Sadie: Well, how do you like that? Distant Claws and I both altered our handles on the same day.

Even more so, we both (to my knowledge) blended our names (mine=mat) into the handle. Mine comes from my recent interest in FFX. I like change, dunno why.

Wow!  Just went over to ABCNews.com to check out the debate… it’s pretty sad.  Kurt and ray just don’t know how to follow logic and formulate arguments.  They were searching for answers the whole time, and even though they said their claims were based on science, they had to keep referring to the Bible and God as if they existed.  Which means it’s impossible to not have a circular argument.

I will however state that they Atheists fucked up on their side.  The question was where do people get moral authority from if they do not get it from God or a religion.  And the atheist debaters couldn’t answer the question.  But the funny thing was that the moderator picked it up and not Kurt and Ray.  Kurt and Ray had a fantastic opportunity to slam them and they just sat their with thumbs up their ass.

My answer to the question, “We decide as people, as civilized society was is moral and immoral.  We agree as a society and writecodes or law.  There doesn’t need to be a God.  And we the people will punish as we see fit.  Why?  Because we have the ability to do so as higher thinkers and higher forms of beings.”

There is a choice to do something for the benefit of others or self. Xians have the self-serve option more open, but things without consequence to self would only be done to help others, meaning atheist morals are more often selfless

Still why be selfless? Where is the logic in doing something unselfishly? May just be a an instinct that made the tribe more likely to survive -genetic evolution

I thought athiests were more objective

Laughing at people who think bananas a proof of Gog isn’t being unobjective. We tend to say there is no evidence for ‘x’- sounds objective to me.  If the evidence tends to show ‘x’ we tend to go with it.

...

Does this mean Sadie is no longer Sexy ? I find that hard to believe.

...

Final Fantasy 10?  Surely that means FF1 should really be called pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-Penultimate fantasy

Besides, stupid people are funny.

I never thought stupid people or drunks to be funny…

LH- highly recomended rpg, >5Oh for £15 for ps2 with lots of thinking between, calls to question perception of existence, morality, feelings, in circumstances unavailable in real world, different scenario and world per edition

Nah - that aint role playing- thats an adventure game.

Role playing requires other people.  I find even the MMORGs too limiting as an RPG compared to the sit around the table kind.

They are great at what they do- but I like the interaction.

I laugh at stupid people for the same reason I love a good (or is it bad) shlock film. They try so hard to be serious, but the whole time you’re just awestruck by the idiocy of it.

LH- Ah, you’re correct about the genre, I’m not sure where I picked that idea up, but XI is an online only edition more of the rpg sort - and this requires it be for xbox/pc. I would’ve tried multiplayer but my pc is a little impotent and I can never get the settings right, also xbox+subscription is more than I’d be willing to pay. I like to dream and do things in my own time, which I guess is why I like single player, but I suppose there is more than one form of appeal to gaming which is what multiplayer adresses.

LH: Does this mean Sadie is no longer Sexy? I find that hard to believe.

...

Follow your gut instincts. 

Gutter instincts?

Follow your gut instincts.

Gutter instincts?

Same thing with me where Sadie’s concerned

Sorry for this - more ironic Google Ads in the side bar

Creation Or Evolution?
Is evolution just a theory? You can prove creation. Order free booklet.
http://www.gnmagazine.org/evolution

Intelligent Design Facts
Scientific discoveries support ID See articles, links and resources
http://www.y-Origins.com
Atheists

“Gutter instincts"… OK, I wasn’t going to say anything but this quote of Sadie’s from another thread did provide a visual: 

I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me there would be no showers hot enough…

Same thing with me where Sadie’s concerned

I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me there would be no showers cold enough…

I had a sneaking suspicion that my shower comment would open a Pandora’s Box of sorts…

Just to give you an idea of how powerful it was, everyone here forgot about the idiocy of Kirk and Ray.   

Just to give you an idea of how powerful it was, everyone here forgot about the idiocy of Kirk and Ray.

Oh, if only my powers could extend to more Americans!

New name Sadie?

open a Pandora’s Box

When correctly viewed
everything is lewd

I could tell you stories about Harry Potter
And the Wizard of Oz- there’s a dirty old rotter...

Ouch, you’re right, I did spell atheist wrong. One time I won a spelling bee in sixth grade, but since then I’ve really lost it. Ok, first, all I was doing was making an observation that atheists (I spelled it right that time) are the same as Christians in the way they make fun of the other side to each other, which is really easy to do, but doesn’t really bring anyone closer to the truth. I know Christians do it all the time, they say really ridiculous things to each other, and it’s ok, because they already agree with each other. So I think I’ll say what I believe for those interested, because I think it would be good to hear what you all have to say about it. First of all, I don’t believe that you can prove God’s existence using science, and I think it’s a waste to even try, because the very definition of science excludes the possibility of God. Science is a way of looking at the world that assumes that all natural phenomena have natural causes.  It’s a philosophy, which cannot itself be tested, and so the philosophy itself isn’t scientific. And this is where I think it fails as a way of finding truth, especially with the big bang theory and evolution, which are both ways that scientists explain how the world came to be the way it is now, and how athiests show that we don’t need god to explain the world. Let’s pretend that God did do something throughout evolution, like the Intelligent Design people say. Just pretend. Science would never be able to admit it, or even see it. Suppose you were in a house that you assumed was empty, but someone else was in the house, and that person dropped a glass and then went and hid. You go to see what happened, and you see the broken glass. What conclusions would you draw? Because of your assumptions, you would conclude that the wind or something else knocked the glass over, but it wouldn’t be true. In the same way, because of the assumptions of science, it is unable to see any effect that God might have caused. So we have a question such as “How did life begin?”, and my biology book states, “We will never know for sure, of course, how life began. But science seeks natural causes for natural phenomena, and that is the approach that must guide scientific inquiry about the origin of life.” So I’m very skeptical of scientific explanations like evolution, abiogenesis, or the big bang theory, because we don’t know what happened, and I don’t agree with the assumptions.

So I don’t really believe that there is any way to prove that there is or is not a God. I think that people make a decision about whether they believe there is a God independent of any evidence or reasoning, and then, once they make that decision, they find evidence and reasoning to back it up, and I think there must be enough to satisfy the most intelligent of us on either side. But I think it’s good to think about these things, if nothing else to examine why we have chosen to believe what we believe, so I’ll try to explain why I believe there is a God. It’s mainly because if I were an athiest, I would have to believe that my life has no ultimate meaning at all. Not that I don’t at times think, and even wish, that were true, but I think there is a better part of me that hopes that there is a reason for my existence. Don’t we all have that need for meaning? Even just now, someone commented how I waste my time with religious activities. This implies that there’s a better way to use my time. But if there is no God, isn’t everything we do a waste of time? We will all end up dead, so in the end, nothing we do makes any difference. So my question is, how, and why, do you all quench this longing for meaning?

Sorry this is so long.

Aaron:

Science is a way of looking at
the world that assumes that all natural phenomena have natural causes. It’s a philosophy, which cannot itself be tested, and so the philosophy itself isn’t scientific.

First, all “philosophies”, and all intentional actions, cannot be tested according to the reasoning you apply above. In fact, logic as you display is itself a philosophy, and cannot be tested. Are you skeptical of your own logic to the degree that you doubt evolution? Clearly not; you are making claims upon that basis.

Science is not, per se, mere philosophy. Planes fly because we got our numbers right, not because there’s some philosophy we believe in that makes them fly. Sure, we have no guarantees that we aren’t making a mistake somewhere, outside the universe of discourse for which these things are tested to hold true. That’s more of a question of knowing to what degrees it holds true and testing for them than a flaw in philosophy.

As for the broken glass metaphor; let me define two domains: the natural (that which is observable by some means) and the supernatural (whose nature is contested). Let us assume that there exists some truth (law) which holds universally for some part of the natural (call it drinking dark beer). The law of drinking dark beer says, “thou shalt be consumed, and thou shalt intoxicate”. Anything that would affect dark beer, even if it is supernatural, must respect the law of drinking dark beer. Let us consider a thing we will call “tolerance”, which halts intoxication in some circumstances. Tolerance cannot affect dark beer where it would halt intoxication, since to do so it would contradict the law of drinking dark beer. In a universe of drinking dark beer, those things which violate the law of drinking dark beer are utterly without meaning. The universe, to scientists, is drinking dark beer. The analogy is that there exists some natural law, that all things in the universe must respect natural law. If true, it makes God natural by extension, and the only means of observing God exist within nature. Even if such a God exists outside of nature, it is a meaningless entity.

The metaphor is bad because, given the existence of natural law, if a glass falls off of a table, there is a material reason for it, and God is not a child hiding in the pantry.

Of course, if no natural law exists, our ability to predict would be sorely dampered - yet we use science in predictions all the time which appear to be true in the end. Either we’re right or we’re not, within any given domain. It’s possible that we’re not right, but unreasonable to conclude so. Planes fly.

How do I find meaning? In all the things I can experience. That’s it. Go for a walk. Eat ice cream. Have sex. Drink dark beer. Smile, for christsakes. It’s a big universe, and even being part of a very small portion of it makes it plenty big for my liking. It’s sort of like asking how I can live having never been to China. I don’t long for “meaning”, since I really don’t know what that means. Reality is what it is. Talking about it like there’s something more to reality than reality is nonsense. But my life is about me having a good time, and I’ve got all that I need, all around me, to do just that. I can’t understand, with such a huge universe, how someone can desire “meaning” within the universe - it seems abundantly clear to me that dealing with the enormity of everything is much harder than finding something to do, which is probably where God-belief came from in the first place.

Aaron,

somebody else beat you to this and I wrote about it here a few years ago. The original site is long gone, but here’s a copy of the Griswoldian Catechism:

QUESTION. How did the universe come to be?
ANSWER. We do not know, but to assume God made it is premature.

QUESTION. Why is it premature?
ANSWER. Because we have not yet found a naturalistic answer to that question.

QUESTION. And when we find a naturalistic answer to that question, will it no longer be premature to assume God made it?
ANSWER. No, then God will be made unnecessary.

QUESTION. For what purpose does the universe exist?
ANSWER. For no purpose at all, since it has no creator. We make our own purpose.

QUESTION. When there is no purpose, can there be such a thing as a waste of time?
ANSWER. No, there cannot be such a thing as a waste of time when there is no purpose, except for religion, which is a waste of time.

QUESTION. How did we humans come to be?
ANSWER. Through thousands of millions of years of evolution by natural selection.

QUESTION. What makes the atoms self-organise for evolution by natural selection?
ANSWER. The laws of physics. Not any sort of élan vital as the ancients assumed, for we have no evidence of such.

QUESTION. How did the laws of physics come about?
ANSWER. They are the natural outcome of a random quantum fluctuation in a vacuum.

QUESTION. What does a random quantum fluctuation in a vacuum do?
ANSWER. It operates outside cause and effect, and enables something to come out of nothing.

QUESTION. Does something normally come out of nothing in everyday life?
ANSWER. No, but the quantum scale is an exception. There, something out of nothing is a regular occurrence.

QUESTION. Could a random quantum fluctuation in a vacuum produce the lawful progression of self-organisation we see?
ANSWER. Only it could have, because all science would grind to a halt if we assumed a supernatural creator.

QUESTION. What is science?
ANSWER. It is the only way of determining what is true and what is false.

QUESTION. How does science operate?
ANSWER. Hypotheses must be testable and within the framework of naturalism.

QUESTION. Can science alight upon the supernatural?
ANSWER. No, the supernatural is outside sciences domain.

QUESTION. Then if the supernatural does exist, is science not a limited tool for discovering the whole of reality?
ANSWER. The supernatural cannot exist, for when it is discovered it becomes natural.

QUESTION. How does the supernatural become natural?
ANSWER. When it is explained. We once thought thunder was supernatural, caused by a God, but now we know it is natural.

QUESTION. And we now know the God does not cause thunder?
ANSWER. Certainly, since we have a scientific explanation that makes him redundant.

QUESTION. And if I explain the boiling of water in molecular terms, does it make the human teamaker redundant?
ANSWER. No, since the human teamaker is natural.

QUESTION. Could there be no possibility of a Teamaker of this cup of the universe?
ANSWER. We could also say the Invisible Pink Unicorn made the universe.

QUESTION. Regarding the Invisible Pink Unicorn—what makes you rule out even her?
ANSWER. She is not observable by our five senses, whether bare or with the aid of instrumentation.

QUESTION. Do you regard our five senses, whether bare or with the aid of instrumentation, as the key to uncovering the whole of reality?
ANSWER. Yes, since we have nothing else. Science is our only way of knowing.

QUESTION. Would you say deaf people are justified in regarding the world of sound as truly, objectively, really nonexistent?
ANSWER. No, their reliance upon their senses does not make objective reality so.

QUESTION. Is there life after death?
ANSWER. No. Life after death is wishful thinking.

QUESTION. How do you know there is no life after death?
ANSWER. I know because scientists have mapped mental functions to areas of the physical brain.

QUESTION. Could it be we have a duplicate of the body that survives physical death?
ANSWER. There is no evidence for that, and life after death is wishful thinking.

QUESTION. Does the snake cease to exist after shedding its skin?
ANSWER. Snakes are natural.

QUESTION. Is religion as a whole based on nothing but wishful thinking?
ANSWER. Of course it is, since a wholly unbiased look at the world shows there is no evidence for its claims.

QUESTION. What do you say to the charge that atheism is for the purpose of being freed of all accountability to a higher authority?
ANSWER. That is arguing the motives and it is invalid. Atheism should be weighed on merits alone.

QUESTION. Would the world be better off without religion?
ANSWER. Certainly. Most wars and massacres are caused by religion.

QUESTION. Including the two World Wars?
ANSWER. We could call, for example, Nazism a religion.

QUESTION. How would you regard the Nazis use of science to justify their aims?
ANSWER. It was pseudoscience and a misuse of science.

QUESTION. So can then war have an other cause than religion?
ANSWER. The cause was the same: irrationality. Rationality is the only thing that can stop humans from flying planes into office buildings.

QUESTION. What if reason tells you to kill for the greater good?
ANSWER. It must be a good reason.

QUESTION. Cannot kindness and compassion and empathy be a stop-gap against atrocity?
ANSWER. No, they are too weak and emotional and irrational to serve against crime. Only reason can give us peace.

QUESTION. Is reason the arbiter for us all, in all our lives?
ANSWER. Nothing but reason should be exercised in a grown personҒs life.

QUESTION. How do you know the faculty of reason should always be employed?
ANSWER. Because the faculty of reason tells me so.

QUESTION. Are prayers answered?
ANSWER. Prayer has never coaxed a drop of rain from the sky.

QUESTION. How do you know prayer has never coaxed a drop of rain from the sky?
ANSWER. I know prayer and a few pennies get you a sandwich.

QUESTION. Do you believe religious people pray to their deities to fix their computer?
ANSWER. No, and that is because reality there cannot be ignored.

QUESTION. What do you do when you board a plane?
ANSWER. I submit myself to fate.

QUESTION. Who controls fate?
ANSWER. Only we to a very limited degree.

QUESTION. And is there no possibility of an external hand over fate?
ANSWER. No, because then there would be no starving children in Africa.

QUESTION. Do you regard evil as evidence against a creator of the universe?
ANSWER. A creator of the universe would never have made diseases and other manner of suffering.

QUESTION. Can a creator of the universe be called good only if he makes the universe Disneyland-compatible?
ANSWER. I would rather much live in a Disneyland, yes. That it is not so speaks volumes against God.

QUESTION. Do you hate God?
ANSWER. Atheists do not hate God, they do not believe in his existence.

QUESTION. So you would theoretically accept Gods existence?
ANSWER. Only upon receipt of evidence.

QUESTION. What kind of evidence would you accept for God?
ANSWER. Scientific evidence.

QUESTION. You said the supernatural was outside scienceҒs domain. How can a supernatural being be evidenced using science?
ANSWER. It cannot, that is why it does not exist.

QUESTION. Can there be scientific evidence for the supernatural despite this?
ANSWER. I want to see the supernatural interact with the natural universe.

QUESTION. The American continent did not interact with Europe before its discovery. Was it nonexistent before the 16th century?
ANSWER. The American continent is natural.

QUESTION. Is “natural” a synonym for “real” and “supernatural” for “fictional”?
ANSWER. Indeed so.

QUESTION. Do you find yourself comfortable to be confined not only to the five senses, but to language as well?
ANSWER. That is where reason, evidence and science lead me.

QUESTION. What is the goal of science?
ANSWER. To give us a Theory of Everything that will wrap up the whole of existence in one or a few mathematical equations.

QUESTION. What will be done afterwards?
ANSWER. Nothing, we will have answered the mystery of the universe to our satisfaction.

QUESTION. What if God is that Theory of Everything?
ANSWER. We must never assume God, because then all further inquiry and research would grind to a halt.

Copyright © Heathen Dawn. Some Rights Reserved.

You say

Science is a way of looking at the world that assumes that all natural phenomena have natural causes.  It’s a philosophy, which cannot itself be tested, and so the philosophy itself isn’t scientific.

The major problem here is that the believer wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

Science makes a number of assumptions about the natural world and all it takes to falsify it is are scientific observations that cannot be reconciled with these assumptions.

So I’m very skeptical of scientific explanations like evolution, abiogenesis, or the big bang theory, because we don’t know what happened, and I don’t agree with the assumptions.

This is a tired old petulant saw.

So I don’t really believe that there is any way to prove that there is or is not a God. I think that people make a decision about whether they believe there is a God independent of any evidence or reasoning

The word you’re looking for is faith in the sense of: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

and then, once they make that decision, they find evidence and reasoning to back it up

And that is called a rationalization, something prone to confirmation bias.

I’ll try to explain why I believe there is a God. It’s mainly because if I were an athiest, I would have to believe that my life has no ultimate meaning at all.

And that’s another tired old saw and another tired old misspelling of atheist. The universe is cruelly indifferent towards us, but on the up side it empowers—even forces—us to give our lives meaning. I will never understand the appeal of believing that the meaning of our lives are contingent on a sky daddy. Why bother going through the motions?

Aaron, to make a long story short—what are the good arguments you mentioned? You certainly haven’t mentioned anything new…