- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bill Nye Smears Ken Ham
Posted on 2/11/14 at 10:42 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 2/11/14 at 10:42 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
So the one making the claim of a deity making the world and everything in it doesn't have a burden of providing proof?
quote:
No more so than the one making the claim of atheistic origin.
Please understand, Creationism is making a claim about how the universe originated.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief; it makes no claims about the origin of the universe.
I am atheist because I haven't seen evidence to make me believe in any religions, and would like to know why you think you have sufficient evidence for your belief.
is that simple enough tor you?
1
Posted on 2/11/14 at 10:58 am to MagicCityBlazer
quote:
The burden of proof is to proove God does exist, not that you can't disprove him.
If God wanted me to believe why doesn't he just tell me?
This is where the argument stands today:
The religious believe in a supernatural being called God who was, at a minimum, the first mover in the universe.
The positive atheists (all other kind are agnostics) believe that nothing supernatural exists. Since we haven't solved the problem of origins, they reconcile this belief by saying, "We don't know."
Here's the rub. The only two possibilities we have re: origins if you dismiss the concept of a god are (a) something came from nothing or (b) the universe is infinite.
The problem is that both of these suppositions are mathematically impossible. 0 can never = 1, and 1 can never = infinity. Thus, in order to believe that these very laws of nature either (a) were somehow overcome or (b) at some point didn't exist, is to dismiss the universality of the very laws of nature we're all charged with holding as infinitely true.
Any dismissal of the laws of nature is essentially a belief in the supernatural. As such, both sides believe in the supernatural: religious people, by conviction, and positive atheists, by default. The only difference is that the religious call this supernatural force a god and the positive atheist calls it some scientific force that is somehow able to overcome the laws of nature (again, this is what their de facto belief must be, even though they attempt to dress it up as an "unexplained science" that conflicts with the very science we use today).
Due to this inherent agreement around the necessity of an otherworldly force, we should all be at least Deists, with "deism" simply being defined as any belief in a supernatural force. It's entirely up to you whether you call that force a god, a flying spaghetti monster, an alien, "some form of unnatural science that we don't understand yet," or whatever the hell else you would like.
To go from Deism to Theism requires an element of faith. But Deism alone can be arrived at by pure reason.
And one last point: to say "we don't know" when it comes to the problem of origins is not the same as saying "we don't know" before we understood gravity. There was nothing about gravity which belief therein would have violated the laws of nature (hell, we can see it with our own eyes). There was nothing about gravity that required a mathematical impossibility, such as 0=1 or 1=infinity. These two instances of "not knowing" are in no way identical. If science has any meaning whatsoever, we should be able to proclaim with certainty that the laws of nature we hold true today will hold true tomorrow and indeed held true yesterday.
In my view, these debates would be much more productive if the religious side stopped calling the supernatural force "god," the positive atheist side stopped calling the supernatural force "not god," and both sides just admitted they believe in a supernatural force that neither can scientifically explain.
From there, we can get into issues such as which form this supernatural force could have taken, and why.
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 11:02 am
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:02 am to RTOTA
quote:Issues of "claims" are not on point unless one translates "claims" to hypothesis. If the general premise is that atheists do not hypothesize regarding scientific unknowns, then coincident premise would carry that such atheists are not intellectually curious. If that is your assertion, I'd tell you anecdotally my experience with atheists differs dramatically from yours. The point is intellectuals should all be willing to question, and to address such questions with logic.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief; it makes no claims about the origin of the universe.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:05 am to NC_Tigah
When I hear someone say "atheistic origin" that's a red flag for me
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:07 am to TheDoc
quote:THAT is a great line!
There are trees older than you think the Earth is
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:12 am to TheDoc
quote:The term atheism originates from atheos, meaning "without god(s)". Atheistic origins refers to origins without god(s).
When I hear someone say "atheistic origin" that's a red flag for me
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:13 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:13 am to TheDoc
quote:
When I hear someone say "atheistic origin" that's a red flag for me
I have to agree here. Calling evolution an atheistic origin is not correct. It is a scientifically proven fact. There is nothing atheistic about evolution and no mention of god.
When someone says evolution is atheist, it stands to reason that the person believes that a belief in evolution subtracts from gods magnificence or hurts god in some way.
Those who understand evolution and are reasonable see that that is not the case.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:15 am to RedStickBR
quote:
The religious believe in a supernatural being called God who was, at a minimum, the first mover in the universe.
This is not completely true. I am Buddhist. Buddhism teaches the existence or non-existence of a Supreme being does not matter. We should not look to the past because finding answers to that which we cannot answer causes stress ultimately hindering us from reaching Nirvana (a stress free state). We instead focus on the now and ending suffering today. The past may not be known nor changed so should not be focused upon.
All that said to each their own and peace to all.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:16 am to thetempleowl
quote:The term was not used in conjunction with evolution
Calling evolution an atheistic origin is not correct.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:17 am to thetempleowl
quote:
It is a scientifically proven fact
nb4someonesaysit'sjustatheory.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:18 am to mindbreaker
quote:
This is not completely true. I am Buddhist. Buddhism teaches the existence or non-existence of a Supreme being does not matter. We should not look to the past because finding answers to that which we cannot answer causes stress ultimately hindering us from reaching Nirvana (a stress free state). We instead focus on the now and ending suffering today. The past may not be known nor changed so should not be focused upon.
All that said to each their own and peace to all.
Yeah, I don't really consider Buddhism "religion."
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:18 am to thetempleowl
As a side note, while Bill Nye won, does anyone here think he won any believers? Who do people think that the uneducated actually believed?
I think that Nye discussed things on too high of a level for many people in the audience while the child like explanations of Ham were more easy for the stupid in our society to wrap there minds around.
What do people think? I think Nye was too nice on Ham's ridiculous explanations and not harsh enough with rebutting his ridiculous assertions like historical science versus observed science. As has already been said, do you wake up in the morning and test for gravity because that may have changed or do you think it was always there?
Anyways, as many who understand things say that Nye crushed him, who do you think won the hearts and minds of the uneducated out there?
I think that Nye discussed things on too high of a level for many people in the audience while the child like explanations of Ham were more easy for the stupid in our society to wrap there minds around.
What do people think? I think Nye was too nice on Ham's ridiculous explanations and not harsh enough with rebutting his ridiculous assertions like historical science versus observed science. As has already been said, do you wake up in the morning and test for gravity because that may have changed or do you think it was always there?
Anyways, as many who understand things say that Nye crushed him, who do you think won the hearts and minds of the uneducated out there?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:18 am to TheDoc
quote:That's pretty good too.
In this situation though, it's just as applicable to some of Nye's beliefs. e.g., AGW.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:20 am to mindbreaker
quote:
All that said to each their own and peace to all.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:23 am to RedStickBR
quote:
Here's the rub. The only two possibilities we have re: origins if you dismiss the concept of a god are (a) something came from nothing or (b) the universe is infinite.
How we got here from the question of " does God exist " I'll never know.
God or supernatural proponents have never shown me a good reason to believe. If people want to talk about universe origins talk to a physicist.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:28 am to mindbreaker
quote:
This is not completely true. I am Buddhist. Buddhism teaches the existence or non-existence of a Supreme being does not matter. We should not look to the past because finding answers to that which we cannot answer causes stress ultimately hindering us from reaching Nirvana (a stress free state). We instead focus on the now and ending suffering today. The past may not be known nor changed so should not be focused upon. All that said to each their own and peace to all.
Not to be snippy, MB...but your descriptor "a Supreme being", essentially implies that the Supreme Being/Source...is somehow...separate. Which would be an utter impossibility.
If such a Source exists before (like Time ain't relative) the act of Creation...then just what the hey would the Creator make the 'Created' (universe) out of? Obviously, there only exist ONE SOURCE to make any thing out of.
As a Buddhist, you might want adjust your abstract perceptive model. Just sayin...as I am somewhat am a *Buddhist* my self. But for taking the 'final leap' on Faith, in the Designated Authority of Jesus Christ. As opposed "to works" and to a Guru who came out of the Evolutionary Molecular Pot.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:30 am to MagicCityBlazer
"Does God exist" is the wrong question, and it's precisely why none of these debates lead anywhere.
The right question is, "Do you have to invoke some supernatural force to arrive at your understanding of origins?" and if your answer to the question of origins is, "God did it." or "The universe came from nothing." or "The universe always existed." then you absolutely have to invoke some supernatural force to explain your viewpoint, whether you're willing to call it that or not.
This should be agreed upon by all. Where you take the argument from there is when the disagreements come into play. But when the only possible choices are "something came from nothing," or "something existed eternally," then you either (a) outright believe in the supernatural or (b) believe the laws of nature could fail to uphold, which is an implicit belief in something non-natural, i.e. supernatural.
The right question is, "Do you have to invoke some supernatural force to arrive at your understanding of origins?" and if your answer to the question of origins is, "God did it." or "The universe came from nothing." or "The universe always existed." then you absolutely have to invoke some supernatural force to explain your viewpoint, whether you're willing to call it that or not.
This should be agreed upon by all. Where you take the argument from there is when the disagreements come into play. But when the only possible choices are "something came from nothing," or "something existed eternally," then you either (a) outright believe in the supernatural or (b) believe the laws of nature could fail to uphold, which is an implicit belief in something non-natural, i.e. supernatural.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:31 am to mindbreaker
quote:
nb4someonesaysit'sjustatheory
When someone says that evolution is "just a theory" I can't take anything regarding the subject seriously.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:31 am to MagicCityBlazer
quote:The corollary apparently being, science has never shown you a "good reason" to contemplate the unknown.quote:God or supernatural proponents have never shown me a good reason to believe.
if you dismiss the concept of a god are (a) something came from nothing or (b) the universe is infinite.
Page 7 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News