The book i posted is based on science.
Poll
Are you a Christian?
| I would like to be | 50% | 50% - 157 | 50% | 50% - 157 | ||
| I don't want anything to do with that! | 55% | 55% - 174 | 44% | 44% - 140 | ||
| Total: 314 | ||||||
Kobrakai wrote:
Proud To Be An Atheist.
^proud to big ignorant apparently?Darth_Fleder wrote:
Proud To Be A Christian.
JamDude, this is where you fail in comprehending what we are telling you...
The Privileged Planet book/movie only takes scientific discoveries and attempts to attribute a "designer" to everything. In fact, any "intelligent design" writing is based on science and is written in the exact same way...pointing out the scientific discoveries made by scientists around the world, and then leaving out certain facts or not explaining everything properly only to lead on the non-scientific readers to believe that some "designer" created everything that science is finding.
It's a subversive way to undermine the efforts of Science, and it is gaining popularity among the "faithful" for they think it gives them some ammunition against the fact-finding goals of Science itself. The truth is, intelligent design would have absolutely nothing to go on if they didn't have scientific discoveries to twist around to fit their beliefs.
For example, you keep saying how amazing it is that this is the most habitable place to view solar eclipses. Claiming that a "designer" made that happen is utterly ridiculous, as one, this is not the only planet or point of reference in the solar system that we can see an eclipse. From other planets, you'll see eclipses from their own moons, or watch other planets themselves in Transit across the sun. The fact is that we humans are living on the Earth, and we cannot easily go to other planets to view eclipses, and the amount of Moons we have does not scientifically conclude anything about our planet.
The priviledged planet also brings up an observation that it's "amazing" that we have such a clear atmosphere from which to view stars and so forth. Oh yes, according to them, it's Obvious that some designer did that just so we could find out about stars. (Despite the fact that Mars has a thin atmosphere that was once probably very Earth-like...the heat of the sun is diminishing, and in the early years of Sol's creation, the surface of Earth was probably very much like Venus while the temperate zones of Earth were present on Mars).
Science says we have one moon. Your "ID" says that one should believe that god made it so we only have one moon. All in all, your concepts of "design" in the universe are only quick to find holes in scientific progress and fill those holes in with "god." Any advances in science that fill those holes in will just cause the ID people to switch their words around and start focusing on their other fronts. Anything and everything that people aren't satisfied with will just be explained through a god in order to comfort them.
Since god cannot be proven either way, it automatically is NOT science.
Science: The atmosphere is made up of clear gases that offer us a moderately clear view of the universe.
ID: As science said, the atmosphere is clear, but the very fact that it allows us to see the universe means that some designer made it so!
Basically Jamdude, get back to us when you understand the difference between Science and philosophical ideas that are based on science and are NOT inherently scientific.
The Privileged Planet book/movie only takes scientific discoveries and attempts to attribute a "designer" to everything. In fact, any "intelligent design" writing is based on science and is written in the exact same way...pointing out the scientific discoveries made by scientists around the world, and then leaving out certain facts or not explaining everything properly only to lead on the non-scientific readers to believe that some "designer" created everything that science is finding.
It's a subversive way to undermine the efforts of Science, and it is gaining popularity among the "faithful" for they think it gives them some ammunition against the fact-finding goals of Science itself. The truth is, intelligent design would have absolutely nothing to go on if they didn't have scientific discoveries to twist around to fit their beliefs.
For example, you keep saying how amazing it is that this is the most habitable place to view solar eclipses. Claiming that a "designer" made that happen is utterly ridiculous, as one, this is not the only planet or point of reference in the solar system that we can see an eclipse. From other planets, you'll see eclipses from their own moons, or watch other planets themselves in Transit across the sun. The fact is that we humans are living on the Earth, and we cannot easily go to other planets to view eclipses, and the amount of Moons we have does not scientifically conclude anything about our planet.
The priviledged planet also brings up an observation that it's "amazing" that we have such a clear atmosphere from which to view stars and so forth. Oh yes, according to them, it's Obvious that some designer did that just so we could find out about stars. (Despite the fact that Mars has a thin atmosphere that was once probably very Earth-like...the heat of the sun is diminishing, and in the early years of Sol's creation, the surface of Earth was probably very much like Venus while the temperate zones of Earth were present on Mars).
Science says we have one moon. Your "ID" says that one should believe that god made it so we only have one moon. All in all, your concepts of "design" in the universe are only quick to find holes in scientific progress and fill those holes in with "god." Any advances in science that fill those holes in will just cause the ID people to switch their words around and start focusing on their other fronts. Anything and everything that people aren't satisfied with will just be explained through a god in order to comfort them.
Since god cannot be proven either way, it automatically is NOT science.
Science: The atmosphere is made up of clear gases that offer us a moderately clear view of the universe.
ID: As science said, the atmosphere is clear, but the very fact that it allows us to see the universe means that some designer made it so!
Basically Jamdude, get back to us when you understand the difference between Science and philosophical ideas that are based on science and are NOT inherently scientific.
They went much further in the book than saying " we can see eclipses so God must have made them". I quoted it earlier, they go through all the other moons and all the eclipses happening on other planets in the solar system and science shows them that "the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them". They never said mars didnt have an atmosphere like earth. I dont see how mars having an atmosphere like earths really affects what they are trying to say, other than you want it to seem like they are pointing out all of the good things and ignoring everything else. They do not see everything and instantly say "God made it" without trying to explain them. They look at all the "coincidences" on earth and use science to show thats its not the best explanation.
If by science you mean "they dismiss the facts and substitute their inability to explain what they want to find out with a 'designer'"
They are trying to place a philosophical meaning on the scientifically generated facts. This action alone is not science and is only using science for their own purposes. They have as much credibility saying that god did it all as I have saying that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe last week.
The people who promote ID are NOT scientists. They are philosophers that are trying to attach their own interpretations/meanings to scientific fact, and since all interpretations are subjective and are not reproduceable in people unless you can coerce them to believe in what you believe in, ID remains a philosophy with absolutely no scientific grounds whatsoever.
They are trying to place a philosophical meaning on the scientifically generated facts. This action alone is not science and is only using science for their own purposes. They have as much credibility saying that god did it all as I have saying that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe last week.
The people who promote ID are NOT scientists. They are philosophers that are trying to attach their own interpretations/meanings to scientific fact, and since all interpretations are subjective and are not reproduceable in people unless you can coerce them to believe in what you believe in, ID remains a philosophy with absolutely no scientific grounds whatsoever.
Saying God did it isnt science. They can explain what they are trying to find out very well without needing to say "God must have done it". In the book they are not trying to promote ID and credit everything to God. They show that the conditions for life also make great conditions for making scientific discoveries and that crediting these facts to numbers and randomness is illogical.
Like I implied - the world would be a far better place if both sides - religion and science - figured out that they're both talking about the same thing only looking at it from different angles and using different terms. (same goes for different religions)
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-07-25 16:19:09)
Iam a christian. And PRoud
sigh...where is this discussion going? We are debating the same things over and over and over - I could copy and paste all day - and over again... Have you not noticed that you aren't getting anywhere? JaMDuDe keeps coming with unsubstantial evidence adn we flame him... And that seems to be all the discussion we get around here
I think anyone that thinks that cannot fully grasp the size of the universe and the infinite probability of this happening not just once in the universe but THOUSANDS of times over.JaMDuDe wrote:
They show that the conditions for life also make great conditions for making scientific discoveries and that crediting these facts to numbers and randomness is illogical.
The universe is an INFINITELY HUGE SPACE, this means that the probability of Earth existing at least once is somewere near 99.99%, actually probably higher.
Just about sums up religion...coming with unsubstantial evidence
Ohhhh and whilst on the subject of religious morals and in addition, respected figures in the religious community....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5153916.stm
I hope you're proud, religious losers...
Ashley the crime rate is probably higher for atheists than christians. What you said is like me showing you an atheist criminal and saying that all atheists are evil "losers".
Hellfire you dont know that the chances of earth appearing in our universe. The chances of everything about earth happening once is not 99.9%.
Hellfire you dont know that the chances of earth appearing in our universe. The chances of everything about earth happening once is not 99.9%.
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-08-01 15:19:48)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prischap6.htmlJaMDuDe wrote:
Ashley there are probably more atheist criminals than christian ones. What you said is like me showing you an atheist criminal and saying that all atheists are evil "losers".
Hellfire you dont know that the chances of earth appearing in our universe. The chances of everything about earth happening once is not 99.9 percent.
This ranks atheists (including agnostics and 'no religions') as 22% of the prison population, and Christians as about 70%... which pretty much reflects the stats for the general religious makeup of the uk. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293
I'm actually pointing this out because the thread got closed before I got to ask how the hell a person claiming to be a Christian could say someting like this:
JaMDuDe wrote:
I think we should go with my solar panel idea. We completely destroy the entire middle east(except israel and maybe kuwait) and put a giant solar panel over it to replace oil. That would stop most wars, global warming, sand storms and terrorism.
Last edited by JaMDuDe (Today 20:39:01)
That number is only high because most of the poplulation is christian. If there were the same number of atheists as there were christians i think atheists would have more people in prison than christians.
Is a solar panel over the middle east not good enough? Maybe we can destroy russia and china while we are at it
Is a solar panel over the middle east not good enough? Maybe we can destroy russia and china while we are at it
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-08-01 16:51:03)
I inclined to think that the population in 1st world countires is turning more and more to aetheism, as of my own experience (and believe me, I've been around).
It's the 2nd and 3rd world countries who aren't educated too well, and thus need other explanations on things such as the solar eclipse or the universe.
It's the 2nd and 3rd world countries who aren't educated too well, and thus need other explanations on things such as the solar eclipse or the universe.
Ther is just enough religion in the world to make Man hate one another, but just not enough to make them love one another.
Belief is intrinsically hypocritical. What happens if someone explains the world, or some subject to you in a new light that makes a whole lot more sense to you? Belief requires blind faith in something you have been told is true and correct. So what happens then, when your blind faith is challenged by something you suddenly think makes more sense to you than what you were told? Do you BLINDLY carry on with what you now know is wrong? Or do you open your mind, and start 'believing' in the new. At both points you become given to hypocracy.
This then is MY only 'belief', if you wish to call it that:
Believe nothing, and accept all that makes sense to YOU, not what makes sense to others.
So, to me 99.99% of Christians are just hypocritical muppets to be giggled at. I'm 38 now, and I have only EVER met 2 people that I would call Christians. REAL ones that hold for peace to ALL Mankind, warm generous open hearted people. Other self named 'christians' seem to hold to
No druggies, no queers, no boozers, no dykes, all other religions are wrong and all will burn in hell, others that think we are wrong will burn in hell, no fun, (unless its banging a tamborine) these folk are just plain LOST.
Goodwill to all Men - don't make me fuckin LAFF!
Also Ive always found it funny and strange so many religions have the one God, are they quite sure he is not the one and the same dude? If he is, all religous folk will have a shitload of explaining to do come Judgement Day.
Blessed Be, Folks!
Edit: One thing I find hilarious, is the references to 'The Flock' As in a Vicar or Priest will 'shepherd' his 'flock' Baaa Baaaaa Baa Baaaaaaaa they're all damned SHEEP, and are willing to sit and be called so. Just about sums it up for me!!!
Belief is intrinsically hypocritical. What happens if someone explains the world, or some subject to you in a new light that makes a whole lot more sense to you? Belief requires blind faith in something you have been told is true and correct. So what happens then, when your blind faith is challenged by something you suddenly think makes more sense to you than what you were told? Do you BLINDLY carry on with what you now know is wrong? Or do you open your mind, and start 'believing' in the new. At both points you become given to hypocracy.
This then is MY only 'belief', if you wish to call it that:
Believe nothing, and accept all that makes sense to YOU, not what makes sense to others.
So, to me 99.99% of Christians are just hypocritical muppets to be giggled at. I'm 38 now, and I have only EVER met 2 people that I would call Christians. REAL ones that hold for peace to ALL Mankind, warm generous open hearted people. Other self named 'christians' seem to hold to
No druggies, no queers, no boozers, no dykes, all other religions are wrong and all will burn in hell, others that think we are wrong will burn in hell, no fun, (unless its banging a tamborine) these folk are just plain LOST.
Goodwill to all Men - don't make me fuckin LAFF!
Also Ive always found it funny and strange so many religions have the one God, are they quite sure he is not the one and the same dude? If he is, all religous folk will have a shitload of explaining to do come Judgement Day.
Blessed Be, Folks!
Edit: One thing I find hilarious, is the references to 'The Flock' As in a Vicar or Priest will 'shepherd' his 'flock' Baaa Baaaaa Baa Baaaaaaaa they're all damned SHEEP, and are willing to sit and be called so. Just about sums it up for me!!!
Last edited by TheFlipTop (2006-08-01 18:52:42)
In nomine de Satanus et Luciferus EXCELCII
Just to scare the 'Christians'
Just to scare the 'Christians'
Why is america 80% christian if its only the 2nd and 3rd world countries who need explanations for things that are already explained?Konfusion0 wrote:
I inclined to think that the population in 1st world countires is turning more and more to aetheism, as of my own experience (and believe me, I've been around).
It's the 2nd and 3rd world countries who aren't educated too well, and thus need other explanations on things such as the solar eclipse or the universe.
They are NOT christians imo, they just need to call themselves that so the neighbours don't look down upon them.JaMDuDe wrote:
Why is america 80% christian if its only the 2nd and 3rd world countries who need explanations for things that are already explained?Konfusion0 wrote:
I inclined to think that the population in 1st world countires is turning more and more to aetheism, as of my own experience (and believe me, I've been around).
It's the 2nd and 3rd world countries who aren't educated too well, and thus need other explanations on things such as the solar eclipse or the universe.
When was the last time you helped an AIDS ridden HUMAN BEING? Or gave someone needing it a bed for the night?
i am and extremely proud of it
Of being a Sheep?siciliano732 wrote:
i am and extremely proud of it
Unlikely. More likely is that the prison population will reflect the overall makeup of society, in all it's aspects.JaMDuDe wrote:
That number is only high because most of the poplulation is christian. If there were the same number of atheists as there were christians i think atheists would have more people in prison than christians.
Every person alive is as likely to commit a crime as any other, regardless of belief, race or any other criteria.
A random series of events determines which path you'll take - saint or sinner - not your belief system.
The idea that atheists are any less or more 'moral' than christians or people of any other religon comes from a missunderstanding of where our sense of 'morals' comes from - our core moral code - which can basically be boiled down to "do no harm" - is inbuilt. It is only the higher 'moral codes' - do not covet thy neighbours ass, for example - that are learnt and defined by the society in which we live.
But a society of true christians would do there best to stay away from all crime and try to be helpful, loving and peaceful. Atheists would too, but theres no reason for them not do some crime as long as it doesnt make them waste a lot of time in jail. If there were an atheist and a christian in south LA i think the atheist would be more likely to end up in a gang or doing crime.
Oh get real man, what about that lovely loving peaceful vicar that starting screwing and abusing kids, over 30 years of torment to the poor things - and he's supposed to have been a role model in your pathetic christian society, where does that leave the mere 'cult followers' of your religion? Some will condone his actions and take them up...But a society of true christians would do there best to stay away from all crime and try to be helpful, loving and peaceful
Christians are NOT saints...
Im not even catholic ashley. I dont know why you keep showing me priests who are abusing kids. They are bad people. There are bad atheists too.