(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); The thread that was the shining light of the last two debating sections(ugh, really?) that was God vs Fact has been trashed or something(ugh, again) so this thread is here to take the place of that one.

Some extremely basic terminology...

Theist: believes in a god(s).
Deist: believes in a god(s) that created the universe but subsequently abandoned it and/or believes that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of god(s).
Atheist: does not believe in a god(s).
Agnostic: does not claim to know if a god exists or believes that such knowledge cannot be known, depending on the definition. Typically when I personally use this label I'm referring to the former.
Gnostic: claims to know one way or the other if a god exists.

There are some more but that's the basics down. I'm an agnostic atheist. What are you and why?

Edit: Thanks to whichever mod/admin butchered the thread's title and poll. The poll now makes no sense whatsoever.

The bible says the heavens can only be reached in the afterlife.

---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------



Don't feel like explaining evolution to you, so educate yourself. You must login or register to view this content.

No in fact it does not say that...
The heavens that you are quoting refer to the universe... not the etheral heavens.
I am all for people having opinions... and a debate is just that... a debate.
Scientific minds like to spout off theories as though they are facts.
But the meaning of theory is the exact contradiction of fact.

There are as many arguments to support the theory of creativity as there are the theory of evolution, and natural selection.

My point is this... next time you make a statement about what the bible does and doesn't say... perhaps you should read it, as finitely as you have read the Theory of Evolution that you are fond of posting.

And yes... I have read the theory of evolution... exhaustively.



---------- Post added at 08:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------

And yes... I do understand that you are politely stating, that my entire diatribe could have been reduced to 3 words.
As with most arguements of this nature... "burden of proof"... stands for both sides of the coin.

But had I posted burden of proof, and nothing else... would that not have seemed hollow and pointless.
And you would not have wasted 5mins of your life, reading my redundant drivel!
What fun would that have been? LOL

This surpasses your previous shows of scientific ignorance.

You're thinking of the word 'hypothesis', or the alternate non-scientific definition of 'theory'.

Scientific theory; "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

In other words, for us laymen, it's basically fact.



Firstly, I burst out laughing at 'creativity'. Moving on.

Secondly, creationism is not a theory as it is not supported by science. It is a hypothesis, and worse than that, it only exists as a hypothesis because you as the theist are actively trying to find something that fits in with your prior world view. This is about as anti-scientific as can be.



Try the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. I think I heard there's a physical copy to be available soon, or something like that.



Clearly not, you don't even understand the definition of the word 'theory' in a scientific context.



It depends what this is regarding. If it's regarding theories/hypothesis' on how we came to be, sure, both sides need to provide burden of proof. Thus far, your side has provided nothing. If however it's regarding this god you seem oh so sure of, then no, the burden of proof is solely on your side as it's unfalsifiable i.e. it's impossible to prove a negative. This goes for deities, leprechauns and Nessie (and about an eternity of other unproven things).

Well thank you, for your kind and ever so acute judgment of my scientific knowledge base.
I guess I will take that obviously forged BioEngineering degreee off my wall, as I clearly have coasted through it.
I did not realize that this was a meeting of PhD's...

Just to clarify... as I can obviously cut and paste from a Wiki as well.
To the layman "To the public theory can mean an opinion or conjecture ("it's only a theory"), but in the scientific world it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation". With this number of choices, people often end up talking past each other, and meanings become the subject of linguistic analysis."

Had I realized that NGU debate section was actually a gathering of accredited MENSA members... then I may have chosen to use the word theory in a more accepted context... rather than make the ignorant choice of its more common layman understanding.

But I thank you for putting me in my place, and defining my intellectual abilities.



---------- Post added at 06:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 AM ----------

And this is exactly the reason why I typically choose to avoid this discussion... the lack of reverance on both sides shows how desperate people are to know, what they know, what they know... close those doors, so nothing else might peek its ugly head in, and scare you.
Laugh as you wish... it is not my concern to change your mind. In fact, was not even my attempt.
However, it does not belittle my statement... there are in fact, arguements for creation. Whether you feel they warrant scietific notice or not, is completely irrelevant... they have been brought forward and carried and published for scientific debate.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

So by this definition it is plausible... that new science could be discovered to prove creation... perhaps not yet discovered but, still a remote possibility... hence the difference in definition between theory, and FACT or LAW.




---------- Post added at 06:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 AM ----------

Point is void... as I stated to the OTHER user... perhaps your knowledge of the bible is different.
No where in it... does it actually state this.
As I believe you would be as quick to correct somebody else who mis-quoted a scientific principle... I am merely stating his point as not being correct.



---------- Post added at 06:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 AM ----------

Again... I thank you for being omnipresent in my life up to date... very observant.



---------- Post added at 06:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 AM ----------

Once more... my original post was exactly that this debate is most assuredly to bear little yield other than to offend the beliefs of people.
You cannot use science at the moment to proove or DISPROOVE God... notice how I used the capitals. As you seem very confident that science to date is certain there is no God... which makes me curious as to why the term GP was ever invented within the scientific community.
Also known as God Particle or in some instances "Gods Finger"

I was perhaps erroneous and overestimating in my belief that you were in fact nobel enough to carry on this thread in a mature "scientific" manner... but by reverting to presumptions and particularly the most base/binary reactions of "insulting" another persons beliefs, shows me that your mind may be full of scientific matter, but it lacks maturity.

Well said!

I debate because opinions are changed that way, including my own. If I was so afraid of enlightenment on anything I've formed a firm opinion on then I certainly wouldn't come here.

Perhaps you're the one afraid of being wrong, since you're the one who's resorting to nonsense like this.



And heavily rejected last I checked. For good reason.



Irrelevant. There are an infinite number of things that could be true, but most likely aren't. The god you've cosied up to is in that list, and that's why I disbelieve.



This is a debate. I don't care if I offend you or others if it's involving an irrational belief in god(s). You need to grow up and assess your belief in god like you would any other.



Strawman. I never said that science disproved god. What I did say however is that there's no evidence to support the idea of god and therefore, due to you failing to fulfill your burden of proof, the rational conclusion until new evidence may arise is that god doesn't exist.



That was a term sensationalized by the media, not by scientists.



I don't care if you find the truth insulting, this is a debate! If hypothetically your stupidity offended me, should you stop posting for my sake? NO!

All I've done thus far is provide facts and logic - you on the other hand have been hurling nonsensical insults at me left, right and center. Look a little closer to home before you call me immature.

Well I tried to stay away... LOL... but I feel as though I am NOT being understood here.
As far as "grow" up... I am fairly certain you meant something synonymous... as I would wager, I am among the top 10% grown up people here. The last 4 digits of my username is my birthyear... I have done lots of growing up.
But I get your point being... to progress my beliefs.

And I have... I was born a believer.... recanted that belief, turned to more scientific explanations... and returned to that belief.
So by that token... I have processed the thought moreso than most.



And for what it is worth... I respect your opinion... not to believe.
What I have tried to say right from the beginning... is that God cannot be proven by Science. It boils down to faith... wishful thinking... desperate desire... whatever term you would more closely use...
And just because something is most likely not true... does not eliminate the minute possibility that it is.
The world was flat... the sun rotated around the earth... the possibility of alien life outside our solar system... all these, were at one time considered an impossibility... but as time, and science changes... so does the remote possibility of it being true change.
Which was all I was saying...
Bottom line for you to rationalize this...
Is that for you God doesn't exist... the people that believe in this God have their neural synapsis miswired.
But it does not change the fact, that they might believe in something that could (even ever so remotely) be possible...

If the point being made by you is that God does not exist, because science says it doesn't.
Then I wholeheartedly agree with you... Science does point to God not existing.



I do not find the truth insulting... but your version of the truth... and mine differ.
The day the gaps in the evolutionary theory can be closed... I will be the first person to accept it as Fact.
But even evolution does not answer the original question of how did those original amino acids come into existence.

What I do find insulting is when a remark is made directly to my person...

You do not know me... my background... my IQ... etc.
If I begin a nonsensical rant... call my bluff... call a rant a rant... but don't call the ranter an idiot.
Argue the point... not the person.
To this juncture... I do not feel as though I have been anything but accomodating in this discussion. Not resorting to name calling, or questioning another persons intellect or value...
I expect the same in return...

And not caring to offend... is very dissappointing... I personally do care if I offend in a rational discussion.
If a person is threatened by a rational discussion... that cannot be helped, it implies that their beliefs are not strong enough to themselves.
But offence is a beast of a different nature.
Offence is a personal affront... and makes a person feel angered or belittled... and I don't see any use in it.

There are at least a dozen different ways to tell somebody that you disagree with their point... but calling them stupid, or uneducated is not what I would consider the preferred method.... at least not in the context of a civilized debate.

I reserve my ability to offend to the truely deserving... IMO... those that have nothing better to do in life, than to make the world the disaster it is.

This subject is a complex 1, and it should be discussed more often. If someone was to ask me this question in person, I'll give a lecture, but for the forum I'll keep it brief. No offense to anybody but religion is the worst thing to happen to humanity period. So much bloodshed,ignorance and division all because of a rigid belief system. Religion is 1 of the best forms of mind control on the market. What better way than to get ppl to think low of themselves, divide ppl and control them?

Now for the topic, I don't believe in a man in the sky with a long beard threatening ppl to obey his commands or they'll burn in "hell", then later he says he loves you. (refer to George Carlin's joke)

I believe in a infinite consciousness that created everything in existence that all things in existence are apart of. It's neither male or female, its something that is within everybody. So the "god"(s) are not the Creator.

Now if someone was to want me to prove this consiousness exist, I couldn't prove it exist physically.There are multiple realities that are physical and non-physical. Everyone who says "give me physical proof or its not real" want scientific proof, but don't realize that even mainstream science have accepted that the physical that we decode with our 5 senses is only a tiny fraction of reality. Physical reality don't even make up 1%. So with all that said, I guess i fit into Atheist/other

Your irrational for NOT believing in God.