'Touchdown Jesus' Statue Destroyed By Lightning Strike!

[Shockdingo]

"come with me if you want to live....forever".

If I could give high fives through the internet, oh you'd be getting several. t:

Jesus don't play foozball. Foozball is the Devil.
mama said so

Oh crap, I loved that movie, my favorite one of those was. "Benjamin Franklin is the devil! I invented electricity!"

Plenty of atheists can accept people with different beliefs. Some also can't, but there's no shortage of so-called believers who don't have any tolerance either.

True. I've had a couple of friends who are atheists and we never clash or get into a game called "brain the believer!" People are people, and people vary in their approaches to things and ideas.

 

[-Arya-]

But he and other atheists go out of their way to try and bash the beliefs of believers. If they don't believe, why bother? Just ignore it and move on.

We don't bash the belief of believers. We are simply criticizing and asking for the reasons of the belief. If the reasons are not good, disagree with what we currently know about the phenomena or are just downright deplorable, then we will say so.

Also, this term atheist is completely faulty. It simply isn't necessary as it entails that we are a group of people who have a belief system. If we oppose racism, we don't label ourselves as non-racists. If we don't believe in santa claus, we don't have a label for that. The term Atheist has virtually no practical context.

 

[The Battousai]

Sure, atheists are always trying to bash believers every chance they get. You yourself spend a lot of time in the religion debate thread bashing the believers.

First off - as others have already pointed out - not only do many atheists not act like children and simply attack religion, but instead criticize and ask for reasons behind the beliefs.

Secondly, your version hardly qualifies as a sermon.

 

[Metamorpho1977]

I'm no preacher, hell, I have Return of the Living Dead zombies saying Brains as my ring tones. You should have seen the preacher's face when it went off in the middle of the invitation time of church one day.

 

[E-Man]

But he and other atheists go out of their way to try and bash the beliefs of believers. If they don't believe, why bother? Just ignore it and move on.

Well my religion tells me to punch or bite the ear off of those who don't believe in the all mighty Mike Tyson. I'd take that as a sign that my religion is cooler than yours or anyone else who doesn't pray to Iron Mike.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Not really. More like, he explains things properly. As do many others.

It doesn't matter who it is; if someone misrepresents something, then someone with the proper knowledge should correct him/her.

You do realize that your comment can equally be used to catergorize atheists, right? Both sides are basing their beliefs on opinionated facts. You get two people from each conviction who are passionate about their beliefs and have them face off in a debate on the existence of God. In the end, neither will be convinced of anything except that the both will believe they have "the proper knowlege" and are in the better position to "correct" the other guy.

 

[The Battousai]

He's talking about things like science - not opinions.

 

[-Arya-]

You do realize that your comment can equally be used to catergorize atheists, right? Both sides are basing their beliefs on opinionated facts. You get two people from each conviction who are passionate about their beliefs and have them face off in a debate on the existence of God. In the end, neither will be convinced of anything except that the both will believe they have "the proper knowlege" and are in the better position to "correct" the other guy.

Sorry LS. While this may be the case with people who profess a vague faith or have opinions about certain cultural subjects, this isn't the way science is done.

 

[Carcharodon]

Sure, atheists are always trying to bash believers every chance they get.

This is as absurd as saying that religious people are always trying to convert non-(insert religion here) every chance they get. The stereotyping here is ridiculous.

 

[E-Man]

I would like to point out that religion is science in a way. Science is basically explaining things, so a religion's explanation of existence is science. It's not good science since the equation of their existence is based entirely too much on faith, but it is science nonetheless.

With that being said, my beliefs are not based on faith at all. I have seen Mike Tyson knock the **** out of dudes in spectacular fashion, and I have heard him speak a lingo that can only be described as heavenly. Only Joe Pesci is worth praying to besides Mike Tyson. You people need to get your heads right.

 

[Carcharodon]

I would like to point out that religion is science in a way. Science is basically explaining things, so a religion's explanation of existence is science. It's not good science since the equation of their existence is based entirely too much on faith, but it is science nonetheless.

This is incredibly misguided and illustrates a glaring lack of understanding of what science actually is. Regrettably, that misunderstanding is far too common.

EDIT: Also, please don't take the above comment personally. It's not a comment on your intelligence. The unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of those not directly involved in the sciences don't understand it very well. I also understand that it sounds like I'm on my high-horse right now, but this particular subject is something I know well and have put much thought into.

 

[The Battousai]

Religion "explains things" by way of mysticism, magic, and "God did it." How is that science?

 

[E-Man]

I'm saying that it is bad science. Science is simply an explanation of the knowledge that someone has. What we know as science is really good science that is tried and true, but that doesn't mean that primitive explanations of things doesn't fall into the realm of some kind of science. I'm talking about the root definition of science itself, not actually placing religion with the same respect of scientific theories and laws that have stood the test of critical evaluation.

 

[Carcharodon]

Science is simply an explanation of the knowledge that someone has.

This is incorrect.

 

[-Arya-]

I'm saying that it is bad science. Science is simply an explanation of the knowledge that someone has. What we know as science is really good science that is tried and true, but that doesn't mean that primitive explanations of things doesn't fall into the realm of some kind of science. I'm talking about the root definition of science itself, not actually placing religion with the same respect of scientific theories and laws that have stood the test of critical evaluation.

Even calling religion a failed science will just serve to misinform or confuse people. It's best to label both seperately.

 

[E-Man]

Yeah it's best to label both separately. I'm seeing religion as an amateur science though. I've always seen science as a method of gaining knowledge, and I find religious methods for gaining knowledge to not live up to the higher standards of "good" science.

Basically it's like comparing Floyd Mayweather to a street idiot that thinks he's boxing because he's throwing punches. Technically the big dummy in the street is something of an amateur boxer, but I would only call him that on a generous day.

 

[Carcharodon]

Yeah it's best to label both separately. I'm seeing religion as an amateur science though. I've always seen science as a method of gaining knowledge, and I find religious methods for gaining knowledge to not live up to the higher standards of "good" science.

Basically it's like comparing Floyd Mayweather to a street idiot that thinks he's boxing because he's throwing punches. Technically the big dummy in the street is something of an amateur boxer, but I would only call him that on a generous day.

...what, exactly, are the "religious methods for gaining knowledge" that you speak of?

By your reasoning, anything that can be considered a method for gaining knowledge can be labeled as "science," and that is most decisively incorrect.

Science is strictly the application of the scientific method. Period. That is the definition of science.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Fine. I guess I need to address this formerly so...riddle me this Battousai and Arya:

Let's say you have an Ipod and completely take it apart right down to the screws and wiring. And you put all of the loose pieces in a large mixing bowl and shake it around. How many years (and how many shakes) will it take for those pieces to come back together in perfect sync and reform that Ipod without human intervention? "Science" suggest that it will NEVER happen. Why? Because of the basic clauses of cause and effect. In other words, it took intelligence--a created and skillful mind--to construct that Ipod in the first place.

Yet interestingly enough, atheists believe that things that are far, faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more complex than an ipod--our bodies, our minds, our earth, our solar system, heck our UNIVERSE--came about by accident or via a big "Bang" explosion. How is it that scientists--who denounce the existence of an intelligent creator--can't apply this same Big Bang principle to the deconstructed Ipod spinning in that mixing jar? It's so difficult for atheists to give credit to a Creator--a master designer--from the intricacies of things i.e. the atom all the way to the magnitude of the galaxy (all of which, by the way follow a similar "trademark" artistic "pattern" found in solar systems and even in hurricanes--ergo, the concept of bodies revolving around a nucleus), but yet have ZERO problem taking credit for comparitively mundane HUMAN discoveries...which is in essence, just scratching the surface of what has already been designed by someone else? Did you know that if the earth were only a mile closer or farther from the sun that all life as we know it would end? That if it weren't for the perfect axis tilt that this planet possesses, that everything would fly off the earth's surface? That the moon's perfect placement in the earth's overall orbit has long and short range effects on our very survival here? Could all of this happen by accident?? Really? Hmmm??

The principles that atheism are based on--particularly evolution--does not check out with the very common sense "science" it claims to hold dear: "Big Bangs" do not create...they destroy. There is nothing "vague" or mysterious about creation. It makes sense to those who are humble enough to acknowlege that there is something more intelligent and more powerful than us behind what we have. No offense, but atheism and evolution is a religion based on vanity and haughtiness...because it teaches self-reliance...which we are not.

Comments?

 

[Metamorpho1977]

Science explains creation. Intelligence explains science, therefore, you can't explain creation without intelligence.

 

[-Arya-]

You spoke about a lot of things here so I'll take it one by one.

First of all, this is not an argument for the gods of religion. This is an argument for a first cause/ prime mover which is different than an intervening personal god that answers prayers.

Second, an Ipod is not composed of organic molecules, so it can't self assemble at all. Biological organisms started from more primitive life forms and became more complex as time passed. Complexity didn't occur over night.

Third, the universe was not designed for us. It's the opposite. We were 'designed' for the universe. And sure you say that if anything else was out of place, life would end. Well sure, but what's to say that other lifeforms could not have developed in a different atmosphere. Itsn't it presumptuous to say that life, only as we know it, can form? Again, the 'accident' scenario implies that all of this happend quickly. Quite the opposite. It took billions upons billions of years to form all the matter we see in the universe.

And it's good that you mention the future destruction,because it will happen very soon. And this was discovered by physicists, not the religious. The sun will soon swell up and boil any organism on the planet alive. And that's if our galaxy doesn't collide with another galaxy that's headed right for us. Who designed that exactly?

Fourth, posing a creator doesn't answer anything. We are still left with questions of how did the creator do it? What were its methods? Essentially, many creationists are saying a creator simply 'made' it happen without any clarification. And lastly if we do pose a creator then I can immediately ask 'who designed the creator'. Saying that a creator is by it's nature not caused just begs the question, and we're left off right where we started. If a creator doesn't need to be designed, then why does the universe need to be?

 

[Carcharodon]

Fine. I guess I need to address this formerly so...riddle me this Battousai and Arya:

To start with, the word you're looking for is, "formally."

Let's say you have an Ipod and completely take it apart right down to the screws and wiring. And you put all of the loose pieces in a large mixing bowl and shake it around. How many years (and how many shakes) will it take for those pieces to come back together in perfect sync and reform that Ipod without human intervention? "Science" suggest that it will NEVER happen. Why? Because of the basic clauses of cause and effect. In other words, it took intelligence--a created and skillful mind--to construct that Ipod in the first place.

Logical fallacies are fun. Batt is much better than I am at pointing them out, so if he'd like, he can do so. All I will say is that NOBODY suggests anything like what you mention here. The concept of these complex formations and their origins become more accessible when you consider the fact that you aren't actually (metaphorically) going from a loose jumble of parts to something as complex as an iPod in one step. Beyond that, and more importantly, you're still thinking from the mindset that they needed to be created, that we have initially set the goal of the formation of the finished iPod before this process even began, and that's why yours is a loaded question.

That's also why I can't take this post seriously enough to go into any real detail about any of this. You've already made up your mind, and your post is positively INFESTED with loaded language, which testifies to that fact.

Yet interestingly enough, atheists believe that things that are far, faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more complex than an ipod--our bodies, our minds, our earth, our solar system, heck our UNIVERSE--came about by accident or via a big "Bang" explosion. How is it that scientists--who denounce the existence of an intelligent creator--can't apply this same Big Bang principle to the deconstructed Ipod spinning in that mixing jar? It's so difficult for atheists to give credit to a Creator--a master designer--from the intricacies of things i.e. the atom all the way to the magnitude of the galaxy (all of which, by the way follow a similar "trademark" artistic "pattern" found in solar systems and even in hurricanes--ergo, the concept of bodies revolving around a nucleus), but yet have ZERO problem taking credit for comparitively mundane HUMAN discoveries...which is in essence, just scratching the surface of what has already been designed by someone else?

Loaded to the gills.

Did you know that if the earth were only a mile closer or farther from the sun that all life as we know it would end?

Um...did YOU know that the earth varies in its distance from the sun by about 3,000,000 miles...annually? Thank you. I hadn't laughed this hard in quite a long time.

That if it weren't for the perfect axis tilt that this planet possesses, that everything would fly off the earth's surface?

So, in theory, the planets with varying axis tilts should lose their loose surface matter. Hrm. I can't help but wonder why Mars has all that red dust on it?

Wait, gravity? What's that?

Oh, and do you have a source for this?

That the moon's perfect placement in the earth's overall orbit has long and short range effects on our very survival here? Could all of this happen by accident?? Really? Hmmm??

That's true, but then again, the moon moves about one inch away from the earth each and every year, and has been doing so for quite a loooooooooooooooooooong time. But tell me, LS, how old do you think the earth is?

The principles that atheism are based on--particularly evolution--does not check out with the very common sense "science" it claims to hold dear: "Big Bangs" do not create...they destroy. There is nothing "vague" or mysterious about creation. It makes sense to those who are humble enough to acknowlege that there is something more intelligent and more powerful than us behind what we have. No offense, but atheism and evolution is a religion based on vanity and haughtiness...because it teaches self-reliance...which we are not.

Comments?

The big bang wasn't an explosion, at least not as you seem to understand it. What is really meant by that term in this specific context is an extremely rapid expansion.

There isn't anything vague or mysterious about creation. It's actually very simple. So simple that it doesn't line up with a single shred of scientific evidence. The truth is that reality is more complicated and, frankly, scarier than that, LS, and if that worries you, then by all means cling to your (clearly) deeply-rooted beliefs. It's not my intention, nor that of Batt or Arya, for that matter, to take that away from you. As much of an ass as I've been in the rest of this post, I mean that last part sincerely.

 

[Carcharodon]

Science explains creation. Intelligence explains science, therefore, you can't explain creation without intelligence.

Circular logic makes baby Jesus cry.

EDIT: I can't tell whether you're being serious.

 

[Metamorpho1977]

Ockham's razor says entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. That is the simplest explaination for a creator.

 

[Carcharodon]

Ockham's razor says entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. That is the simplest explaination for a creator.

Oh. You were serious. I wasn't sure anybody would actually look at that and think it was logical. I thought for sure it was a joke.

What you meant to imply was that intelligence is behind creation, but that's not what you actually said. In fact, the line of reasoning you presented does nothing to support the idea that intelligence is behind creation. You just found a way to link those key words together in a convenient fashion, with what appears to be little honest thought behind what it is you were saying. That's why I thought you were kidding.

All you did was show that one who seeks to explain existence must have intelligence. That's not what you intended, but that's what that logical progression boils down to.

I was wrong earlier, though...I don't think that was circular logic.

EDIT: Also, it would seem to me that the current topic of discussion has deviated at least slightly from the topic of the thread. Should this conversation be moved?

 

[-Arya-]

EDIT: Also, it would seem to me that the current topic of discussion has deviated at least slightly from the topic of the thread. Should this conversation be moved?

Yeah...this isn't the place for our current discussion.