Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
NikolausWe are allowed to criticize religion. It's not based on nothing. There have been huge amounts of homophobia on ns. Some examples are milkman, frenchy, cj and many more. Don't be stupid.
NikolausThe bible
NikolausI looked for the truth and I found it. That's why I'm an atheist
DlCKTruth is relative.
Within Hindu teachings there is one very simple way to explain the existence of a soul. A biologist can explain every part of the human body, they can model each individual piece needed to sustain the living, yet they cannot create life. Why is this?
There will always be a God. The collective consciousness of billions of people has proven it.
DlCKWhich book in the bible champ?
theabortionatorYou're still full of shit. You're saying that there's a bunch of homophobia on NS and I haven't said anything against it. This might be true many times with your stereotypical christian but that's all you're basing this on. You didn't actually see my posts clearly, or you wouldn't have said that. But thanks for pretending I did or didn't post things based on your perception of me and not anything that I posted.
Solid logic.
theabortionatorYou could drop a bunch of 2x4's on the ground a billion times and and they're never going to build a house on their own. Even if there was something that magically existed how do you explain our universe as intricate as it is?
DlCKTruth is relative.
ski-bolaI'm not gonna get into this massive debate of whether or not god is real but I'm gonna have to side with OP I think its a good idea to at least allow kids to read religious literature in school. I'm not saying that there should be a mandatory religion course in schools but I do think it is a good idea to have some kind of a religious upbringing. The bible is a really good thing for kids to hear about its full of good morals and life lessons and at least knowing about peoples religious faith can give you a better look on life.
DlCKThere will always be a God. The collective consciousness of billions of people has proven it.
DlCK"Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10
The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter."
WattsThis argument has always been strange to me because it goes like this:
1. At one point our universe did not exist.
2. In our universe we know that stuff must come from other stuff.
3. Therefore, something must have caused the big bang.
4. That thing is God.
People seem to forget that the big bang happened before our universe existed, meaning there's no logical reason to think that the same rules that apply to our universe must also apply to the big bang, because, as I just said, the big bang happened before our universe and the physical laws that seem to govern it existed. Yes, in our universe it seems pretty certain that matter must come from other matter, but before our universe existed (i.e. when the big bang took place), who knows?
Even if you concede that something must have caused the big bang, it doesn't follow logically that that thing had to be, without any possible doubt, God.
For me, the whole "well God exists because we don't how the universe started" argument is, at best, very flimsy. Just because we don't know how the universe started, that doesn't mean it was God. People don't like not knowing or being able to comprehend something, so instead of just accepting we don't, and may never, fully understand how the universe began, for some reason people jump to the conclusion that it must be God, despite there being no solid logic to back that belief up.
If you want to believe that, it's 100% fine, go ahead, but don't act like not knowing how the universe began is definitive proof that God exists, because it's pretty obvious to anyone who spends more than 30 seconds thinking about it that this isn't the case. Don't insult our intelligences, please.
LonelyThe big bang could have caused itself.
LonelyThe big bang could have caused itself.
theabortionatorSo nothing always existed and was created by nothing because it's magic
onenerdykidThe meaning of that statement is absolute, and as such it is not relative but universally valid. Therefore, truth is not relative. It's a self-defeating statement. If you were to say "some truth is relative" then your statement is correct, but a blanket statement like that applies to all things is incorrect.
Also, for any of you arguing that God does not exist, you have just as much work to prove that as people arguing that God does exist. Good luck.
LonelyThe big bang could have caused itself.
WattsThis argument has always been strange to me because it goes like this:
1. At one point our universe did not exist.
2. In our universe we know that stuff must come from other stuff.
3. Therefore, something must have caused the big bang.
4. That thing is God.
People seem to forget that the big bang happened before our universe existed, meaning there's no logical reason to think that the same rules that apply to our universe must also apply to the big bang, because, as I just said, the big bang happened before our universe and the physical laws that seem to govern it existed. Yes, in our universe it seems pretty certain that matter must come from other matter, but before our universe existed (i.e. when the big bang took place), who knows?
Even if you concede that something must have caused the big bang, it doesn't follow logically that that thing had to be, without any possible doubt, God.
For me, the whole "well God exists because we don't how the universe started" argument is, at best, very flimsy. Just because we don't know how the universe started, that doesn't mean it was God. People don't like not knowing or being able to comprehend something, so instead of just accepting we don't, and may never, fully understand how the universe began, for some reason people jump to the conclusion that it must be God, despite there being no solid logic to back that belief up.
If you want to believe that, it's 100% fine, go ahead, but don't act like not knowing how the universe began is definitive proof that God exists, because it's pretty obvious to anyone who spends more than 30 seconds thinking about it that this isn't the case. Don't insult our intelligences, please.
DlCKAlright, fair enough, heres another proof of God rooted in Socrates philosophy although some argue that the idea of an intelligent designer goes back as far as 500 bce.
Complexity implies a designer.
The universe is highly complex.
Therefore, the universe has a designer.
A concise and whimsical teleological argument was offered by G. K. Chesterton in 1908: "So one elephant having a trunk was odd; but all elephants having trunks looked like a plot."
Here is Thomas Aquinas' version
“The Teleological Argument”— The intricate design and order of existent things and natural processes imply that a Great Designer exists.
For the record, the existence if God, as I mentioned above, dates back much further tha. Religion, so let leave the bible out of this.
NikolausYou're cherry picking. The bible also says stuff like if you rape someone pay their dad 50 sheckles or killing all but 4 humans.
ndyeI agree with you politically, but your weak arguments for a God aka mystical man in the sky, do confuse me.
DlCKTruth vs Fact. Most science is fact.
"A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected. If I say "fire is hot," I don't care how great your reasoning skills are, if you touch fire your skin will burn (and don't give me that "but people can walk on hot coals!" bull. There's a difference between the transfer of heat through conduction and training one's body to deal with the agonizing pain of said conduction). Now when I say this, I am not speaking a truth, I am speaking a fact. If you say "fire is not hot," you are not lying, you are incorrect. Facts are concrete realities that no amount of reasoning will change. When one acknowledges a fact, they are doing just that. Facts are not discovered, facts are not created, facts are simply acknowledged.
A truth on the other hand, is almost the opposite. Truths are those things that are not simply acknowledged, but must be discovered, or created. If I say "God exists," and I possess strong reasoning for the affirmative of that statement, then God really does exist, that is a reality. However, if another individual possesses strong reasoning for the negative, and because of this reasoning they believe that God does not exist, then that is also a reality. If we were to debate our ideologies, and my reasoning appeared stronger than theirs, they may choose to adopt my belief that God does exist. If they do, then the existence of God is just as true as the nonexistence of God which they believed a week ago. Truths, as opposed to fact, are much more fluid and malleable than their empirical counterparts."
DlCKThat would negate the meaning of the word cause.
DlCKAlright, fair enough, heres another proof of God rooted in Socrates philosophy although some argue that the idea of an intelligent designer goes back as far as 500 bce.
Complexity implies a designer.
The universe is highly complex.
Therefore, the universe has a designer.
A concise and whimsical teleological argument was offered by G. K. Chesterton in 1908: "So one elephant having a trunk was odd; but all elephants having trunks looked like a plot."
Here is Thomas Aquinas' version
“The Teleological Argument”— The intricate design and order of existent things and natural processes imply that a Great Designer exists.
For the record, the existence if God, as I mentioned above, dates back much further tha. Religion, so let leave the bible out of this.
DlCKMy "weak" arguments are the arguments of some of the greatest philosophers to ever live.
Ive never once used the word mystical. That is your rhetoric, not mine.
Do you understand what the multiverse is?
A higher consciousness would be in another dimension, not the sky. Clouds and airplanes are in the sky, not God.
onenerdykidFactual Truth: your screen name is DICK is verified by checking with reality (this is also known as the correspondence theory of truth, whereby a statement is true it corresponds to the real world).
DlCKYou made this easy for me. My name on this site is actually DLCK. "Your truth is Relative to your experience."
Truth is Relative and Fact is Universal.
Relativism: The doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.
What is true to you may not be true to me but fact is inescapable.
ndyeMany of those same philosophers believed the earth was flat, and had no understanding of many things which we understand today.
I understand the concept of the multiverse, and it is like a God, lacking in falsifiability, and to me, that means it holds as much weight as unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters.
Maybe it, they, whatever exists, but I will not waste my time thinking it so.
DlCKIm done.
Take a class, read a book.
onenerdykidYou actually proved me right- you verified it.
Universal is unchanging. Facts can change. You could change your screen name to Matt and it would be not universal since it is not for forever and always.
Also, "truth is relative" is a universal statement that is a self-contradictory statement. You are making an absolutely true claim about truth that it is not absolutely true all the time. It defeats itself.
ndyeWhat the fuck did I miss?
ndyeWhat the fuck did I miss?
DlCKThe Universe is always changing!
http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/universe/universe.asp
You need to get learned moreish
DlCKYou attempted to discredit the work of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and many many others because the thought the world was flat. Im not even going to attempt to rebuttal such a fallacy.
onenerdykidyou missed him rattling off self-defeating principles of relativism as if that was the end of the discussion.
Relativism is naturally a self-defeating philosophy and why it is pretty much abandoned by modern scholars except to show that not all things are relative.
If all things are relatively true, then so must be the truth of that statement. It is therefore true and false at the same time, and nonsensical. He can say the words, but as Aristotle pointed out thousands of years ago, says nothing more than a plant.
False statement: All things are relative. (the meaning of that sentence is absolute, and therefore not relative, and therefore self-disproving).
True statement: Some things are relative. This leaves the possibility of absolutes open, as well as relatives. The example of "his screen name is DLCK" is a relative truth. It not universally valid because he could change his name to something else. It is only factually true and if the facts change, so does the validity of the statement.
DlCKYou attempted to discredit the work of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and many many others because the thought the world was flat. Im not even going to attempt to rebuttal such a fallacy.
onenerdykidI never said the universe is unchanging, I said that the universal is unchanging.
ndyeMany of those same philosophers believed the earth was flat, and had no understanding of many things which we understand today.
ndyeI did not attempt to discredit all the work of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. I think they were wrong about God. To say that I am attempting to discredit them because I am saying that they can be wrong about things, is incorrect.
DlCKYouve completely ignored everything else Ive written. I also never once said that "all things are relative" so your argument is based around a false assumption.
"If something is universally true, it is true everywhere in the world or in all situations." My name on this site is currently DLCK which is true no matter where or who you are or what you believe.
I feel like im pullin hairs with you clowns.
READ A BOOK, TAKE A CLASS. Your logic sucks.
DlCKLOL WUT???
DlCKAlright, fair enough, heres another proof of God rooted in Socrates philosophy although some argue that the idea of an intelligent designer goes back as far as 500 bce.
Complexity implies a designer.
The universe is highly complex.
Therefore, the universe has a designer.
A concise and whimsical teleological argument was offered by G. K. Chesterton in 1908: "So one elephant having a trunk was odd; but all elephants having trunks looked like a plot."
Here is Thomas Aquinas' version
“The Teleological Argument”— The intricate design and order of existent things and natural processes imply that a Great Designer exists.
For the record, the existence if God, as I mentioned above, dates back much further tha. Religion, so let leave the bible out of this.
DlCK"If something is universally true, it is true everywhere in the world or in all situations." My name on this site is currently DLCK which is true no matter where or who you are or what you believe.
I feel like im pullin hairs with you clowns.
READ A BOOK, TAKE A CLASS. Your logic sucks.
DlCKLOL WUT?
ndyeAs you are a fan of great philosophers,
“The first principles of the universe are atoms and empty space; everything else is merely thought to exist.” -Democritus
You take a very logical approach to suggesting the possibility of an existence of a God, while I take a more physical science approach to the belief in a lack of a God, the universe and the universe as we know it does not require a God to exist. It seems illogical to push a God into a world where the existence of such a being or elevated consciousness is not needed, or explanatory in any way other than to fill the gaps of our knowledge which rapidly are closing in the current age.
onenerdykidI know this was for DLCK, but since I personally like these questions I'd like to throw in my 2 cents.
Since the concept of God is not inherently self-contradictory (as the concept of a married bachelor or square sphere are self-contradictory), that means that God is logically possible.
Religion aside, many people have argued for God to be the prime cause of all things. When we look to the sciences, there are things that science, to this day, still cannot answer. One of these topics is "what caused genetic cellular mutation?"
Darwin argues (in summation) that genetic mutation is random, and the best/most successful traits are the ones that live on. The end result is present day life. Intelligent Design argues (in summation) that genetic mutation is caused by God, and the changes that exist in nature are ultimately caused by God. The end result is also present day life. Two different theories, both logically possible, both explaining present day life.
When we examine the natural world/universe, we eventually get to a point that we simply cannot know. Prior to this, for some people this is chance, for others it is God. For both, however, the knowledge of it is simply not possible. Both remain logical theories.
Personally, I tend to lean towards the God side of the equation simply because it is more pleasing. Random chance just feels empty to me. BUT I do not know it, I just feel/believe it. For people to argue otherwise is entertaining, but not any more valid.
To 100% claim that Darwin is correct is no more true than to 100% claim that it is God. Both are unknowable and unproveable.
LonelyThe bible is fiction too...If you want to believe a fictitious book be my guest...
...I mean Jesus said the world would end before his disciples died...
..many years later here we are having this conversation...
ndyeI cant prove an existence of a God, nor can I disprove it. My biggest issues when it comes to this is the place religion has in politics in the US and decision making for all of the American people. That to me is generally contrary to what I find to be appropriate.
theabortionatorCool. Orange names mocking religion. Just when I thought NS was a safe place to share my views.
