I have watched plenty of debates. Ive yet to see a single presentation of evidence besides gaps fallacies or arguments from incredulity. Or various other fallacies.
I want to discuss as well as possibly have believers questions why they actually believe something rather than just repeating other things.
any actual solid arguments or proof?
it was 2000+ years ago. Any possibility of proof completely disappeared several decades after he was crucified and even that “proof” was hearsay.
shareagreed. There are other angles they could take which they attempt. unfortunately "things are complex therefore a god created it" isn't an argument... still waiting for some good ones though!
shareThis debate has been going for thousands of years. You probably won't hear anything new.
My faith is just that. Faith. If that's not good enough for you, you're free to believe what you want.
muslims have faith, so do Buddhists. I can have faith that elephants are secretly gods. or that asians are the superior race. How do I ever prove faith is true, valid or sensible?
You can literally believe anything and everything on faith. It can lead you to totally nonsense beliefs and hence has no value. Why would you accept it as a suitable foundation? let alone on one of the biggest questions
I'm sure you have faith in things that are "nonsense". Life is faith based. Ridiculing others for their faith is a dick move but it clearly gives you pleasure, which is really just sad..
shareNo I dont.. I have evidence. I sit on the chair because I know that's what it is designed to do. I know it has held me up for years now, shows no signs of cracking or breaking and I expect it should continue to do so. But I won't be suprised if it does bust randomly. In which case I will see where it broke and understand why. no faith needed. No need for faith that actually invisible fairies give my chair structural integrity.
Im not ridiculing at all. I gave you a few examples to show you the way faith doesn't work. I am sorry reality and facts threaten your fragile beliefs.
Literally asking you why you believe something has led you to call me a dick and assume i'm sad and take pleasure from it. You are really that unconfident and weak in your beliefs?
WOW. Im sorry your entire foundation is utterly useless and you base your existential beliefs on it. That is not my fault. Maybe get a better system :s im sorry you cant defend it at all and instead have to ad hominem me rather that providing an actual argument. That seems what all most believers can do
Lol. You just proved my point. Unless you KNOW for a FACT the entire mysteries of the universe and reality itself, your faith is no better than mine.
shareNo because I dont claim to know that. In fact the opposite, I say "I dont know"
meanwhile you claim to know everything about the universes origin... based on.. you guessed it.. faith.... You claim to know there was a beginning, you claim that there was a creator, and not only that (and im going to assume here I could be wrong so please correct me) it is the christian creator. All the others ones are wrong but you know him and his traits and characteristics and you KNOW he created everything, knows everything, sees everything and also know he created this world specially for you and humans to be judged for a second afterlife
nice false equivalency though....
the fact you cant see the difference between me saying "I dont know I want to see evidence and the best science available" and your faith based totally;y unsupported god belief.
this is why we dont take you seriously...
You didn't say you don't know but you DO say (in so many words) that there is no God/creator. If you don't know, great but God/creationism is as plausible as any other theory out there so ruling that out is intellectually dishonest. I never said "I know". I said I have faith. Could I be wrong? Yes but to me creationism makes the most sense. As for being taken serious by your "we"? It doesn't matter to me in the least.
shareNO I DIDNT. Learn the difference. Live in reality not your caricature of atheists and misrepresentation. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim that god exists.
I dont believe there is no god. What I am is not convinced that anyone has proven one.
your faith is entirely based on that one set of creationist stories. So prove it?? Amazing your specific version of creationism makes the most sense. SO now prove it and why it is more plausible than the hindu version? or muslim version?
im sorry you live a lie and delusion based of faith. a device where you can literally believe anything and have no way to prove it.
So still waiting on even an ounce of evidence. So fair you have made ridiculous assertions and claim to believe in a very specific creations tory and god. so prove it.
I'm not here to prove anything because nothing can be proven. Big bang is an unprovable theory but even if it was provable, guess what? It still wouldn't be mutually exclusive of God. My point is, my faith is as valid as yours. You know why? Because NO ONE, EVER has been able to prove any of their theories regarding (for lack of a better word), creation. I'm sure you have your beliefs but you're too chicken to state them because you don't want to be ridiculed and if you don't have any beliefs, who are you to call me delusional?
shareThe Big Bang Theory has been proven, the red shifts in the visible light spectrum of stars confirms this.
I don't take anything on Faith, if you have a good reason to believe something you don't need faith.
No one needs to disprove creation, since creation hasn't been proven in the first place the logical position is to not accept it. The same cannot be said for the Big Bang or Evolution.
I think he called you delusional because you accept assertions that don't have any evidence or justification behind them and the assertions contradict just about everything we know about the natural world.
There are SO many holes in it (and related minutia) which I'm not going to attempt to bring up. Feel free to research it if you like but like I said, big bang doesn't exclude God.
Not sure what assertions and contradictions you're referring to. I believe, that our reality is the product of intelligent design. That contradicts noting other than "everything brought itself into existence by itself, for no reason". THAT'S delusional.
Not really, it's a theory, a theory in science is as close to fact as it gets. Again the Big Bang Theory says the universe is expanding, everything we know about Astronomy confirms this.
You just made an assertion that our reality is a product of intelligent design, where is your proof of that?
Also you just strawmanned me, neither myself nor science ever asserted that: everything brought itself into existence by itself, for no reason
Yes and the fact no scientific theory is Perfect is exactly what you would expect to happen in science. As better evidence comes out we can better explain the phenomenon we are observing. Science is always replaced by better science because it revolves around having the best explanation and up to date facts. Faith doesn't replace anything. You believe is cause you believe it with no good reason. it doesn't explain anything. it doesn't make predictions. Its useless.
"Feel free to research it if you like but like I said, big bang doesn't exclude God."
Cool story bro. God of the gaps isnt an arguement. show me some evidence. you've commented what 6 times now? and presented literally nothing.
"Not sure what assertions and contradictions you're referring to. I believe, that our reality is the product of intelligent design.
SHOW ME EVIDENCE
"That contradicts noting other than "everything brought itself into existence by itself, for no reason". THAT'S delusional."
I am sorry you have no understanding of science and modern understandings of "nothing" nor the origin of the universe and instead chose to present a nonsense straw man. Its truly astounding but not surprising you would talk about something you neither understand nor have apparently researched. and instead simply parrot the classic ignorant apologetic nonsense.
Like I've said numerous times, I'm not out to prove anything. If you really had the capacity to think, you'd know creation goes WAY past "nothing" and the origin of the universe but you're in your little box. Enjoy it.
shareLOL more assertions you cant prove and pulled out of nowhere.
I could say the same "if you had any capacity to think you'd know my faith in the universe farting pixies is true! not only that they actually created the non temporal plain of existence your christian god resides in and created him!!!"
See I can make totally unfounded ridiculous claims too with no evidence based on faith. See how useless it is? see how it gets you nowhere? See how you can claim anything you want and there is no way to prove or disprove it (other than using science to see if the claims are true)
NO IT ISN'T just as valid.
Science relies on facts and evidence. It is verifiable and repeatable by others. faith relies on nothing at all. Its your "feeling" and has no explanatory power at all. Its useless to "prove" anything
I cant believe you re trying to falsely equivocate the two.
Science builds on science. older theories are replaced by better understanding and theories.Evolution is an observable fact. the theory of evolution is what explains the mechanisms of this.
Please don't project your own ignorance on me. I am sorry you dont have good reason for your beliefs and cant support them and so your only mechanism is to claim others are just as ignorant as yourself.
My ignorance? Your ignorance is staggering! Your amazingly narrow minded and you think SO small! Science doesn't answer close to everything. At the end of the theories and ideas, there are still LOTS more questions that have no answer. I LOVE science but what we know is a drop. What we don't know is an ocean.
shareWhat do we have to be ignorant about? You have yet to prove anything.
Science never asserts absolute truth but if something is a scientific theory like the Big Bang then there is an astounding amount of evidence to support it and we have a reason to accept it until it is debunked.
Yes there are other questions to answer science says "lets go find out", creation says "God is the answer, I can't prove it but take it on faith or you go to hell to be tortured"
oh the classic "you science people are actually the narrow minded ones!"
yes because I use actual processes that are useful in measuring and explaining reality im "narrow minded"
I instead need to "open up" and accept your totally useless device called faith.
ignorance is strength.... up is down
"Science doesn't answer close to everything."
yes good thing we continue to do science. not like you who just says "well god did it" and give up.
"At the end of the theories and ideas, there are still LOTS more questions that have no answer"
again hence why we continue to do research. the only thing that will continue to increase our understanding is more of it. Not throwing up our hands, claiming faith has answers and giving up
"I LOVE science but what we know is a drop. What we don't know is an ocean.
And everything we learned about reality and continue to do is because of science. Religion has contributed nothing to our understanding of the natural world. In fact it has consistently been having to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept basic science and constantly stood a sa road block.
Whether it was gravity and the heliocentric model or the Big Bang and age of the universe.
As I said, this is an age old argument that is nowhere close to being resolved so you should expect some "classics" because they're still valid.
And where did I say anything about giving up? I love and embrace science as well as a LOT of highly respected, brilliant, pro-creationism scientists. Ever look into that/them?
"s I said, this is an age old argument that is nowhere close to being resolved so you should expect some "classics" because they're still valid."
it doesn't need to be resolved. Science continually demonstrates its reliability and effectiveness. constantly building on itself.
faith and the religious ideology continues to contribute nothing to our understanding of the natural world. Simply making assertions and claims backed up by nothing.
"And where did I say anything about giving up? I love and embrace science as well as a LOT of highly respected, brilliant, pro-creationism scientists. Ever look into that/them?"
yes and they never put god into it. Not at least on anything they public.
they never make significant contributions to say physics and put god in it.
they are believers who use science. Their faith is not part of the scientific process. thanks for proving me right again
"At the end of the theories and ideas, there are still LOTS more questions that have no answer."
So just make shit up and have faith really hard? That's the solution, I guess.
As MovieChatuser said, we dont take the Big Bang on "faith". we take it based on evidence, which is subject to change and give us a better understanding. faith doesn't even come in to the equation
share[deleted]
I'm not here to prove anything because nothing can be proven.
Because NO ONE, EVER has been able to prove any of their theories regarding (for lack of a better word), creation.
If you don't know, great but God/creationism is as plausible as any other theory out there
^^^
If you saw Footprints in the snow(animal footprints) Footprints that looks like dog footprints
Its Plausible and reasonable to believe they are in fact Dog footprints, You know dogs exist, You've seen other examples of "dogs footprints" in the snow.
It would not be Plausible to conclude, "We'll Those footprints could be an invisible Unicorns footprints"
and the reason why Is Because theres never been an example of an invisible unicorn....
By Definition, God/creationism Is NOT as Plausible as any possible Nature explanation...
A Natural explanation Is always going to be a better and more plausible explanation than A Supernatural explanation...and that can NEVER change until AT the very LEAST the supernatural at minimum detected...
I mean, We know Know The Natural world/Universe exists, Every single discovery in HISTORY as been NATURAL...
Its always more Plausible that Theres going to be a Natural explanation for Anything and everything....Until someone comes up with a way to detect/prove there is in fact a supernatural...
lol, and then if somehow the Supernatural was detected, then starts the process of trying to narrow down "what is the supernatural"...and somehow trying to prove WHICH, IF ANY god is true and Is The source of the Supernatural and Natural
Its Literally not factual to say "but God/creationism is as plausible as any other theory out there"
Its an actual fact that GOD/Creationism is by definition Not as Plausible as A Natural Explanation...
In a world/reality where Theres ONLY ever Been Natural explanations and NO evidence of Supernatural, Any Natural explanation is ALWAYS going to be the more plausible explanation than A supernatural explanation
Just like Its always going to be MORE plausible to believe The Footprints in the snow belong to a dog, deer, moose...Or LITERALLY any Animal on earth is a better, more Plausible explanation than "Invisible Unicorn"...Because we have examples of all other animals...
You are more than within your right to Hope and Believe in the supernatural, You can Believe God/the supernatural is Just as Plausible, But Its Not factual true...
any supernatural explanation by definition is LESS Plausible than a Natural one, and theres not a single example other Than God that you would not agree with that on....
If we are driving down the road and my tire blows out and goes flat, whats the more plausible explanation, I ran over a nail or something that punctured the tire or instead A hit an Invisible, space less, timeless , entity that caused my tire to blow?
If you woke up tomorrow, and your car was missing from your drive way and there was broken glass on the ground, would you assume your car was stolen by a human or would the thought pop into your head "Maybe A Ghost stole my car"
A Supernatural Explanation by definition can NOT be as Plausible as a natural explanation, Literally any and all possible natural explanations, The absolute WORST, most absurd natural explanation is still more plausible than a Supernatural explanation...at least until the Supernatural is detected...
so no I'm sorry....While I agree God/Creationism doesnt seem to be logically impossible, so you have to acknowledge it MAY at least be a possibility ....It Will never be as Plausible as a Natural explanation until The Supernatural is Detected...
again by definition, God/The Supernatural isnt as plausible as The worst possible natural explanation
You're wrong about two things:
1) Your body never touches the chair, therefore you're not really sitting on the chair. You only think you are. Your body is hovering slightly above the chair because your body's electrons repel the chair's electrons similar to magnets when you try to put them together.
2) You have no evidence because you were wrong about sitting on a chair.
What you think is real and reality itself are not the same.
I have to agree mostly . But at the same time none of that actually changes anything. The fact my perception is wrong, or at least not exact, doesn't change the fact of physics and that all the variables I mentioned are still largely intact
shareNo, you were wrong. Period.
I brought it up because many thing we consider to be real are not. Another example: nothing is solid including our bodies. We're just made up of atoms moving around, but mainly empty space.
That's important because the evidence you seek means understanding that your perception of "reality" isn't real. It's similar to becoming aware that you were dreaming only after you wake up.
Religion became a temporary way to explain the unexplainable until science could. This includes the nature of reality, God's existence, life after death, time, consciousness, etc..
There are scientific studies and evidence of some of the aforementioned. The problem is that scientists have biases like everyone else. Even when evidence is presented, they can refuse to take it seriously by discounting it because it contradicts with what they were previously taught. Scientists who pursue studying "controversial" subjects lose credibilty in the science community or not receive funding. It's there, but you have to open your eyes and your mind to it.
No what I could colloquially call "sitting" is yes the electrons repelling. This doesn't mean that due to gravity and mass that no pressure was put on the chair. This doesn't mean that faults and breaks may happen in the chair. I wasn't wrong. I just didn't get down to a atomic level to explain the interaction.
if you think anyone would lose funding over this I dont know what to tell you. y guess is you are getting dangerously close to conspiracy levels where all the "defunded" scientists just happen to be the coo coo ones and you just scream "scientific oppression!"
Your whole argument with chilone was about their faith vs. your reality. My point is that your reality example was incorrect, therefore not reality. At no time does your butt touch the chair, nor is it possible for your butt to touch the chair.
I thought you were going to ask me to begin presenting proof related to your original topic. Instead, you want to debate sitting on a chair.
Not a conspiracy. Just basic common sense. Funding goes mainly to the hard sciences. Proof? Here's a website about recent scientific research. No research about God's existence, ESP or life after death.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/
No it wasn't. its like using your description about electrons as "true reality", but then us finding out that actually there are smaller particles making them up. This doesn't mean the electrons didn't interact, this doesn't mean the molecules didn't interact, this doesn't mean my mass didn't interact with the chair.
Your point is ridiculous
I also said "I sit on a chair". and that it holds my weight. You re saying "sitting" doesn't exist? there may be more particular and exact scientific descriptions of how they would describe things happening. and more colloquial layman verbiage used.
thisdoesnt make it untrue.
No you are debating semantics because you have no point.
And the truth comes out. The sad theist pushing conspiracies about the scientific community because people dont research his nonsense.
Please inform me how one researches "gods existence". How does one research "life after death" or in other words a souls continued existence.
again sorry your hocus pocus doesn't get researched.
its like saying "why doesn't science research the easter bunny and dragons!! look see there's almost no research about it"
Only took 3 posts for you to expose yourself.
"again sorry your hocus pocus doesn't get researched."
When I wrote the same, you dismissed it as a belief in conspiracy theories. You are now agreeing with my original comment that there is a lack of research. You are arguing just to argue. How disappointing!
"The sad theist pushing conspiracies about the scientific community because people dont research his nonsense."
Again, you are proving my point that scientists would be ridiculed which I already pointed out.
"its like saying "why doesn't science research the easter bunny and dragons!! look see there's almost no research about it""
More ridicule to prove my original point and comment about why there is a lack of funding.
"... electrons ... finding out that actually there are smaller particles making them up"
Electrons are an elementary particle. There are no smaller particles making them up.
"you are debating semantics"
No, I was discussing quantum mechanics. You're debating semantics. My point is that you shouldn't have ridiculed chilone"s faith when your example of reality was incorrect.
"Please inform me how one researches "gods existence". How does one research "life after death" or in other words a souls continued existence."
Finally, you're on topic! One researches consciousness. In quantum physics, the double slit experiment has stupefied physicists for a century. They have been trying to disprove it with more complex research, but they failed. This experiment leads to the question about the role of consciousness in reality. Is a new paradigm needed? Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence that the brain creates consciousness. Nonlocality has been proven in quantum physics and also plays an important role in consciousness theories for scientists who believe in something other than materialism.
I have the impression your true purpose is to disparage people who believe in God rather than have an open discussion about proof. Too bad, because I found your topic very interesting.
"When I wrote the same, you dismissed it as a belief in conspiracy theories. You are now agreeing with my original comment that there is a lack of research. You are arguing just to argue. How disappointing!"
Yes I dismissed the conspiracy. Again it's on par of saying because there is no research into investigating the easter bunny there's a conspiracy to stop it. also first you suggested they
"Scientists who pursue studying "controversial" subjects lose credibilty in the science community or not receive funding. It's there, but you have to open your eyes and your mind to it."
SO now you moved the goalpost from one comment to another. What a slimy rat you are. good try though.
"Again, you are proving my point that scientists would be ridiculed which I already pointed out. " Yes man Christians totally have no power in the USA and other countries. Theres no way they could get money for their research. Oh wait they have got it and FOUND NOTHING. In fact any attempt to prove a god, such as the effictvness of prayer. has backfired and proven it doesn't work.
SO AGAIN. SORRY YOUR HOCUS POCUS DOESNT EXIST. It's like crying that "people dont take researching the divine easter bunny seriously!" There has to be observable facts in the first place that point to it and a hypothesis that explains it. Your "christian scientists" (by this I don't mean scientists who happen to be christian, I mean scientists trying to prove god) consistently find NO EVIDENCE. You are actually trying to insinuate there's a conspiracy because they cant research something that isn't there and they cant detect.
"More ridicule to prove my original point and comment about why there is a lack of funding. "
You can't research things into existence. if there's no there there to discover then what do you expect them to find? Again you are mad the results don't prove your religious beliefs. SORRYY Thats not how it works. By this logic there's a massive conspiracy against researching Allah, Jehovah, Zeus, Poseidon, Thor, Loki, Raa, etc
"wahhhhhhh science hasn't found something I have faith in so they must not be researching hard enough!!! wahhh bias!!! wahhh its a conspiracy because there's nothing detected so they are out to hurt christianity!!"
I must admit at first you did a decent job pretending you were a rational actor. Now its pretty clear you are nothing but a christian with a victim complex mad scientists have done real science and haven't confirmed your faith.
Instead of an open discussion with me, you are having an open discussion with your own preconceived prejudices and biases. At no time, did I say I was a Christian, believed in God, or was defending religion. I do have an interest in theoretical sciences and physics and have been reading what research exists on the subject out of curiosity.
There have always been positive findings on the research that has been conducted which I pointed out in my earlier post when I mentioned how it was ignored. Similar to how you just completely ignored the double-slit experiment. Again, I don't believe you have any real interest in your own topic.
It's obvious that you're an atheist (not agnostic) who tend to have a every closed-mind and you only want to argue or disparage people's religion. Too bad!
"There have always been positive findings on the research that has been conducted which I pointed out in my earlier post when I mentioned how it was ignored. Similar to how you just completely ignored the double-slit experiment. Again, I don't believe you have any real interest in your own topic.
"
Theres been positive findings on this research that point to god? PLEASE PROVIDE CITATIONS. You re full of crap.
I didn't ignore the double-slit experiment
let me spell it out for you since you re clearly a slow one.
this is my response to the double slit experiment
I
DO
NOT
KNOW
DOES
NOT
EQUAL
GOD
which the answer is we do not know. wow I cant believe you wrote all that embarrassing crap.
Physicists do understand the double-slit experiment. Do you?
shareAnd the fact the observer cant predict the experiments results. does not mean THEREFORE GOD.
again you have provided literally nothing expect for god of the gap nonsense.
try again
Obviously, you don't understand the double-slit experiment. I suggest you google it instead of asking silly questions which demonstrate your ignorance.
shareDid you miss the reply by SLukyanenko in regards to that? Scroll down the page.
shareI replied to SLukyanenko.
djangounlamed is the one who is clueless about the experiment. The experiment isn't about God nor does anyone say it is.
short term memory loss?
Me-"Please inform me how one researches "gods existence". How does one research "life after death" or in other words a souls continued existence."
You- "Finally, you're on topic! One researches consciousness. In quantum physics, the double slit experiment has stupefied physicists for a century. They have been trying to disprove it with more complex research, but they failed. This experiment leads to the question about the role of consciousness in reality. Is a new paradigm needed? Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence that the brain creates consciousness. Nonlocality has been proven in quantum physics and also plays an important role in consciousness theories for scientists who believe in something other than materialism."
So when I ask how you prove god you provide that. now claim it has nothing to do with god. Keelia try not to self own so hard next time
"How does one research "life after death" or in other words a souls continued existence.""
This is the question you're asking which has been researched. What religion refers to as spirit, science refers to as consciousness. You don't have to take sides. There is nothing wrong with opening a book with an open-mind in order to learn alternate viewpoints and research.
What is consciousness? How was it created? Is it create by the brain and what is the proof? Is it nonlocal?
My intention was never to convince you one way or another. I'm just saying there has been some interesting research which you can read and make up your own mind.
I also do things on my own to learn more and see where it will take me.
The experiment isn't about God nor does anyone say it is.
"One reason is that consciousness is unobservable."
Exactly.
There is no proof that the brain creates consciousness.
There is no proof that consciousness is located in the brain.
There is no standard definition for consciousness among scientists.
We don't really know how it is created since that has never been observed.
Everything we know about it is based on opinion, not any scientific proof.
"We know that consciousness exists not through experiments but through our immediate awareness of our feelings and experiences."
Exactly.
But what if my experiences include a near death experience and premonitions? Do you stop believing my experiences because they contradict your beliefs? Or do research with an open mind to discover the truth?
How do we learn how consciousness is created, its location and nature based on scientific proof instead of opinion since its unobservable?
But what if my experiences include a near death experience and premonitions? Do you stop believing my experiences because they contradict your beliefs? Or do research with an open mind to discover the truth?
There has been plenty of research. Most scientists refuse to accept results since it contradicts with mainstream science.
There are individuals and small groups who pursue it on their own.
Yes, and none have been successful.
shareNot true. Anyway, I gave you a book list so you can read on your own if you choose.
Another issue is that mainstream scientists will try to explain away results with convoluted excuses.
Scientists used to insist that children couldn't have early memories before 5 y.o.. That used to rankle me because I easily remember my life at 2 and a few earlier events. I always knew left-handed people had earlier memories because I asked. Finally, scientists discovered a part of the brain related to early memory develops earlier in lefties.
I only brought that up because I notice scientists can be very slow in confirming things that ordinary folks experience.
"There is no proof that the brain creates consciousness.
There is no proof that consciousness is located in the brain.
"
Actually this is where all the evidence points. We know that our perception and personality is directly linked to the brain. We know certain functions are related to certain parts of the brain. We know that having had brain damage. we may lose certain functions, parts of our personality etc
It's like a primitive human seeing a car drive. Upon inspection they see the wheels turn, but dont understand what drives them. They see the complex engine but dont fully understand combustion of how that works. we have all the parts and eventually will likely figure it out
Everything points to consciousness being a creation of the brain. Have they figured out that "this part of the brain plus that part is what perfectly creates consciousness!"
no you are right they haven't. does that mean therefore god? NOPPEEEEEEEEE
Please stop trying to shoehorn in your theism under the euphemism of "open mindedness"
you've made some outright ridiculous claims no one takes you seriously here
You're concluding a brain/consciousness connection to only mean the brain created consciousness and being located within the brain.
There are scientists and doctors who argue the opposite in which consciousness is nonlocal, created the brain and utilizes it as a tool.
It's like concluding the world is flat because we don't fall off when in reality it's round. Appearances can be deceiving. BTW, my earlier comment about the chair was meant to emphasis not to be fooled by "appearances".
"You're concluding a brain/consciousness connection to only mean the brain created consciousness and being located within the brain.
There are scientists and doctors who argue the opposite in which consciousness is nonlocal, created the brain and utilizes it as a tool.
It's like concluding the world is flat because we don't fall off when in reality it's round. Appearances can be deceiving. BTW, my earlier comment about the chair was meant to emphasis not to be fooled by "appearances"."
And yet. Your argument from ignorance doesn't prove "therefore god"
TRY AGAIN.
By the same.
still waiting on actual evidence
You mistake him for someone who wants to honestly address points or engage.
just look at his electron chair nonsense above.
Your butt never touches the chair. Just accept it already.
shareWhich I never said.. I said I sit down in the chair which bears my weight.. Sitting is a real thing.
I never said "the electrons in my pants make direct contact with the electrons of the chair"
again you created a non issue about something I never said.
Just accept it already that you made this all up in your head. argued against something I never said. and implied sitting doesn't exist.
This is your brain on religion
Which has been clearly addressed by others LOL. again the bizarreness of our.
Whats it like to revel in ignorance and them refuse to be a man and admit you are wrong?
wow light can show characteristics of both a wave and a particle "therefore god!!!"""
citation needed?
Wrong.
Can you explain WHEN it shows characteristics of a particle instead of a wave? That's the key.
citation needed please. please show me how it proves or relates to god. as you previously said. Which you now won't comment on like the coward you are.
citation please
"The putative link between consciousness and the workings of the universe is based on an interpretation of quantum mechanics that is peripheral to the theory. The idea is that a system can remain in an ambiguous state until an observer, such as a conscious human, undertakes a measurement. The absurdity of this interpretation was demonstrated decades ago by means of the thought-experiment known as “Schrödinger’s cat.” So, there is no link between consciousness and the workings of the universe.
The double slit experiment merely shows the dual nature of reality implied by quantum mechanics. At one extreme, a beam of light or of electrons can behave as though it were a stream of particles; at the other extreme, it can behave like a wave. The double slit experiment demonstrates wave behavior, which was classically expected for light but unexpected for electrons.
(Just for extras, Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect demonstrates the particle behavior of light and electron beams, classically expected for electrons but unexpected for light.)
Atheists interpret these considerations the same way as anyone who practices, uses or even merely respects science: as a demonstration of the wave nature of particle beams. (In addition, we give no consideration to irrelevant suggestions of any connection with dark matter in any way, shape or form.)"
never comment again thanks
2012 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Serge Haroche and David J. Wineland for their innovative work in isolating the "collapse of the wave function," or the exact process by which the conscious mind of the observer paints subatomic reality.
shareCOOOL STORY BRO LOL>
do Serge or David provide any peer reviewed studies that show this proves god exists?
ohh look"The 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Serge Haroche and
David J. Wineland, who, with extremely sophisticated experimental devices, are able to
trap and manipulate individual photons and ions, respectively, thus allowing the Gedan
kenexperimente proposed at the beginning of quantum mechanics to become reality. In
addition, these experiments set the foundations for a new field of research, quantum in
formation science, and for the development of new applications, such as atomic clocks
with unprecedented accuracy. These developments have signaled the beginning of a sec
ond quantum revolution.
Keywords: quantum optics · quantum mechanics · cavity quantum electrodynamics · trap
ping and cooling of ions"
and a search of the document summarizing their contribution and Nobel prize. "god", "spirit" and religion aren't mentioned once.
TRY AGAIN KID. stop trying to smuggle god into research that never even mentions or attempts to prove it.
your god of the gaps schtick is tiring and a joke
"I have the impression your true purpose is to disparage people who believe in God rather than have an open discussion about proof. Too bad, because I found your topic very interesting."
You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence other than to conflate scientific atomic level interaction with the word sit (that's how pathetically desperate you are)
cry that scientists haven't found your imaginary friend
And then provide not a single shred of evidence. but imply god of the gaps nonsense.
"In quantum physics, the double slit experiment has stupefied physicists for a century. They have been trying to disprove it with more complex research, but they failed."
SO the answer is WE DONT KNOW. look at that! no god necessary!
"This experiment leads to the question about the role of consciousness in reality. Is a new paradigm needed? "
We don't know!!! NO GOD OF THE GAPS NECESSARY!!! SEE HOW THIS WORKS?
"there is no scientific evidence that the brain creates consciousness. Nonlocality has been proven in quantum physics and also plays an important role in consciousness theories for scientists who believe in something other than materialism. "
While I and many scientists strongly disagree.. let me say it one more time. WE DONT KNOW. does not not THEREFORE GOD.
I cant believe you actually think pointing to not fully understood scientific areas and saying god may be the reason would convince anyone.
Frankly i'm embarrassed for you.
Again, you're having an argument with your own personal biases. At no point was I trying to prove there is a God.
sharePlease be quiet and never reply again. you are frankly an embarrassing spaz.
No one is playing your annoying semantics game.
I guarantee no one can stand you in real life either
In quantum physics, the double slit experiment has stupefied physicists for a century. They have been trying to disprove it with more complex research, but they failed.
This experiment leads to the question about the role of consciousness in reality. Is a new paradigm needed? Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence that the brain creates consciousness. Nonlocality has been proven in quantum physics and also plays an important role in consciousness theories for scientists who believe in something other than materialism.
Literally everything--EVERYTHING!--in this paragraph is utterly bogus, rank nonsense on stilts.
"The experimental evidence throws traditional understanding of realism into disarray, and they've been desperately trying to find an interpretation of the data, or new data, which would preserve that traditional understanding. No luck so far."
Exactly! Scientists don't want to accept the results of the experiment because it conflicts with their "traditional understanding".
One of my university professors described an experiment he conducted about ESP. One subject he tested repeatedly gave correct answers showing a high level of ESP. My professor described how upset he was when this happened and then became relieved when the subject began giving wrong answers. He had no objectivity in his own experiment and wanted his subjects to fail in order to reinforce his own beliefs. He wasn't aware that he was doing this.
"Quantum physics says absolutely nothing about consciousness."
Nevertheless, observed vs unobserved double-slit experiment affects the result.
"Nonlocality has no role whatsoever to play in any serious theory of consciousness"
"serious theory of consciousness" gets into the biases I've been mentioning within the scientific community. Obviously, you have the same biases. Nonlocality exists in quantum physics.
Denying that some people have premonitions doesn't change the fact that they do. Ex. A parent suddenly has a "feeling" something horrible has happened to their child and 30 minutes late, they receive a call that their child was in a car accident.
You would deny the incident because it conflicts with your biases. I would want research to learn the cause.
"there is plenty of evidence that the brain creates consciousness.there is plenty of evidence that the brain creates consciousness."
There is literally no evidence. Scientists have never observed a brain creating consciousness nor has it ever been seen or observed under a microscope. If you have evidence that contradicts this, then provide a link.
"serious theory of consciousness" gets into the biases I've been mentioning within the scientific community. Obviously, you have the same biases. Nonlocality exists in quantum physics.
Denying that some people have premonitions doesn't change the fact that they do.
You would deny the incident because it conflicts with your biases. I would want research to learn the cause.
There is literally no evidence. Scientists have never observed a brain creating consciousness nor has it ever been seen or observed under a microscope. If you have evidence that contradicts this, then provide a link.
Your article has nothing to do with the topic. It's basically about activity taking place unconsciously. I learned that in 4th grade.
"Science isn't about anecdotal examples."
Not true. Psychology and sociology are driven by anecdotal evidence. My psych professors used to refer to their field as soft science instead of hard science like chemistry.
"The research has been done"
Nope.
1. Not all science can be measured or observed or observed in a consistent manner. Nobody has seen the brain create consciousness. Nobody has seen consciousness under a microsope or photographed it.
2. Quantum physics has inherent uncertainty and predictability unlike classical physics. To attempt to measure a quantum subject by classical physics standards will lead to failure.
"Nonlocality certainly exists"
Exactly. According to physicists, time is illusional and the past, present and future exist simultaneously. Furthermore, space is connected to time.
What makes you believe consicousness isn't following quantum rules rather than classical rules of science? Or a part of consciousness is nonlocal in nature or can tap into it which would explain premonitions, etc.?
What??? did you recite most of that from that "manifesto" you referenced as a link?...LOL.
Most of that is completely and totally off-topic; keep it to the point and stay tight on the topic.
It is ironic that you you accuse others of being 'off-topic' and 'debating semantics' and yet you are apparently the undisputed champion of both.
This is precisely why some of your statements all over this post are full of erroneous fallacies like 'evolving religion', the scientific explanation of 'deity' and 'afterlife', not to mention the topics of: 'psychology/mental disorders', 'the washing/not washing of hands' which are based mostly on scientific observations, statistics, and 'trial/error' and do not provide conclusive and incontrovertible evidence like my analogy of the moon.
First of all, get the chip off your shoulder. I have no interest in "proving" anything. The OP asked about evidence, actual solid arguments and proof.
There are a few scientists and doctors challenging standard beliefs re: the nature of reality which includes life after death and other related subjects. There are scientists who are moving into territory which had traditionally belonged to relligion. If you haven't read the manifesto, this is the link:
https://www.aapsglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Manifesto-for-a-Post-Materialist-Science.pdf
"The Holographic Universe: The Revolutionary Theory of Reality" by Michael Talbot summarizes the science along with evidence.
Yes, I have read that new age philosophical "manifesto" which adds nothing of intellectual value.
There are a few scientists and doctors challenging standard beliefs re: the nature of reality which includes life after death and other related subjects. There are scientists who are moving into territory which had traditionally belonged to relligion."
The OP asked about evidence, actual solid arguments and proof.
A closed-mind like yours will never accept any evidence that conflicts with your personal biases.
shareSad apologists tactics 101 when they have nothing and are called out on their crap
claim those who want facts, evidence and believe science are "close-minded"
you guys are so predictable.
Chilone literally did the same thing when called on his crap here. No wonder the bible calls followers sheep.
I already gave you a source and you decided to ignore it. I'd prefer you be honest and state you have no real interest in any evidence rather than pretend.
shareLOL you gave NO SOURCES. You gave a manifesto by bunch of christian scientists saying they are are going to move away from materialism into post materialism and "spirituality and society"
COOL STORY BRO
it only takes getting a few points in before you start rolling your eyes with disbelief at how ridiculous what they re saying is.
ANd you even tried to backtrack on your comment about the ambiguity around the double slit experiment.. somehow being linked to research that would prove god.
what is it with you apologists?
-we demand evidence
-you provide none
-we demand evidence again
-you claim you already did then just claim we dont have an open mind or want to ignore it
whether its low nobodies like you or top apologists its always the same nonsense tactics
PROVIDE EVIDENCE PLEASE
"The Holographic Universe: The Revolutionary Theory of Reality" by Michael Talbot summarizes the science along with evidence.
shareare you serious..........
MY guess is what he does is take science, and without any sort of connection, correlation or causation relates it to "religion" and then claims it proves god.
"According to Talbot ESP, telepathy, and other paranormal phenomena are a product of this holographic model of reality"
LOL so some weird philosophical argument that sounds like a version of hard solipsism
My guess is it leans heavily in philosophical masterbation, cherry picking some not fully explained phenomenon and repackaging them as "see therefore god"
Oh look he has no actual education in science.
wow Keelai you keep showing why we dont take you seriously..
You ask for evidence and refuse to look at it. How close-minded of you!
I doubt if you can read this 800-page book which is written for academics, "Irreducible Mind".
I don't believe you read any books.
Yes sorry I dont read your non peer reviewed dribble that no one else takes seriously. and instead rely on science.
Sorry I dont go and read a 800 page book cause you suggested it. or the 38 volumes you provided on near death experiences. Which from reading the titles of the study seem to make NO RELIGIOUS CLAIMS.
I must be wrong lol.
Im sure this is impressive to you and other theists.
You can read a 800 page book yet continually make arguments from ignorance and god of the gap fallacies.
maybe start with a 20 page book explaining fallacies before moving on to more advanced stuff
""Clinical neurologist Sebastian Dieguez argued that the book is "painstakingly redundant, astoundingly arrogant in its claims and intents". Dieguez wrote that the authors of Irreducible Mind took reports of paranormal phenomena and wild claims at face value, utilized "quantum babble" and formed an ignorant "soul of the gaps" argument.[9]
seems to be a theme in all your "evidence" you provide. anecdotal based pseudos science nonsense.
A closed-mind like yours will never accept any evidence that conflicts with your personal biases.
I can recommend books if you read.
sharePLEASE give us books with citations that have studies and research proving god and aren't simply philosophical masterbation and more apologetic fallacies.
its been two days of everyone asking you for evidence. and finally you suggest (to what I guess will be) more apologetics lol
Classic theist arguing
I read the entire manifesto, so yes, list them and I will check them out.
shareEach of these books detail research. Biocentrism gets into heavy discussion about numerous double-slit experiments over the years.
For the third time:
"The Holographic Universe: The Revolutionary Theory of Reality" by Michael Talbot summarizes the science along with evidence.
"Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife" Eben Alexander
Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death by Robert Lanza
The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena by Dean Radin
Now those will be interesting reads.
The manifesto from earlier, absolutely not.
it isnt. Its not a scientific book by Eban. its a personal testimony book with little science and lots of anecdotes
"Esquire also found what it said were discrepancies with regard to Alexander's version of events in the book. Among the discrepancies, was that Alexander had written the cause of his coma was bacterial meningitis, despite his doctor telling the reporter that he had been conscious and hallucinating before being placed in a medically induced coma.[11][12] In a statement responding to the criticism, Alexander maintained that his representation of the experience was truthful and that he believed in the message contained in his book. He also claimed that the Esquire article "cherry-picked" information about his past to discredit his accounts of the event.[12]
Proof of Heaven was also criticized by scientists, including Sam Harris who described Alexander's NDE account on his blog as "alarmingly unscientific", and that claims of experiencing visions while his cerebral cortex was shut down demonstrated a failure to acknowledge existing brain science with little evidence prove otherwise.[13] Neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks agreed with Harris, and argued that Alexander had failed to recognize that the experience could have been the result of his cortex returning to full function at the outset of his coma, rather than a supernatural experience.[14] In 2012 Alexander responded to critics in a second Newsweek article,[15] where he said that he vividly remembers having periods of hallucination and explains that there was a massive difference between them and his 'fully immersive' visions of the afterlife. Alexander describes the hallucinations in his book, saying that they were disjointed and centred around both random events and his doctors. He then compares them to the "hyper-real" experience of the afterlife, and says they do not match up.
"
It's preposterous to assume a "critic" can decide what another human's personal experience was.
It's also narrow-minded to not read a book based on said critic.
The book isn't an autobiography. Most of the book discusses other research and experiences of other people.
"It's preposterous to assume a "critic" can decide what another human's personal experience was."
And hence why science doesn't work this way. what they are arguing is his methodology is flawed.
Personal experience doesn't mean its true. By that logic many people have been abducted by aliens
Are you really arguing that because it has a critic therefore it has truth? No im saying I won't read it because its been already debunked.
its why NO SCIENTIST is referencing this nonsense.
its not a paper. Its not been peer reviewed. And this that did look into it pointed out the immense flaws.
wow.... your lack of understanding of science and how we learn things is astounding
I only linked the manifesto to show that there was a debate within the science/medical community about materialism.
Literally millions of humans throughout history have experienced premonitions, clairvoyance, near-death-experiences, etc. and most scientists/doctors deny or ignore it. That makes no sense to me.
Another book:
Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience by Pim van Lommel
and most scientists/doctors deny or ignore it. That makes no sense to me.
You're open-minded and curious. Two important qualities for a scientist.
Perhaps most scientists fear they're not being scientific if they study something that's mocked by others.
Dr. Sam Parnia has been doing ongoing major research in the field of resuscitation which included brain activity, consciousness and NDEs. Any progress re: NDEs will likely be through his research. His most recent results described conscious awareness continuing 5 minutes after brain activity stopped in cardiac arrests patients. He's being very thorough and scientific.
Just like when "they" claimed that our planet had only one moon, as the skeptic that I'am, I went outside every night with my telescope for one month and I was never able to mind more than one, however, I had to verify it.
shareDo you remember what made you skeptical?
I become skeptical when experts say something that doesn't seem to make sense. It comes in handy when I get conspiracy theory emails from friends, too.
and yet this doesn't mean "therefore god".
How fucking hard is that for you to get?
Yet another "science" book. with little science. replying on personal testimony and anecdote...
"Esquire also found what it said were discrepancies with regard to Alexander's version of events in the book. Among the discrepancies, was that Alexander had written the cause of his coma was bacterial meningitis, despite his doctor telling the reporter that he had been conscious and hallucinating before being placed in a medically induced coma.[11][12] In a statement responding to the criticism, Alexander maintained that his representation of the experience was truthful and that he believed in the message contained in his book. He also claimed that the Esquire article "cherry-picked" information about his past to discredit his accounts of the event.[12]
Proof of Heaven was also criticized by scientists, including Sam Harris who described Alexander's NDE account on his blog as "alarmingly unscientific", and that claims of experiencing visions while his cerebral cortex was shut down demonstrated a failure to acknowledge existing brain science with little evidence prove otherwise.[13] Neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks agreed with Harris, and argued that Alexander had failed to recognize that the experience could have been the result of his cortex returning to full function at the outset of his coma, rather than a supernatural experience.[14] In 2012 Alexander responded to critics in a second Newsweek article,[15] where he said that he vividly remembers having periods of hallucination and explains that there was a massive difference between them and his 'fully immersive' visions of the afterlife. Alexander describes the hallucinations in his book, saying that they were disjointed and centred around both random events and his doctors. He then compares them to the "hyper-real" experience of the afterlife, and says they do not match up.
"
https://www.newsweek.com/science-heaven-63823
shareare you really this stupid Keelai? honestly?
a personal testimony from a religious person saying they went to heaven. WOW. Real science here....
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2013/07/proof-heaven-author-debunked/313681/
Each new post you go to a new low and level of stupidity. I am truly astonished..
even without this article.
ONE MANS PERSONAL TESTIMONY AND ANECDOTE IS NOT SCIENCE.
seriously save face. and stop posting
You know what real scientists with real scientific findings dont have to do? write books full of philosophical masterbating.
you know what they do do? provide their findings for peer review.
Journal of Near-Death Studies
Peer-reviewed scholarly journal dedicated exclusively to the field of near-death studies. It is cross-disciplinary.
https://iands.org/research/publications/journal-of-near-death-studies.html
Yes near death happens.. people experience it...
the funny thing is
1. when they tried to test things like "out of body" or "the soul leaving the body" experiences. It was found these people could do no such thing. They could not see things that were out of view that they should be able to with an "out of body" experience
2. You are literally trusting a brain at its most irrational and worst to give you a logical, factual and actual perception of what is happening. That is insane...
3.When people have reported religious experiences in near death situations. they almost ALWAYS correlate to their religious beliefs. Catholics see Jesus, Eastern Orthodox see various saints, Muslims see Mohamed etc
No one is denying that
"Literally millions of humans throughout history have experienced premonitions, clairvoyance, near-death-experiences, etc. and most scientists/doctors deny or ignore it. That makes no sense to me."
NO ONE IS IGNORING IT.
You and religious people make supernatural claims. And yet they haven't provided evidence of such divine intervention. Scientists have provided various explanations on multiple of these subjects that have naturalist rational explanations. some they have not.
again arguement from ignorance. this does not mean THEREFORE GOD>
TRY AGAIN
Lol you ask for evidence, He cant provide any and calls you close minded.
sorry we dont think faith is evidence and have the audacity to ask for real proof.
how "close minded" of you wanting facts and evidence> imagine being so ignorant you just claim things we know is science but things we dont is "the religious realm"
LOL citation needed.
Religion became a temporary way to explain the unexplainable until science could. This includes the nature of reality, God's existence, life after death, time, consciousness, etc..
The problem is that scientists have biases like everyone else. Even when evidence is presented, they can refuse to take it seriously by discounting it because it contradicts with what they were previously taught.
Religion has been around for thousands of years, but is always evolving.
Let me define its temporary nature. At one time, people believed a solar eclipse meant God(s) was angry and the world was ending. Now, we know the science behind it and the solar eclipse moved from religion to science. Another example is disease. Disease was treated with a religious incantation and maybe herbs. They've been replaced by doctors and medicine in the modern era. When science figures it out, it moves from the religion category.
"There are things that science is still unable to explain like the existence of any 'deity/supreme being' and 'life after death' since neither of those can be proven or disproved by anyone."
That's why it's in the religion category.
This article addresses objectivity during a paradigm change in science and the move away from materialism.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/toward-a-postmaterialistic-science_b_5842730
"Science is "objective."
Scientists are not. Even in the hard sciences, scientists constantly debate about what is correct and contradict or update. Science is even more contradictory in the softer sciences like psychology. Science is always evolving. Recently, scientists had to write a letter to WHO demanding they look at coronavirus aerosols.
In my lifetime, homosexuality was a mental disorder and considered a "choice", ulcers were from too much worry instead of bacteria, women were told not to lift weights in order not to look like men and the nutritional guide repeatedly changes - eggs good, then bad, now good.
A tragic story about Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis. There was plenty of evidence that doctors should wash their hands before delivering babies in order to lower mortality rates of mothers from infection, but fellow doctors refused to look at the evidence. See "Semmelweis reflex" also
Religion has been around for thousands of years, but is always evolving.
That's why it's in the religion category.
Religion became a temporary way to explain the unexplainable until science could. This includes the nature of reality, God's existence, life after death, time, consciousness, etc.Neither science nor religion are able to provide evidence that supports the existence of any deity or afterlife.
Scientists are not
"Religion has been around for thousands of years, but is always evolving.
"
By definition religion isn't evolving. It should not be changed due to new evidence, findings or facts because its the "absolute dictates of a perfect, all knowing absolute entity" (depending on your belief)
"That's why it's in the religion category. "
Again GOD OF THE GAPS FALLACY. You really dont know how this stuff works for you?
"Scientists are not. Even in the hard sciences, scientists constantly debate about what is correct and contradict or update. Science is even more contradictory in the softer sciences like psychology. Science is always evolving. Recently, scientists had to write a letter to WHO demanding they look at coronavirus aerosols. "
Yet the scientific method is. but its nature. here why it is useful. the fact you think science changes is a strike against it is frankly embarrassing.
"some people ignored science therefore science isnt perfect!"
how someone writes the dribble you do and thinks "nailed it" is truly astounding..
Religion is cultural which is why there are so many different ones. Religion evolves because humans do. For instance, today the pope said he supports civil unions for same-sex couples. Do you think that would've happened 50 years ago?
"the fact you think science changes is a strike against it is frankly embarrassing."
The scientific method leads to change when new information is attained. Don't argue just to argue.
Humans evolve, religion does not.
The foundation of all religions are their sacred scriptures which have the same written words from centuries ago and are the same words written down today; (they offer nothing new and nothing different between then and now), there is no evolutionary change to those same texts that have been written in their sacred 'scrolls' for all those centuries. Any religious person from any culture will affirm to that as their foundation.
On the other hand; different 'cultures' choose to make certain changes based on their "personal subjective and perspective views" about certain 'laws/principals' from their sacred texts and therefore decide how to proceed with making changes to certain practices. Modern age, politics, laws, and science, pressure 'religions/cultures' to make some of those changes (the same sex union is an example of that).
Your concept of religion is very narrow. Many religions don't have a sacred text.
Religion is created by humans based on culture which I already wrote and you're repeating in your last paragraph. Practices are a large part of religion.
Your concept of religion is very narrow. Many religions don't have a sacred text.
Religion is created by humans based on culture which I already wrote and you're repeating in your last paragraph. Practices are a large part of religion.
Orisha, most indigenous religions, Voodoo, Santeria, Scientology, Buddhism, New Age
shareYes the cutlet evolved and hence the church and to change to remain relevant. Nothing in scripture changed. Nothing of "gods moral law" changed. They just made a political calculation
shareAnother thing is when religion changes, it can break-off into a new sect or become a new religion leaving the original intact.
Scripture changes. The Protestant Bible (Kings James version) is different from the Roman Catholic and both are based on the Jewish Bible. A Council decided on biblical (Catholic) canon by editing it. At one time, Christianity included a belief in reincarnation.
"Gods moral law" is open to interpretaion which changes with culture.
Scripture changes. The Protestant Bible (Kings James version) is different from the Roman Catholic and both are based on the Jewish Bible. A Council decided on biblical (Catholic) canon by editing it. At one time, Christianity included a belief in reincarnation.
"With all their translations, revisions, and altercations, the original manuscripts are still the same."
LOL! No, a change means it changed and is not the same.
A change for translation purposes. Nothing to do with changing any historical names, places, events, laws, and principles. All that has remained the same for centuries.
The original manuscripts remain the same (untouched and unmodified). They take the original manuscripts and leave them intact (no changes), copy down their translation(s) from those manuscripts, and make many translations and copies from them. Then they take those translated copies and make more revised copies to fix grammar, spelling, typos, etc. They keep repeating this process over and over. The events, names, principals, and laws remain constant and never changing.
Not true. James version is different from the Catholic Bible because there is a difference in beliefs.
shareNot true. James version is different from the Catholic Bible because there is a difference in beliefs.
That's not true. There are major differences between Protestants and Catholics.
Anyway, our discussion is very far from the original topic.
That's not true. There are major differences between Protestants and Catholics.
Beliefs. I've been both Protestant and Catholic. Nowadays neither.
I actually learned some of the differences from Protestant bigoted coworkers who stereotyped Catholics. Go figure. Anyway, everyone in my immediate family had a different religion when I was a kid, too.
This entire post has collapsed into a puzzle of cascaded nests.
shareLol when I asked you if you believed in the imaginary sky daddy you refused to say no
shareI think you're addressing the wrong poster.
This thread is getting confusing and needs to be color coded.
It was on another thread genius I asked if you believed in the imaginary sky daddy and you wouldn’t answer, you still won’t answer
shareLink?
shareOr you could just tell me I’m wrong and admit you don’t accept the magical sky daddy or maybe you’re too afraid to.
shareI don't think they will respond as this challenges them with a conundrum:
For example; if they answer no, then they will be ashamed and in fear from others of their belief as being a denier and also fear of being denied by their MSD: "But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my father in heaven" and "If we deny him, he will deny us".
On the other hand, if they answer yes, then they will admit to something of which they fear ridicule, contempt, mockery, and scorning.
ridicule, contempt, mockery, and scorning
This is very telling. If you cockroaches are so superior and science-based, then why do you have to resort to such low-life, desperate tactics to try to get your point across?
No, science doesn't but you do, lowlife, which is exactly my point.
shareAre you still hurting?...LOL
The theists and religious that post messages here by challenging atheists and agnostics should expect and be prepared for the consequences when they push or proclaim their personal religious beliefs.
This is your comeback? A very presumptuous, cheap attempt at claiming to know my emotional state? I got the impression you didn't believe in the supernatural. You just keep proving my point.
shareThis is your comeback? A very presumptuous, cheap attempt at claiming to know my emotional state? I got the impression you didn't believe in the supernatural. You just keep proving my point.
Name calling and trolling, whaaa! Not everyone, liar! Just those to whom the slurs apply. What about "be prepared for the consequences?" Can dish it out but not handle it, troll?
shareName calling and trolling, whaaa! What about "be prepared for the consequences?" Can dish it out but not handle it, troll?
Name calling and trolling, whaaa! Not everyone, liar! Just those to whom the slurs apply. What about "be prepared for the consequences?" Can dish it out but not handle it, troll?
Apparently you're actually the wounded one...LOL. The cockroach analogy obviously got to you. But it's apt as far as I'm concerned. Just like them, you're next to impossible to distinguish one from another. You sound like you're reading from the same script. And you scatter like crazy when the lights come on. Can the pretense of science and debate. You're here to bait and browbeat believers. The boys out west would recognize what I did as, "fighting fire with fire".
shareLOL!!! it took you four replies to come back with that one?
You are still proving my point.
Where is your contribution of intellectual debate about the subject discussed?
You can't do any better than to copy my comebacks and then harp about intellectual debate? Pseudo intellectuals like you are always a complete time suck.
shareFire with fire
shareThat's what it was and you got hammered. Oh woe is me! He called me a cockroach and a lowlife because I like to treat believers with "ridicule, mockery , contempt and scorning". Chilone and Keelai demonstrated the futility of trying to be civil, rational and "intelligent" with you creeps. Now piss off! I'm done with you.
shareHammered? by what? Cockroach and lowlife are just words excremented by people like you because you are still cowering away from contributing any intelligent debate on the subject. I welcome any mature intelligent debate, even when there is 'humor' involved. You have provided none. You only came to this post to defend by taking the offensive...LOL...
shareWhat parts of "time suck" and " futility" do you not understand? I came to this thread to beat up on a couple of creepy, ugly, hateful atheists and I feel like I succeeded, lol.
shareTo beat up?.....LOL:), now how mature is that?!
Nothing hateful about any of my replies on this post, except yours. BTW, why do you presume that I'm an atheist? I never claimed to be one.
So you're an apostate then, which is not unlike being a false friend, the worst type of enemy one could have.
shareYou are still making presumptions. How is this not surprising? You are still cowering away from contributing any intelligent debate. Don't be afraid!, I will not ridicule you, or scorn you, or mock you if that is what you fear.....LOL.
shareWell if you don't believe in the Chair Fairies, then I just feel sorry for you. I know with my faith in them, when I finally shuffle off this mortal coil, my soul will be carried up into the sky by my guardian chair fairies and I will live in a utopia of plush recliners, loveseats and sofas. Since you don't believe, you'll be spending the rest of eternity sitting on lumpy rocks. Have fun with that.
shareWhy would anyone think faith is reliable?
shareNothing is reliable.
shareSo then faith isn't correct?
sharePossibly. I've already stated that.
shareAt least you admit your faith isn’t reliable I accept your concession
shareIt's as reliable as yours.
sharechilone,
I don't even know you, but I have more faith in 'you' than the imaginary invisible man living in the sky with a long white beard, leaning over in his big chair listening to the prayers of his 'faithful' followers...LOL :)
please demonstrate we have faith in things.. ill be waiting. im sure it'll be as profound as your god arguement and lack of understanding of science
sharescience is reliable and testable. Its entire purpose is not to have scientists latch on to a theory and support it. In fact the opposite. ALL motivation is to disprove someone else's theory with a better theory and better evidence.
its so effective everything around you is thanks to science. Not just the lofty theorizing on astro-phyisics and the universes origins or quibbles over the significance level of various evolutionary mechanisms.
But in very real applicable ways. Whether its your phone, your care, your TV, your laptop, Modern medicine and the newest discoveries, increasing crop yields, new production methods to lower costs etc etc etc etc
Please show me what "faith" has given us, how effective it is and how we test it?
If you want to know about faith and what it's given humanity, you're in for a lifelong journey...... I'm pretty sure you're going to come back with a bunch of negative stuff like the inquisition, etc., etc., but that's not what I'm getting at.
Gotta go, but your hostility has been wonderful.
again more unproven assertions. Jeez man provide a single factual thing.
bout what id expect from an apologist, and a really bad one at that.
That has always been an impossibility. There has never been a scholar, philosopher, mathematician, archaeologist, or scientist in history that has ever been able to provide a single infinitesimal shred of evidence, which is precisely and primarily why mankind created different god(s), religion(s), and other mythical and imaginary deities. It is also why cultures, societies, and groups are able to fabricate and insert any customized delusional narrative into fantasy, myth, and superstition in order to appease and pacify their fears and beliefs.
share100%. or offer god as explanations for things they didn't understand.
Oh, yea, I forgot about that one which is by far the most common motive as to why the largest percentile of the population are unable to grasp, comprehend, explain, or perceive it as anything other than some grand mystery that can only be rationalized as supernatural, divine, or mystical origin that is been manipulated by some invisible figure.
What makes it all worse in every way possible is that in our current modern age when the superstitious are offered "the 99%" of all scientific and rational evidence that proves the lack of any deity, they cleverly invented a theory called Creationism (creation science) in a poor and desperate attempt to tear down real science and oppose evolution...LOL
There is no real proof he ever existed, other than in the fairy tale called the bible. And please, don't mention the shroud of Turin. Radiocarbon dating places it in the 14 century. Some theorize it was Leonardo Da Vinci who created it.
shareDid you do the radiocarbon dating or are you having faith that whoever did it was telling the truth?
Perhaps they tested the wrong shroud. Or didn’t test any shroud at all. Maybe the entire story was made up.
You have as much proof that god doesn’t exist as those who believe do.
You however will live a miserable life because in the end when you’re hanging off the side of a cliff, faith in god is the only thing that’ll give you courage. There is no inspiration or strength in atheism. Hence why there are no inspirational or accomplished atheists.
You however will live a miserable life because in the end when you’re hanging off the side of a cliff, faith in god is the only thing that’ll give you courage. There is no inspiration or strength in atheism. Hence why there are no inspirational or accomplished atheists.
You assume I'm an atheist? I am not. One the one hand, I don't believe in a supreme being or an afterlife or heaven, and I do believe that organized religions are mostly fairy tales. On the other hand, the only religion that makes any sense to me is Buddhism, and there are many who say it's not really a religion but more of a faith or belief that there is more than just this physical world we live in. They believe in reincarnation, of which I am on the fence. In meditation, they invoke various deities which, in my understanding, are a way to focus one's own inner thoughts, fears, and weaknesses than are actual gods existing on another plane. Sure, there is more to it than that, and I will admit that my understanding in less than perfect.
shareHumans can't even interpret the same story the same way. Two different networks and individuals will look at the same information and come up with different interpretations. And you want "proof" Jesus existed? Christ, we don't even now the truth about people who lived a few hundred years ago.
shareYou will never be provided with “proof” per se, but you can be provided with evidence that Jesus is messiah and God. It seems from your question that you truly have an open mind, and want to know the truth. That’s a great place to be. If that be the case, I wish we could have a long conversation face-to-face, since we can’t I would suggest searching for some videos on YouTube of Ravi Zacharias giving evidence. The other strong evidence is the testimony of people whose lives are changed because of Jesus. I encourage you to ask God to show you truth. Peace.
1. the "evidence" in the bible are unverifiable second hand witnesses... would you ever accept that in any other facet of your life?
2. The hindus claim the same, as do the muslims, as do the jews If their religious text is correct you cant be all right since your god and events differ.
how do I distinguish who is right?
WOW!! You guys sure waste a LOT of time and energy arguing over something you find preposterous, ridiculous and contemptible!! If you told me the aforementioned "chair" was going to shrink and go up my butt when I tried to sit on it, I'd say "whatever", and go about my day.
I very happy for you that you're too smart for God but seriously? Move on with your life...
Yes and if I said "this chair is god", he spoke to me and I have faith. He has certain rules I am now going to try and enforce on you and vote in people to legislate so its enforced on you. Oh im also going to take away peoples rights based on what this chair has told me. Ohh also all my "worship the chair" organizations get special tax exemption statuses.
you might have some issues.
again. simple concepts. too difficult for theists to get.
That's one of the great things about the USA. People are free to introduce and/or pass legislation more aligned to their beliefs and/or values if enough people feel the same.
shareyou dont even make coherent sense from post to post.
you asked why people dont like it and cant understand, I gave you why. you praised it
lol im sure if you were born in the Middle East you would have been a good little jihadist
My human "reason" is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that a god exists or the belief that a god does not exist. Neither myself nor anyone else is able to provide incontrovertible and irrefutable scientific evidence to support that there is a god or that there is no god.
Everyone has made their points.
No matter what people choose to believe or think, the bottom line is that there is not a single person on the planet that can provide any irrefutable and incontrovertible evidence that any deity exists or does not exist. Either is an impossibility and that is all that matters about the 'superstition/supernatural'.
At the end of the day, people will believe what they want regardless of logic and reason.
You abandoned your prior faith. That in itself makes you a bona fide "apostate". And now you're trying to suggest you're an agnostic in order to downplay and backpedal your contempt for those who sincerely believe, which you wouldn't feel a need to do unless you knew you were wrong. This is logic and reason and none of your denials can change that.
shareI'm neither suggesting nor backpedaling. You are the only here making asinine presumptions and the only one making up titles and labels for everyone. You insist on cowering and evading the topic at hand by not contributing any mature and intelligent debates since you are too scared and afraid of ridicule and mockery. Grow some balls and provide us all with one.
A typical, knee-jerk, unobjective response coming from a textbook pseudo intellectual. This is what drives your type to run to the ACLU and file frivolous lawsuits over some perceived offense perpetrated by Christians. I've been addressing only you for hours now but you're accusing me once again of targeting "everyone"; a very transparent attempt at some demagoguery there on your part. If I'm so afraid and cowering, why am I responding to you once again with my abrasive tone that really got to you to begin with? I've seen enough comments on here by now to know that others see through you as I do. Like I said before, you've been hammered.
shareWhat exactly are you seeing through? Hammered how and by what?...that is typical childish and immature behavior...you are embarrassing yourself again. Are you seeking or expecting some 'feel better about yourself satisfaction and approval' that allows you to believe that you are right about something? What exactly are you right about since all you have done is make invalid presumptions.
At the moment you are addressing me, however, some of your previous replies on this and other posts on this website affirm to your targeting and attacking others with labels and titles which seems suspiciously hypocritical.
Behold; the immaturity of one of your several childish attempts at "hammering and beating up"...your own words:
What parts of "time suck" and " futility" do you not understand? I came to this thread to beat up on a couple of creepy, ugly, hateful atheists and I feel like I succeeded, lol.
You just reinforced my reason for not contributing by posting my quote above, so it has nothing to do with cowering. That's just a desperate false accusation and wishful thinking on your part.
And your little summation above essentially emphasizes the pointlessness of this so-called debate. Also, you said everyone has made their points. That would include me.
Contradict yourself much?
So basically, your goal is to convince yourself that you will “feel” better by attacking and trolling others in “hammering them” and “beating them up” as you call it, with titles and labels like “spineless jellyfish”, “cockroaches”, “low life”, “creepy”, “ugly”, and “hateful”, which are exactly the behavioral traits that you have been exhibiting and projecting about yourself.
Then you make presumptions by calling them “atheists” or “apostates”. If you had done your proper research on this site, you would have found my first response to Billy where I made it perfectly clear where I stood in regards to this subject which was four months ago, so no ‘suggestions’ or ‘backpedaling’ was necessary, yet again, more evidence of your asinine presumptions.
“Hammered” and “beat up”…seriously, how infantile is that?!
You continue to cower from contributing any mature and intelligent debates on the topic of this post. You have added nothing of any value and none of your replies to me or anyone else on this post has proven otherwise.
You were the first to make presumptions about my emotional state and now you just can't get enough of accusing me of that. Since you admitted in one of your posts to previously having been a convert to Christianity, that is evidence of being an apostate. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/apostate That's not a presumption, it's a fact. As for the rest, contempt begets contempt, fighting fire with fire. You're already a verbose, ostentatious fraud but if you think you're anything to fear, you're really flattering yourself way too much.
shareSo you are incapable of understanding the difference between an apostate and an agnostic.
Let us elaborate further on why people like you tend to cower and then strike at the right opportune by excrementing infantile titles and labels. You lurk in the shadows behind others like Keelai who has at least followed through while you sit back waiting to strike with childish name-calling so you can prove how much you enjoy “beating up” and “hammering” those atheists.
You mentioned:
So you're an apostate then, which is not unlike being a false friend, the worst type of enemy one could have.
I already mentioned above, regarding your little summation, that the rhetoric you used is usually associated with an agnostic. However, true agnostics are much more genuinely objective than you are. So, you're both an apostate and a professing agnostic then.
More pomposity and sanctimonious drivel to justify your contempt. You're a contemptible bore.
I've been very out in the open and direct since my initial comment to you.
Shame on me, LOL ! I feel so scolded, ha, ha.
I professed nothing; it is you that insist on titles and labels since those are all you are capable of contributing on any post.
Warranted justified contempt…Absolutely!
Yes, you lurk and wait, and then you come out in the open to directly express your emotional state with titles, labels, and name-calling.
Scolded? that was not my intention, however, you are the one admitting it.
So now you're denying that you're an agnostic, just like you denied being an apostate and an atheist? You seem to be a very vacillating, confused individual, not to mention, a very obsessive one. You keep harping about the same things over and over as if that inane repetition is somehow actually going to create an endgame for you.
My contempt for you is also warranted and justified. You gloried in being contemptuous, scornful, mocking and ridiculing. That's like a neon sign flashing, I'M A LOWLIFE!
You actually took that last comment seriously? That's like your post about having to verify that we only have one moon. That one looked like you had just finished huffing paint prior to posting.
I have neither denied nor confirmed. You still insist on titling and labeling everything.
You enjoy repetition since you continue to come back for more it, and I will continue to do so.
Your contempt? All you have done it excrement name-calling, titles, and labels, and you are still doing it. You saw my contempt for lowlifes and you inserted yourself to defend them which makes you the worst one.
I didn't take it seriously, you sarcastically and ironically admitted to been scolded, hence your underlying true sentiment.
Damn, your comebacks just keep looking more desperate and feeble every time. If this had actually had been about serious, intelligent debate of an issue, instead of you trying to make a display of your self-assumed superior intellect, you wouldn't have such a huge omelette to peel off your face right now, LOL !
shareComebacks? That entire statement affirms exactly to your intentions and by mirroring/projecting yourself.
You are clearly not worthy of any intelligent debate.
LOL ! Yours is the, "I'm rubber, you're glue..." mindset and you want to lecture about maturity. I outgrew that decades ago, junior. As long as you want to keep revealing your idiocy, that's how long I will keep accommodating you because it entertains me.
share