Cheeseburger_in_paradise
-
Posts
976 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Cheeseburger_in_paradise
-
-
It wasn't me. You said you thought the belief in God was hard-wired, and challanged the difficulty of denying that. I said that what was actually hard-wired was a predisposition towards explanations and certaintity, and religious conviction was the easiest way to find it. The result would be the same: most people throughout history believing in God. Or Gods. Or giant turtles that you don't want to rock.
I was pointing out, to someone else, that choosing not to believe could take just as much imagination as believing; and I was not responding to you at the time. Very small children often seem to have a concept of God. I don't know why that is, unless maybe it's just in them. I don't know this to be proof of God's existence. But the natural selection biology theory seems no more complete, to me.
-
WRONG.
My point wasn't that God is just an "imaginary man in the sky." My point was that invoking the "God did it" explanation for any question about the universe around us is scientifically invalid and, quite frankly, intellectually lazy. In other words, the scientific method must necessarily ignore the role of God and his very existence for the specific purpose of better understanding the world around us. That is why I have referred to God as The Invisible Sky Man. The issue of a higher power's existence is a philosophical question, not a scientific one upon which I have actually taken any definitive position.
The Biblical Creationist version of God, however, is another matter altogether. Science has conclusively proven that idea to be false. If you believe that the Earth is 5K years old, or that humans aren't evolving primates, or that God cares whether you masturbate in the shower or kiss another man, then yes you are most definitely irrational.
I will ask you again: do you think the scientific theory of evolution is an accurate description of the biological world around us?
Were you talking about Invisible Sky Man and Alpha male priests, or was it Finknottle? Honest science does not prove god does not exist. You seem to have some real angst against organized religion. Leave me out of it.
-
So do you just score low on the reading comprehension part of the test or do you have a problem that I should be sensitive to?
Just kidding. But you basically just reiterated my point. We'll probably never know (with any great detail) what happened before the Big Bang. I was giving you an out. God can certainly rain down fire and brimstone in the Pre-Big-Bang Universe. It's uninteresting to me because it's really just making schitt up.
The Big Bang theory, is still just a theory after all. A good one, the 3 degree Kelvin thing, faster moving distant galaxies, and such. But it has some holes in it, insufficient mass for instance. No where in this discussion did I ever say I don't believe in science. But genuine scientific analysis does not prove that God does not exist. But keep trying.
-
But was the alpha male hypothesis I described, like any scientific hypothesis derived from the theory of natural selection, even making such a far-reaching claim?
You need to seriously think about who is the one here having trouble learning how to "compartmentalize seemingly conflicting ideas."
I certainly did get the idea that was your point, that God is just an "imaginary man in the sky." And dismissing any other point of view as to easy. What was your far reaching point?
-
Why not just say that God set the Big Bang in motion and all that has happend since is part of his plan? You can say that he intended all things that we find to be true. It's not so different from what you claim now. You will no longer feel compelled to ignore good science and you can keep your warm and fuzzies too!
So what set the big bang in motion, I mean just this last time? What existed before? Other various sized bangs over an eternity? Eternity! Now there's a concept. Science has got that one all figured out.
-
It's not about trying to explain God away. It's about carefully and rigorously applying the scientific method to try and answer science's difficult questions instead of just taking the easy way out and saying God did it.
The scientific method has been somewhat useful in the past in helping to explain things and solve civilization's problems, no? So why not continue with it a little further?
I have never have understood the conflict between science and faith (notice I did not say religion) that so many, on both sides, have a problem with. You need to learn how to compartmentalize, seemingly conflicting ideas. Think what science has discovered in just the past hundred years, things that were once thought true, that are now thought not. Think how much will be learned in the next one hundred. But a theory about primitive alpha males using fear, religion, and angry mountain Gods, does not prove God or some ultimate power, does not exist. That too, would take a leap of faith.
-
I'll try this one more time without namecalling.
What of finknottle's post (#66 in this thread) did you not agree with?
Right, the old natural selection and evolution cause everything including mythology in our heads theory. I must admit, it sure does explain God away very neatly.
-
Your problem with atheism aside, to call finknottle's post "rambling" makes you come across as a total dumbass. He was using evolutionary biology to address a specific question you posed earlier: why is a belief in God so pervasive throughout humanity if one were to assume God does not exist?
You do believe in evolutionary biology, don't you?
It is PPP requirement to appear as a dumb ass. And you pass. Welcome.
-
Yes, God did it. God of the Gaps. Whatever you want to call it. There's nothing more to debate once this argument has been used. It's as provable as it is unprovable, which is to say not at all. It's a dead-end conclusion which makes lots and lots of people feel content and stop thinking. As long as you're aware of what's going on, I've got no problem with whatever you want your belief system to be.
If it is not provable one way or the other, isn't it fascinating that people will insist on being atheist, when at best they should know they can only be agnostic. Don't be so sure that people with an evolving belief system, have stopped thinking. There are more things in heaven and earth, Gene Frenkle, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
-
Right, the search for truth based on tangible evidence and predictable, testable theories is so religious.
What a leap of faith critical thinking is!
That we are even able to gather tangible evidence, and draw conclusions, could in itself be evidence of a power that we cannot fully grasp.
-
No, we are hard-wired to seek out and grab onto an explanation for things. Having an explanation, no matter how arbitrary or flawed, encourages responses in unfamiliar situations where doing nothing may be harmfull ("Run! The Mountain-God has a stomach ache and is Angry!"). Some responses may be worse than doing nothing ("Let us save our tribe by throwing the virgins into the volcano!") but natural selection takes care of many of those over the long haul. That's why 'rule-of-thumb' religious lore tends to be correct - the tribe whose commandments began 'Kill Thy Neighbor' didn't last very long. Creating a mythology in our heads for how the universe works allows us to better anticipate and react, and encourages decisive action. Decisive action in the face of the unknown ("I've never before seen the food in this new valley, but dammit I'm hungry") can be advantagous at the species level - it can be a sort of insurance policy. With elements of a group reacting decisively to a crisis in various (perhaps arbitrary) ways, for most of the elements it will end badly. But it will end well for those whose decisive action turned out randomly to be right. In contrast, the survival of groups predisposed against decisive action are much more all-or-nothing.
So if natural selection likes decisive action within a group, it doesn't care much about the source, be it charisma, religion, or science. All that matters are the outcomes. So why is religion so prevalant? It is easy to grab hold of - you don't have to think much, just follow the priest - and more immediately practical. The guy who say's "Run! The Mountain-God is Angry" gets his people out, the guy who say's "Wait a minute, the science is still inconclusive" does not. If the Mountain-God really is Angry, one group survives to spread their ways and the other does not.
None of this rambling proves anything, even if, it backs up your angst against organized religion. When atheism becomes its own religion, that's hilarious.
-
So the logical assumption is to invent a magical being in the absence of any tangible proof of the existence of said magical being?
I believe we are hard wired to believe in God. Denying it, is what takes some imagination.
-
This, of course, assumes having a moral compass in your life automatically entails having God their too.
Can someone who doesn't believe in God live a morally sound, values driven life, find out there is a God, then go straight to "Hell?" If yes, then God's an as-hole, and I'm not going to worship her simply because it's demanded of me!
No, my thoughts here do not include that assumption. You can know right from wrong, justice, love, and compassion, without making a leap of faith. Also, many self righteous dolts do hide behind religion. None of this offers conclusive evidence that there is no God.
-
Thanks. I agree, and lump the "silly God" comments in with the "my God is the best" crowd. Opposite sides, but no difference in retarded ass thought pattern.
Since, you apparently cannot prove there is a God, and you cannot prove there is not a God, what makes people jump to one side of the fence, or the other? Personally. I think I'd rather live my life as if there is a God, and find out that I was wrong, than the other way around.
-
They only become that way (just stupid angry white men) when they HAVE to share... See LA's post above. Of course they have been happy the last 8 years... Just watch the misery commence! Have you ever seen a bunch of kindergarterners stomp their feet? Just go to a "tax tea party" or what not.
In a pig's eye.
-
How is this happiness measured?- Is this like the good Christian girls who report on surveys to never have premarital sex- and yet somehow end up unmarried and pregnant at even a greater rate than their less religious counterparts- and if right-wingers are so happy why does it seem that most of those murder suicides where the guy offs his family then does himself seem to be right wing nuts.
Oh yeah. I'm certain you have real statistical evidence to back up that inane comment.
-
Enough with the gay jokes...Every other thread has them. It's a little worrisome how much gay innuendo there is on this board. Get over it already. And no, I'm not gay, but it degrades and has no place here.
just my opin.
...... OK, I'll start.....This big ol cowboy walks into a bar. He quickly realizes it's a gay bar. And he gets pissed. He says, all you queers, out of here now. They immediately start hitting the door. He looks around, and there is just this one little guy left, sitting at the end of the bar. He walks over to him, and the little guy bats his eyes and says, "My, there certainly were a lot of them, weren't there?"
-
I assume the ones made out of hemp are long gone
Smoked em
-
If this complete buffone tells anyone where my safehouse is, he's toast.
-
Some good stuff in there....lunatics are funny. Reminds me of the Berkeley parade retards who carry the same signs with Bush instead of Obama.
I actually have some used hate signs from the sixties for sale. They can be reworked, with spray paint or whatnot. I have only kept the sturdy ones.
-
i'm perfectly happy and don't believe in God and principles, will i survive doctor?
For a while, then you will expire like everyone else.
-
It does kind of fly in the face of the point of view that republicans are just stupid angry white men. Why worry? Be happy....
-
Speaking of tea baggers
When you hold banners calling Obama Hitler, or accuse him of White Slavery, then yes they were a bunch of racist douchebag teabaggers.
Or these
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3406/331467...pg?v=1235761309
http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-conten...04/img_2429.jpg
http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-conten...34-1024x768.jpg
Hey idiot, didn't you hear your own messiah in chief. He said both sides need to tone it down, not demonize the other side with inflammatory rhetoric for their beliefs. I guess you see that as code for: everyone on the right needs to STFU, and all those devoid of history and logic, it's time to pull out that race card. And all that other name calling. That always works well with any civil discourse.
-
If all of these protesters are consistent and doing it for religious reasons, then where were they when GWBush gave the commencement at ND? He supports and actively enforced the death penalty in Texas, which is just as opposed to by the Catholic church as abortion. They had a few, but nothing like those against Obama. Let's face it, it's just another excuse for anti-Obama people to protest him, just like the teabaggers. They're free to do so, just like the protesters in Crawford were to protest Bush, but let's be honest on what this really is about.
Good grief! How does a governor actively enforce the death penalty? The Catholic church BTW is not always against the death penalty, though it does generally oppose it.
The Catechism states: "...the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty." (2266)
The Notre Dame brouhaha...
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
What he said.... So much more eloquently than I. Thanks bro. That was what I trying to say.