Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Furyus George · 04-10-2004, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starboy

I thought it would be obvious to a person with your keen legal and scientific mind. You see in science when someone makes a claim about something like quarks and independent researchers do not come up with a similar result then that is an indication that something could very well be wrong with the original claim. Such methods are used from toothpaste to cancer treatments. It is a scientific method of the twenty-first century. Perhaps you did not get the memo.

Starboy

Ya know FJ, if you were not such a stock Christian I would not have to resort to such stock answers. Now if you would like to stop with the snide remarks I am ready when you are.

Using your logic, the "huge diversity" of life on earth could be construed as evidence that we don't all share a common, single-celled ancestor, correct?

Furyus George, dull, but trying

Starboy · 04-10-2004, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furyus George

Using your logic, the "huge diversity" of life on earth could be construed as evidence that we don't all share a common, single-celled ancestor, correct?

Furyus George, dull, but trying

If there were huge diversity you would be right. But again, if you had got the memo you would know that cellular machinery accross all these creatures is remarkably similar. They are all made out of the same sorts of atoms, molecules, proteins, fats, sugars and so forth. They are so similar that you can take a gene out of a firefly and make a glow in the dark tomato. When you look at the similarities of religious experiences of god they all look like mental illness.

Starboy

Furyus George · 04-10-2004, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starboy

If there were huge diversity you would be right. But again, if you had got the memo you would know that cellular machinery accross all these creatures is remarkably similar. They are all made out of the same sorts of atoms, molecules, proteins, fats, sugars and so forth. They are so similar that you can take a gene out of a firefly and make a glow in the dark tomato. When you look at the similarities of religious experiences of god they all look like mental illness.

Starboy

Gosh, I have a lot of trouble with the rules around here...logic applies in one place, but doesn't in another. Dang, this is tough!

Furyus George, over and

Starboy · 04-10-2004, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furyus George

Gosh, I have a lot of trouble with the rules around here...logic applies in one place, but doesn't in another. Dang, this is tough!

Furyus George, over and

FJ, Science is not philosophy. Science doesn't prove things. Science discovers and explains. What science has discovered so far is that god is irrelevant to the universe. If there is a god it is nothing like the Christian god, or just about any other religous god other than the diest god.

Starboy

sharon45 · 04-10-2004, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furyus George

OK, let me restate: you contend that the fact that some Christians believe God is perfect and the fact that some Christians believe God is imperfect, proves the Christian God does not exist.

All you've proven, 45, in an extremely limited sense, is that Christians don't agree on the nature of God. You have proven zip about the nature or existense of the Christian God.

I wish an atheist with some intellectual honesty and some stones would back me up, but I won't hold my breath.

Furyus George, prefers ostentatious, 45

You can't keep using "the nature of god", as I keep saying, "the christian version of a god". I didn't say just simply "god", or the "Jewish version of a god", etc., I said "the christian god". Christians don't hold any ownership on a god, just their own version of one.

I don't expect you to understand because you are supposably, a claimed christian, so of course, you will think it as nonsense, that is exactly what I expected. You just don't understand that of course I had to use a simple example in order to prove my point: a contradiction can not exist in real life. The christian god being perfect and imperfect at the same time cancels both of them out, a contradiction, nonexistence. Since christians want to count all who claim to be christian as christians, that is another of their own undoing, because then there version of a god can't possibly exist. Afterall, in order for this to be the christian version of a god, you need to have christians, without christians: no christian god. With the accepted version of a christian: contradictions: no christian god. Christianity defines the christian god, it in no way defines all versions of a possible god, just the christian version, which can not possibly exist.

The christian version of a god already says that he is perfect, yet he shows many times throughout the bible that he is far from perfect, so both claims of a christian god, whether of one being perfect or imperfect do not apply since the claim contradicts both versions of a supposed one god. This is all within the christian bible, but christianity also thinks it can also go beyond the bible, therefor, allowing for contradictions: its downfall.

I also showed another contradiction in that post which no one yet has had their fun with.

sharon45 · 04-10-2004, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norseman

Sharon, what you've proven is that christians don't believe the exact same thing (hence the thousands of denominations). If god does exist and is perfect, then the fundies are right, if not, then the other christians are right. They don't both have to be right because they are not both believing in the same thing. If someone were to simultaneously believe that god were both perfect and imperfect then it would proove that they were a wacko and that their particular belief was false. As this is not the case, the proof is irrelevant in determing the validity of modern christian beliefs.

But christians define christianity, they define the christian god, he only exists in christian text and in christians' imaginations, both allow him to be in contradiction, nonexistence. Someone on their own believing both counter versions, yes, that is incorrect, but the christian belief system allows for both counter versions of a supposed christian god, their christian text allows for contradiction.

Furyus George · 04-10-2004, 09:05 PM

This is pitiful. My heart is saddened for you, Sharon, and for once, I'm not being sarcastic.

Furyus George, more sad than Furyus

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharon45

You can't keep using "the nature of god", as I keep saying, "the christian version of a god". I didn't say just simply "god", or the "Jewish version of a god", etc., I said "the christian god". Christians don't hold any ownership on a god, just their own version of one.

I don't expect you to understand because you are supposably, a claimed christian, so of course, you will think it as nonsense, that is exactly what I expected. You just don't understand that of course I had to use a simple example in order to prove my point: a contradiction can not exist in real life. The christian god being perfect and imperfect at the same time cancels both of them out, a contradiction, nonexistence. Since christians want to count all who claim to be christian as christians, that is another of their own undoing, because then there version of a god can't possibly exist. Afterall, in order for this to be the christian version of a god, you need to have christians, without christians: no christian god. With the accepted version of a christian: contradictions: no christian god. Christianity defines the christian god, it in no way defines all versions of a possible god, just the christian version, which can not possibly exist.

The christian version of a god already says that he is perfect, yet he shows many times throughout the bible that he is far from perfect, so both claims of a christian god, whether of one being perfect or imperfect do not apply since the claim contradicts both versions of a supposed one god. This is all within the christian bible, but christianity also thinks it can also go beyond the bible, therefor, allowing for contradictions: its downfall.

I also showed another contradiction in that post which no one yet has had their fun with.

Furyus George · 04-10-2004, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starboy

FJ, Science is not philosophy. Science doesn't prove things. Science discovers and explains. What science has discovered so far is that god is irrelevant to the universe. If there is a god it is nothing like the Christian god, or just about any other religous god other than the diest god.

Starboy

Science doesn't prove things? That's a news flash. And science has discovered that God is irrelevant to the universe? You discredit yourself with such nonsense, Star.

Furyus George, scientific proof

Starboy · 04-10-2004, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furyus George

Science doesn't prove things? That's a news flash. And science has discovered that God is irrelevant to the universe? You discredit yourself with such nonsense, Star.

Furyus George, scientific proof

FJ, your ignorance is showing again.

Starboy

Quote:

Scientific Proof?
What is meant by scientific evidences and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish "truth" or "fact" in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to reevaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. "Proof", then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics. That said, we often hear "proof" mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear "proof" used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms "proof" or "prove" in this article.

"Scientific Proof"

sharon45 · 04-10-2004, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furyus George

This is pitiful. My heart is saddened for you, Sharon, and for once, I'm not being sarcastic.

Furyus George, more sad than Furyus

About as insightful as to be expected once again. If you are going to feel sorry for me, at least try to realize a real reason for doing so. I don't feel sorry for you though just believing, I feel sorry for all the damage that this very flawed invention of a belief system has caused and will continue to cause for along time to come.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.