

In rejecting science, you must realize that you are rejecting virtually bottomless oceans of verifiable evidence.  I'm sure you don't neglect to visit the doctor when you're ill (modern medicine itself being a product of the theory of evolution), nor do you choose to walk instead of drive, or write letters instead of use a computer connected to the internet, as you are doing now.  What I'm wondering is, why some and not the other?  Both are based on the same rigorous research.

At any rate, I ought to be thanking you for asking a truly legitimate question which deserved a thoughtful response.  Good talk.

Please quote my " petty insults" , and we'll go from there, and nice dodge there on the "children" ( the plural of child) Do you have a child?

Anddddd, Does anyone that is reading this thread have reference to a post that I made that I said I'm a scientist?

I'm curious to know if you have a Christmas tree, and if so, why? And, IF you have a job, are you working on Dec 25?
Just wondering.

1:

"One of the things I have been taught is the fact that you can't debate with a madman, so I won't go there."  This insult should be self-evident.

"you're a hypocrite at best."  Please explain to me what currency has to do with Christianity?  "In God we trust" has no significance to me.  If anything, you should be the one refusing to seek it:

"Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."" - Luke 18:24-25

What a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.

"I take it you have no children. I sure hope that if you do, you're not teaching them in your ways."

Insisting that I'm somehow unfit to raise children is pretty demeaning, Kevster.  Hopefully your mother taught you better.  I'm not sure how denying having "children" dodges any question, but no, I do not have a child either.  For a man who claims to be loved by god, you sure have a misanthropic outlook.

2:

You're claiming that science is wrong, so surely you must know much about it.  Or, you're not a credible source on the topic and probably shouldn't be listened to.  Which is it?

3:

No Christmas tree, yes, I'm off on December 25th.  It's a federal holiday and if I were forced to work while others were given a day off, I'd probably not have to work any more as I'd have a pretty good grievance to pursue in court for discrimination.  That's how the law works, Kevster--if one group of people are given a holiday, all people must have the same opportunity.  However, if I were offered overtime, I'd work on the 25th.  The day has no significance to me whatsoever other than dinner with my parents and a few gift cards.

-

Obviously it was a mistake on my part to engage you.  I'll be sure to avoid your posts in the future.

Sorry to get under your skin "Deacon" Seems as though you have a problem with me. That's ok. I'm supposed to make atheists mad. Have we spoken before perhaps? Your logic seems AWFUL familiar. Sure you don't have a child?

One other thing, I'm not deeming you unfit, and DON'T YOU DARE bring MY MOTHER into this. You may remember when a psycho collector did the same.

So sorry to get you so upset. You seem to be losing your touch. Need prayer perhaps?

Sorry I'm gonna miss your response. I HAVE to go see Glenn Beck.