THE SHOWDOWN: Does God exist?

[Circuitous]

Innoc, you're doing that thing again, where you hound one irrelevant point instead of following the discussion.

Scuzzy, you've got yourself locked on Atheists having to have certain beliefs.

ekiM, you've gotta be getting tired of this.

[qwertyuiop]

It's not being lazy. People can't really choose what to believe in. Some people can believe something like the existence of a god without much proof, but some other people can't force themselves to believe in something like a god without proof. I know that even if I wanted to, I couldn't make myself believe in god. I could go to church, I could pray every night, but I never would really believe.

[FrenchToast]

Your claim that atheism is just as much a religion is complete bullshit and it's insulting to anyone to say so. Atheism the complete rejection of religions, not one itself. I'ts foolish and wrong of you to say that. And Atheism is lazy? Sorry bud, but you're coming off like a retard here. Is it harder to a) sit back and say 'God did it', end of story BAM! No possible other conclusions, or b) it's the result of something that we don't know yet, that's impossibly complex and my views on it change everyday as new information arises.

Yeah. God is a lazy viewpoint. So shut the fuck up if you don't have anything remotely intelligent to say. Even a tidbt of common sense might serve you well.

Also: http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/

Everyone read that.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

No, it isn't. You can certainly argue that it isn't reasonable to deny evolution given what we know (I certainly would). This doesn't mean that not believing in God entails believing in either evolution or Big Bang-style cosmology. It simply isn't a logical necessity for an athiest to believe in evolution. If you're incapable of following basic logic then I don't really see that this is going to go anywhere.

Besides, neither evolution or big bang tell us anything about how life actually first came to be. There are lots of scientific theories on that but as far as I know they're pretty hard to get evidence for with the technology and knowledge that we have.
...
Oh and you still didn't explain the link between the formation of the universe and evolution.

Um, you're wrong, I did, but I'll recap:

If the universe just spontaniously came into being then evolution is the only possible explanation of all life. That's basic logic,and you're right, if you can't see that then this conversation is over.

i think your assertation that there are other possibilities besides "someone created the universe" and "someone didn't create the universe" is just your way of trying to get around answering simple questions. I think you full well know and see the logic of the following:

-Without a God for creationism man is a product of evolution.
-Evolution has produced animals, including man.
-Rape, incest, killing all exist in animals and it is just part of nature.
-Rape, incest, killing, are considered "bad" in man, not because they are naturally bad, but because people have decided they are.

However, you can't bring yourself to admit it. Your comment (by taking my words out of context and trying to get my goat) below has convinced me that your only intent here is to avoid answering the question and following a logical line of thinking. That signals to me you see the above, but it is something that you don't like.

Originally Posted by ekiM

Wait, weren't you the guy who said earlier in the thread
? And now you're arguing that accepting evolution is the only possible conclusion, if you don't accept God? Strange.

As I said, you're obviously taking my words out of context here and I'm not going to play that game. You know I was describing evolution in a strictly atheistic point of view, but are trying to get a rise out of me. It was fun while it lasted, but the truth is you can't rationally debate the fact that within pure Atheism man is just an animal without good or evil deeds. You've done a great job of trying to lead the question away from Atheism, and I've been willing to endulge you, but you're getting silly at this point.

Thanks for the run
Scuzzy

[FrenchToast]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

If the universe just spontaniously came into being then evolution is the only possible explanation of all life. That's basic logic,and you're right, if you can't see that then this conversation is over.

...that's retarded.

Evolution doesn't explain how life began. Supposing Earth did just pop into existence, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that would suggest in any way how life began. Evolution is a way to understand how simple life becomes more complicated and evolved. Please note that evolution doesn't replace creationism.

In addition, suggesting that if the Big Bang is true evolution is the only possible explanation and that's it's basic logic is quite stupid. The whole point of science is to try and disprove the other theories. It's 99.9% likely that someone will come up with somthing more plausible than evolution, because that's how science works.

You sir, really need to understand some very very very basic concepts before you talk about grown up stuff.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by ekiM

So do the factions of Christianity think "we're picking and choosing the bits we like" or do they think "this is our interpretation of what the holy scripture says"? According to you, the scripture doesn't state contraception itself is immoral. The Catholic Church disagrees. Are they just being silly punkass kids about this? Or is there more than one way to interpret what the Bible says on contraception?

They added they own position to what scripture says. They didn't change the framework, they created their own. The basic framework never changed.

Circ, if you're not going to contribute or peacefully participate then sit down and go back to watching.

[uBeR]

Evolution takes the stance that a single cell can mutate into complex beings such as humans. Evolution doesn't take a stance of where this original life originated from.

[Anthraxium[WU]]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

It's 99.9% likely that someone will come up with somthing more plausible than evolution, because that's how science works.

Just like someone has come up with something more plausible than gravity ... or relativity ...

You can't say that. Evolution, gravity, and relativity (the latter of two we accept as definitive facts) are all theories - all are considered proven models of natural phenomena.

For someone who keeps telling others they are retarded should make sure he doesn't go out and blurt some absurd statement like that.

(although I do agree with some of the stuff you've said in this thread).

[Circuitous]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Circ, if you're not going to contribute or peacefully participate then sit down and go back to watching.

And miss out on all this chiding? Hells naw.

Also, I just wanted to post this. It doesn't add anything to the conversation, really, but I think it's sorta funny.

1956.16> Circtf: Anyway.
1956.21> Circtf: This dude arguing morality
1956.22> Circtf: well
1956.27> Circtf: atheists can have no morals as they have no God
1956.35> Circtf: it fails to register than men created the morals God gave us
1956.38> Circtf: that^
1956.46> ArchdukeJames: Yes.
1956.53> ArchdukeJames: And that, on top of that, God giving the morality = bullshit.
1956.56> Circtf: haha
1956.59> Circtf: Pillar of salt much?
1957.07> ArchdukeJames: Yep.
1957.11> Circtf: lol, Pillar of Salt comes up as a Wikipedia link in Trillian.
1957.35> Circtf: But yeah there's something to consider.
1957.37> Circtf: God was all
1957.40> Circtf: wrath and fire and brimstone
1957.42> Circtf: back in the day.
1957.44> Circtf: Yet he changed.
1957.49> Circtf: But if he was already Perfect, why change?
1958.01> Circtf: Or is he Perfect now?
1958.04> Circtf: Was he Imperfect then?
1958.16> Circtf: Or is God actually malleable, that He is Perfect no matter what He does?
1959.38> Circtf: Does Perfection involve Smiting people occasionally and then stopping?
1959.45> Circtf: Is that... is that part of it?
2001.08> ArchdukeJames: Exactly. The Bible is irreconciable with even cursory reason.
2001.15> ArchdukeJames: The time-focused nature of God's nature is indicative of this.
2001.26> ArchdukeJames: It demonstrates, quite clearly, that the God of the Old Testament is basically Jewish Zeus.

I like that. "Jewish Zeus."

[accrede]

Evolution is a way to understand how simple life becomes more complicated

"Evolution is a way to understand how life becomes fitter within its ecological niche" would be more correct. (It does not necessarily get more complicated).

</nit-pick>

[fbw]

Personally I'm an agnostic... I read the first few pages of this thread, Scuzzy's posts were the most offensive to me and my beliefs and through vapid attempts of defending his logic I still find a condescending arrogance in the way he's presenting his opinion. I see where he is going, I understand what he's trying to say, but I don't fully agree with him on many levels.

I don't follow the beliefs of any major religion, not Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism. So, I don't exactly believe in "God", but I do believe in higher powers than human beings, be it living or non-living. I think an idea or a principle or a moral are all "higher powers" than man... I think Scuzzy's trying to say atheists follow those morals and higher powers because they get joy out of their interactions with other people, including helping other people, loving other people, etc... but this is where my problem in his posts lie. It makes it sound like atheists are selfish when, of course, all human beings are selfish in nature.

Theists, religious people, all have their own self-fulfilling prophecies. As an agnostic myself, I believe some religions are a way of coping with the idea of the unknown, of what happens after death. Proving to yourself you go to heaven or enter nirvana with a ton of virgins is a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way, if you truly believe it, because it brings peace to your mind and is a way for you to prove to yourself that the good things you do will be rewarded in the end. Is that a bad thing? In my opinion, no, not at all. Whatever you have to do to get yourself through the day without killing someone, do it. Whatever makes you happy... within reason. I'm not saying rapists who want to rape should go rape, however. I obviously don't believe that and I don't condone that sort of behavior as most people do not.

Calling out atheists to say that they don't believe in good or evil is a disservice to them as a group, as well. Atheists believe in the absence of God, that is what it means. Personally, I do believe in good and evil... some atheists do. Some believe its a product of man, some believe men through their choices, actions, whatever, become good or evil. Angels and demons from religions are not the only examples of such forces. That's my opinion on it, anyway.

I was once asked by a fanatical evangelist, whom I didn't know was religious and didn't know well at all at the time, if I believed in "the lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?" to which I replied no. He responded with a host of questions and criticisms implying that I'm an evil person who must pray for forgiveness and such. He asked if I believed in love for other people, being decent to the common man etc., etc., genuine attributes that are shared by all, what we perceive as "good", people, to which I obviously said yes, I believe in love and all of that.

It's a little offending, of course, to be immediately judged by someone who exercises very little knowledge of the assortment of beliefs that I have for myself... and such can be said for some of the views on this thread. To assume that all atheists are purely doing something for selfish reasons makes it sound like we're sort of an immoral bunch. You religious people, as well, are following your religion for similarly selfish reasons. To say that we help people to help ourselves to make ourselves feel better is an idiotic way of putting things. Why? Because it makes it sound like a sin that people are out to make themselves feel better by helping other people.

Anyway, that was my main quip about this entire thread... someone trying to make empathy sound like a flaw just because its practiced by "non-believers." I don't believe that good things happen by the grace of God, personally, that's fine if you do... but I believe empathy, sympathy, kindness, love, whatever you want to call it, that good thing that man does is one of the greatest things men are capable of on this planet. To make that good feeling in your heart when you help someone out sound like a virus or a plague or a flaw in a person seems like it should be a sin.

But that's just my opinion...

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

...that's retarded.

Evolution doesn't explain how life began. Supposing Earth did just pop into existence, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that would suggest in any way how life began. Evolution is a way to understand how simple life becomes more complicated and evolved. Please note that evolution doesn't replace creationism.

Ok Toast, since both Circ and ekiM can't tell me, you tell me:

Option 1: creationism, the universe was created by god.
Option 2: non-creationism: the universe evolved into existance, hense evolution.
Option 3: ????

What's option #3???

[uBeR]

Circuitous, not that atheists don't have morals, but rather that morals are a social construct and not a tangible thing, just like the idea of race within human species.

P.S.
Option 3: Agnosticism.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Circuitous

And miss out on all this chiding? Hells naw.
1956.27> Circtf: atheists can have no morals as they have no God

Who do you think is arguing that? I haven't seen that statement anywhere in this thread except from the atheists.

[accrede]

Option 2: non-creationism: the universe evolved into existance, hense evolution.

Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Evolution is simply the theory that explains how life came to be today, i.e. seemingly specialised. As others have said it does not explain how the universe started and it does not explain how life started................

Who do you think is arguing that? I haven't seen that statement anywhere in this thread except from the atheists.

By saying that atheists are free to do as they please as long as it has no negative impacts on them, you are kind of implying that they have no morals.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Circuitous, not that atheists don't have morals, but rather that morals are a social construct and not a tangible thing, just like the idea of race within human species.

P.S.
Option 3: Agnosticism.

LOL great joke. Seriously now though, what's the third option? You've all argued that there are more possibilities of the universes creation, let's hear them!

[Circuitous]

Option 1: Creationism, the Universe was not created by God.
Option 2: The Big Bang Theory, with no involvement from God.
Option 3: The Big Bang Theory with involvement from God (similar to #1, but the universe is older).
Option 4: Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Option 5: Maybe It Was Always Here?
Option 6: The universe was sneezed out. (By whom?!)
Option 7: Who Cares?

All of these options possess the capacity for the inclusion or exclusion of evolution. Evolution is, as has been stated, in no way tied to one's belief in the universe's creation.

Also, universes do not evolve in the sense we're discussing. Planets don't really have genes.

The Big Bang Theory is the best-going right now, or at least the more-widely-supported, but it's not flawless, and a better theory may yet come to light. So far, it hasn't, but that doesn't mean it can't. That's one of the interesting things about Science.

Also, as to the AIM log, I was totally pulling your argument up and twisting it to extreme levels in order to vent my frustration. I told you it wasn't adding to the conversation.

[qwertyuiop]

I don't think evolution is a theory about how the universe came into existence.

[Anthraxium[WU]]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Circtf: atheists can have no morals as they have no God

yeah thats pretty dumb. There are instances in history to which law codes were created based on morals, yet this was pre-christianity.

[AfterShock]

If the universe just spontaniously came into being then evolution is the only possible explanation of all life. That's basic logic,and you're right, if you can't see that then this conversation is over.

I'd just like to add, that considering all the possible future computerised simulations of atoms, molecules, elements, and eventually (far in the future) humans, worlds, even universes, then it is highly unlikely we are living in 'the real world'. (matrix theory!) God could quite easily be a simple (human, alien, being) programmer testing his version of the universe, and doesnt really care whether you kill people or rape them. He/she/them could quite easily have sent messages to moses, jesus etc to kickstart religion as it provides some amusement.

My point is, there are an unlimited set of beliefs and ideas about whether there is a god, or how humans were created, and often these arent linked by logic, as in many simulated worlds (if god was almighty then he could control time and space just like a computer program) it would be quite easy to pop humans into being at the flick of a switch, and have automatically created evolution carry backwards in time (rather than forwards in time, as is usually assumed) to the start of life itself.

Basing logic on things like:

1) there are only 4 dimensions
2) Time only moves forward
3) It is impossible to create something from nothing

Is kinda silly if you are discussing beliefs, as you can believe any of these to be false, and it could be completely unrelated to whether you think there is a god.