Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Uh-Oh, here comes a God vs Science thread

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Uh-Oh, here comes a God vs Science thread
bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

type568 said:

I thought there was some way to actually delete. Perhaps it could be useful.

It's not useful, as demonstrated by Neil in this (and the last) thread. :-/ It's called a discussion board for a reason. :P His posts were part of the discussion and deleting them means that people that discover this thread later will be missing part of the discussion. It would be like listening to a radio show where one of the speakers didn't have a microphone...

I've deleted a few posts in my time, but I think most (if not all) were before I knew anyone had responded to them (and if somebody does respond to them then I usually apologize and fill in the blanks). I typically delete things that I don't want to have said, either because they were wrong and I'm embarrassed, or because they're controversial and I'm not sure I should say them.

Of course, I doubt Neil deleted his posts because he believes they are wrong, and it's too late to delete them because of their controversial nature as they've already fueled a flame war, so deleting them serves no constructive purpose. It seems the real reason is childish.

Append: The moderators do have the ability to delete posts if the posts break the rules though.

Just please don't make any claims about the "truth" unless you can back them up with evidence.

I personally find this behavior very provocative. The religious side likes to give their (admittedly!) faith-based beliefs as absolute truths. Then they get pissy when the atheist/science crowd refutes or refuses them and provides well supported scientific theories to the contrary. If you want to discuss your beliefs without being told you're wrong 100 times over then start by expressing them as your beliefs and not as the unquestionable truth. I don't care what you believe. I do care though if you're asserting your beliefs on others as absolute truths without any evidence to back them up because it's absolutely wrong to do so.

Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007

Look, why are you guys doing this? As Neil said, he thinks evolution is bogus. In my eyes (and many others) God is bogus. To them, we are wrong, to us, they are wrong.

Some people cant imagine we came from dirt. I find it very logical that we evolved. Some people can't accept that. This is all OK. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem with such discussions is that most people have their beliefs set in stone. No matter what you do, their faith is like cement shoes and they wont get rid of them no matter what. Proof that God doesn't exist? Doesn't matter much, I don't care about evidence and science... I believe.

So go watch the baby video Matthew posted or look at the GIFs posted and stop this bullshitting already. :P

In capitalist America bank robs you.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

Vanneto said:

Some people cant imagine we came from dirt.

You don't believe it, because that's what the Bible teaches?

Quote:

Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground"

Psalm 104:29 "for dust you are and to dust you will return"

It's obviously talking about stardust; that's apparent if you understand old Hebrew, like I do (my native tongue).

Dizzy Egg
Member #10,824
March 2009
avatar

Just spoke to God, he says he doesn't exist and evolution is happening.

Thread solved.

----------------------------------------------------
Please check out my songs:
https://soundcloud.com/dont-rob-the-machina

type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
avatar

bamccaig said:

It's not useful, as demonstrated by Neil in this (and the last) thread.

It would sometimes be still nice to have that button for other peoples posts ;D

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Why did I delete my posts?

Because I thought I was wrong? Nope.

Because I thought I was losing? Nope.

Because I thought I was winning? Nope.

I am just too inflexible and not willing to change my views and that makes me a bad person for these discussions? Perhaps, but that would mean you are flexible and willing to change your views, and I have seen no evidence from anyone that evolutionists have been swayed and will switch over to Christianity in the 29 or so years I have discussed my beliefs with people. Either we agree to disagree or insults, jokes and the like are thrown around (like in here).

You see no reason for me to delete my posts therefore I am being childish. Sounds to me you're the one being childish. I deleted my posts so they can no longer be quoted and people can start to leave me out of this discussion. I no longer wish to take part, arguing my beliefs with atheists is not something I enjoy. Anyone who claims that if I had just explained the reasons for my beliefs more and provided more evidence in the existence of God that they would have been satisfied with that is just plain lieing. Nothing I say about God will be considered sufficient evidence to an atheist who has made up their minds that God does not exist, and to be fair, nothing any evolutionist/atheist says will be enough for me either. So it's pointless for me to continue. Most of you are probably young and fairly new to this, I am 46 years old and have argued my beliefs in the past, as I said, over 29 years and seen it all before and know the result.

I DO like to come back and check out what people are saying just out of curiosity, but when I come back and constantly see my name and people still quoting my posts arguing with me after I clearly stated I'm no longer interested, well, that is when I must delete the posts so they can no longer be quoted. I think that's a good reason. I know some won't, but then they're the ones who wish to constantly attack me and my beliefs so there's no surprise there, but this post should end any conjecture as to why I did it.

Have a good one.

---
“I love you too.” - last words of Wanda Roy

SiegeLord
Member #7,827
October 2006
avatar

Vanneto said:

Doesn't matter much, I don't care about evidence and science... I believe.

There are two kinds of beliefs. Rational beliefs, that can change in light of new evidence, and irrational beliefs that don't change in light of new evidence. It is insulting to equate the belief in the supernatural with the belief in scientific theories.

"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18
[SiegeLord's Abode][Codes]:[DAllegro5]:[RustAllegro]

Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007

In capitalist America bank robs you.

SiegeLord
Member #7,827
October 2006
avatar

A God I can believe in 8-).

"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18
[SiegeLord's Abode][Codes]:[DAllegro5]:[RustAllegro]

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

SiegeLord said:

There are two kinds of beliefs. Rational beliefs, that can change in light of new evidence, and irrational beliefs that don't change in light of new evidence. It is insulting to equate the belief in the supernatural with the belief in scientific theories.

News flash: humans aren't logical, even if they think they are. "Rational belief" is practically an oxymoron.

(this has nothing to do with science vs. religion btw; this is my therapy training talking)

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

SiegeLord
Member #7,827
October 2006
avatar

Rational belief is a mathematical concept. I will in principle agree that humans are incapable of precisely matching it, but if they try, they certainly could. On subjects that are less controversial than God/Evolution, humans are pretty darn rational.

"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18
[SiegeLord's Abode][Codes]:[DAllegro5]:[RustAllegro]

GameCreator
Member #2,541
July 2002
avatar

Has anyone ever tested people who claim to be able to talk to God? It doesn't seem hard. Get a large enough group and have them all individually talk to God and ask Him what to do about some world events. Then get their answers and see if they match.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

The ones that contradict what I was told weren't true believers.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

In before the lock!

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

Has anyone ever tested people who claim to be able to talk to God? It doesn't seem hard.

Two seconds of thought will tell you this won't work. How do you "test" someone who knows everything you're doing?

That paper sounds kind of hollow to me, though to its credit it says the theories are very controversial. They're nice ideas, but they're trying to explain behavior that's long since been explained, documented, and practically demonstrated as not being rational at all. Grats on writing a paper I guess?

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

I have to admit, that revision feature is pretty sweet.

---
“I love you too.” - last words of Wanda Roy

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

Has anyone ever tested people who claim to be able to talk to God?

They're talking to themselves. I don't think that means they aren't talking to God (what is that again?), but it does mean that there's nothing special about it.

Everyone is capable of meditation, and through meditation one can have complex revelations pop into their awareness as they clear away the incessant chatter in their skulls. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Aboriginal Religions, etc, all have numerous meditations. Some methods are more effective than others, and I personally enjoy Vipassana. Meditation opens your mind to direct experience, and through that you are able to have a better understanding of yourself.

It's not the teachings of religion that bother me at all. It's the reasoning people attach to why the teachings should be followed, which creates authority in it. There are plenty of wonderful ideas in The Bible, but God isn't one of them.

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Neil Roy said:

Perhaps, but that would mean you are flexible and willing to change your views, and I have seen no evidence from anyone that evolutionists have been swayed and will switch over to Christianity in the 29 or so years I have discussed my beliefs with people.

Naturally you assume that the "evolutionists" are just being stubborn. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that your arguments are based on absolutely no evidence or logic/reasoning. :P Like so many Christians, you foolishly equate your closed mindedness to our critical thinking. They are not the same, I'm afraid. I would absolutely be willing to accept the existence of God if there were a shred of evidence or logic in it. There isn't as far as I can see. Your blatant disregard for testable and demonstrable science, however, proves that it isn't evidence keeping you from changing your views, but sheer ignorance. :-/

Neil Roy said:

I deleted my posts so they can no longer be quoted and people can start to leave me out of this discussion. I no longer wish to take part, arguing my beliefs with atheists is not something I enjoy.

You were a part of this discussion and the thread should reflect that. If you want to quit it now then stop reading the thread and replying to people. That's how you quit a thread. You don't delete the contents that have already been posted. It's very poor netiquette to do so.

Neil Roy said:

Anyone who claims that if I had just explained the reasons for my beliefs more and provided more evidence in the existence of God that they would have been satisfied with that is just plain lieing. Nothing I say about God will be considered sufficient evidence to an atheist who has made up their minds that God does not exist,...

I think a lot of Christians assume that atheists are just as passionate about their beliefs as they are. In my experience, atheists don't really care. It's an intellectual debate for me. It just so happens that there is no evidence for God. That's why Christianity is based on faith, for fucks sakes! There is no evidence and anybody with critical thinking skills can see that. The people who rely on critical thinking to guide their life are therefore likely to disregard your beliefs as silly. It isn't about being right or being closed-minded. It's about being open to the truth, whatever that may be. There may well be a "creator", and it may well be the "Christian God". There may well be a flying spaghetti monster too. There's no reliable evidence for either, however, so the sensible response is to not believe in either of them.

Of course, there are people, such as yourself, that choose to believe in these things against logic or reason. That is your right, but just don't try to justify your beliefs with logic or reason. That's not why you believe and there's no logical defense for why you believe. It's a personal choice that you've made and you should leave it at that. It's normal for humans to question what they observe to better understand it. When we observe your arguments that don't make sense it is normal for us to question them. Don't discuss your beliefs with reasonable people if you don't want them to be questioned.

Neil Roy said:

...and to be fair, nothing any evolutionist/atheist says will be enough for me either.

I think you owe it to yourself to ask yourself why you feel that way.

Neil Roy said:

Most of you are probably young and fairly new to this, I am 46 years old and have argued my beliefs in the past, as I said, over 29 years and seen it all before and know the result.

You haven't seen it all before or you would not have been surprised to learn that evolution is not just a proposition, but a well understood fact[1]. :P

Neil Roy said:

...constantly see my name and people still quoting my posts arguing with me after I clearly stated I'm no longer interested, well, that is when I must delete the posts so they can no longer be quoted.

The responsibility to follow through in quitting is on you, not us. You're the one who chose to quit, not us, and we're welcome to continue discussing the things you said without you. If you don't like that arrangement then you probably shouldn't participate on public forums.

Neil Roy said:

I think that's a good reason. I know some won't, but then they're the ones who wish to constantly attack me and my beliefs so there's no surprise there, but this post should end any conjecture as to why I did it.

These are the criteria for a discussion:

{"name":"80957c72518411bd61070d1b9a026d61.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/0\/80957c72518411bd61070d1b9a026d61.jpg","w":634,"h":882,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/0\/80957c72518411bd61070d1b9a026d61"}80957c72518411bd61070d1b9a026d61.jpg

You've openly admitted to not being willing to change you mind no matter what anyone says. That opened you up to ridicule. Blatantly disregarding scientific evidence on the grounds that it refutes your own beliefs is not fair. The people "attacking" you were simply doing their part to point out the errors of your ways as you clearly don't see them yourself. It is funny to have somebody arguing with science with blatantly wrong assertions. Just as funny as it would be for somebody to deny that <math>2 + 2 = 4</math>. I don't think anybody in this thread has or intends to have any beef with you. Some of us might not think highly of your beliefs, but that doesn't mean we can't still respect you. This is just a friendly discussion that you refused to play fair in. :P

References

  1. Again, refer to Wikipedia for what is meant in science when a theory is said to be factual.
SiegeLord
Member #7,827
October 2006
avatar

They're nice ideas, but they're trying to explain behavior that's long since been explained, documented, and practically demonstrated as not being rational at all.

They are nice ideas supported by evidence and theory. Where are your explanations, documentation and practical demonstrations?

"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18
[SiegeLord's Abode][Codes]:[DAllegro5]:[RustAllegro]

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

SiegeLord said:

They are nice ideas supported by evidence and theory. Where are your explanations, documentation and practical demonstrations?

I have a shelf full of books that agree with me and a near 100% success rate with my clients (not that I practice full-time, but still). There's a reason these sorts of papers get labeled as "academic"; theories look good on paper but they're impractical, unrealistic, and not terribly useful.

I reiterate; nice ideas, but I'm sticking with what gets real-world results. And part of that is that humans are not logical or rational, as much as humans who think they are they to make it look that way. My work relies on that fact. It's probably not very scientific, but that only matters to the scientists. I'm a results kinda guy.

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Derezo said:

How does anything I said relate with the concepts of god or pseudoscience?

You're just pushing the same problem back into time, with the "problem" as I understand it being how did we get here?

I have a shelf full of books that agree with me and a near 100% success rate with my clients

My personal experience with prayer says it's ineffective.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

My personal experience with prayer says it's ineffective.

Your personal experience would be, now wouldn't it? ::) There's a book that'll help explain why ... but we both know you're just trying desperately to make a point. Troll harder.

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Logic fail.

[EDIT]

The prayer part came before the atheism part ::)

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

I agree completely.

The prayer part came before the atheism part ::)

... and? How is this important?

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

GameCreator
Member #2,541
July 2002
avatar

Two seconds of thought will tell you this won't work. How do you "test" someone who knows everything you're doing?

Are you saying God would intentionally sabotage the survey to hide from the public? Does it say in the bible that He does not allow Himself to be revealed?



Go to: