DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIO7PAuiEUs&NR=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well, this thread is certainly taking a turn for the worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 yes it is with all the insults from people with no argument.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 the existence of god or the easter bunny is unproven, but we cant disprove their existence either, this is why the onus is on the one making the claim, ie the christian person trying to prove the existence of god.... wrong again dctom..... Not "disproven" and "unproven", you moron. "Disprovable" and "unprovable". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well, this thread is certainly taking a turn for the worse. look at the bright side, you do have an ally in Dellapelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 Not "disproven" and "unproven", you moron. "Disprovable" and "unprovable". omg r u this dumb, same difference....able doesnt change the word... u r waaaaaaaaaaay behind now dctom, calm down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 thats like saying disproven is different from disprove or disproving...lol omg here let me help u out... http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disprovable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 the only differnce is it being a adj or noun, the definition doesnt change dctom....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwight Drane Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Usually those that feel the need to "disprove" God to such an extent are currently undergoing internal struggles, or hold on to deep anger from perceived unjust treatment. I feel bad, because there is legitimate pain that triggers a defense mechanism. You almost NEED to convince yourself there is no God so you can cope. It is ironic in a sense that some would say those who do believe are the ones attempting to cope. I understand the hypocracy of many organized religions turns people off. Someday your anger will subside and hopefully you can see the simple things in life as the blessings they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 the only differnce is it being a adj or noun, the definition doesnt change dctom....lol Yes, it does. Something can be unproven, but not unprovable. Conversely, something can be disprovable, but not disproven. They are different definitions. And in your almost infinite capacity to look retarded, you posted three sequential posts demonstrating your total inability to grasp that simple concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Usually those that feel the need to "disprove" God to such an extent are currently undergoing internal struggles, or hold on to deep anger from perceived unjust treatment. I feel bad, because there is legitimate pain that triggers a defense mechanism. You almost NEED to convince yourself there is no God so you can cope. It is ironic in a sense that some would say those who do believe are the ones attempting to cope. I understand the hypocracy of many organized religions turns people off. Someday your anger will subside and hopefully you can see the simple things in life as the blessings they are. ...and thus enters the flip side of the retard coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 Yes, it does. Something can be unproven, but not unprovable. Conversely, something can be disprovable, but not disproven. They are different definitions. And in your almost infinite capacity to look retarded, you posted three sequential posts demonstrating your total inability to grasp that simple concept. so u do realize that the existence of god is not disprovable and at the same time he is unprovable. again the onus is on u to prove gods existence... again ur wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 After 16 pages, this thread is peaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 so u do realize that the existence of god is not disprovable and at the same time he is unprovable. again the onus is on u to prove gods existence... again ur wrong What??? You're not even having the same discussion as the rest of us! I'm not arguing for the existence of God either way, you imbecile...I'm just pointing you complete inability to understand that "God" is not provable or disprovable, buit UNPROVABLE, and that there is no "burden of proof" involved. YOU CAN'T APPLY A STANDARD OF PROOF TO A MATTER OF FAITH THAT IS BY DEFINITION AN UNPROVABLE PROPOSITION. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwight Drane Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Chaos + Chance? Chaos + Chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Chaos + Chance? Chaos + Chance? Oh, great. Our two dopiest posters - one who has an irrational belief in rationality, another with an irrational belief in irrationality, neither with an understanding of the idea of "metaphor" - are now having a youtube flame war. Only thing missing now is a truculent dinosaur rolling a 3.5 on a die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwight Drane Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Oh, great. Our two dopiest posters - one who has an irrational belief in rationality, another with an irrational belief in irrationality, neither with an understanding of the idea of "metaphor" - are now having a youtube flame war. Only thing missing now is a truculent dinosaur rolling a 3.5 on a die. wouldn't an irrational belief in irrationality make me .....rational? By the way.....nice job spewing insults when you don't even bother to review what is included. I think your day could be better spent chucking peanuts off your porch at the squirrels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 wouldn't an irrational belief in irrationality make me .....rational? By the way.....nice job spewing insults when you don't even bother to review what is included. I think your day could be better spent chucking peanuts off your porch at the squirrels. I think METAPHORICALLY that is exactly what he's doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 What??? You're not even having the same discussion as the rest of us! I'm not arguing for the existence of God either way, you imbecile...I'm just pointing you complete inability to understand that "God" is not provable or disprovable, buit UNPROVABLE, and that there is no "burden of proof" involved. YOU CAN'T APPLY A STANDARD OF PROOF TO A MATTER OF FAITH THAT IS BY DEFINITION AN UNPROVABLE PROPOSITION. in order to establish a truth then there must be a burden on the one making the claim. this depends on whether or not the person making the claim is saying (x claim) is true or god exists. now u are right the existence of god is unprovable and therefore nobody has a reason to believe there is a god. that would only happen if god became tangible, which god isnt. u r right that there is no burden if there is no claim on truth. but if someone say god exists he needs to meet that burden to establish it as a truth, if not then there is no reason to believe it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 dc tom do u realize we cant disprove the existence of the easter bunny, do u realize we cant disprove the existence of god either, puts them in the same boat. the onus is on u my friend... Do you even know what the word "onus" means? You can't form a coherent sentence, for crying out loud. How can anyone take your opinion seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I think METAPHORICALLY that is exactly what he's doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 yes it is with all the insults from people with no argument.... Look who is insulting... we have repeated the arguments, yet we get no understanding and a repetition of the same old, same old out of you... please go away. The previous twelve year old insult for you may be more a complementn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 omg r u this dumb, same difference....able doesnt change the word... u r waaaaaaaaaaay behind now dctom, calm down Your command of the English Language is seriously lacking.... Get a grip and get a computer. Put down the cell and write in complete sentences. I suggest a remedial class in definitions and word endings. Come back when you can least have a basic understanding of the difference in tenses and their meanings. Idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Whats so ironic is that in their efforts to show the faithful and religious as bad people without understanding, tolerance and full of ignorance, it is them who have exhibited such behavior. From Gene's bigotry and intolerance, to conner's misunderstanding of the teachings of Christianity (and ridiculous examples used to somehow show all Chirstians as evil), to Dellapawhatevers failure to understand the simple definition of faith. I know, I wasn't even trying to argue my specific faith, only the definition of faith and the flaws in alternative arguments to faith and how each form of argument can complement each other help bring greater us greater understanding of life. Dellaschmuck's arguments are barely worth acknowledging since he can't even form a complete coherent thought anyway. Contempt prior to investigation is the definition of insanity, but in this case investigation with contempt and resentment begs a deeper unresolved conflict within. I have my beliefs, but I am open to considering that part of my beliefs are incorrect or only a partial conceptualization of reality and that I will continue learning.... another words, I don't know it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Does this guy really think surrounding himself with three computers, having a short haircut and faking an english accent will somehow make us think he's not a hippy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I'm not sure why, but I always seem to get drawn into this type of discussion. For the sake of disclosure I believe in God and even in a particular God. Although I disagree, I can understand how atheists come to some of their conclusions. I fully understand that my belief in God is a belief, and not knowledge. I watched the first Dawkins video which is interesting but does not seem to me to address God at all (despite its title). My major question for atheists is why so many of them seem to believe in and assert the concept of free will. To me, if there is no God, free will along with many other concepts becomes a mere perception, not a reality. We'd all have to be a collection of atoms which are behaving in predictable manner the way atoms do. It may not be predictable by us, but it has to be predictable. If it is, our fates are all pre-determined and free will is an illusion. I see and hear many atheists espousing all sorts of concepts but pre-determination is not one of them and certainly not the primary notion. Dawkins in his video talks about how we can or should approach viewing the world; what we may be able to do better train ourselves as a species to evolve outside Middle World, and several other seemingly noble tasks, but he never throws up his arms and says we can't help ourselves. How can free will truly exist in his world? I would guess a vast majority of believers and non-believers in God believe in free will. To me this belief is more compatible with God than with no God. If an atheist argues pre-determination, his argument holds more water. There are billions of people who believe in God and probably not two who believe in exactly the same thing. One of the strongest facets of my belief is that if God were good at his job, he would make himself unprovable (Thanks God). If he walked down the street saving everyone from oncoming buses, what would be the point? The thought that religion is the major cause for global strife and violence is odd to me. It has certainly played a role in history, but if we all magically became atheists tomorrow I see very little chance of violence disappearing. There are plenty of examples of violence (mass and individual) that have nothing to do with religion. If you're looking for a core reason for war, persecution, holocaust, and other ugliness I'd suggest blaming human nature, not religion. Religion has certainly served as an excuse, but excuses are a dime a dozen and easily replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I'm not sure why, but I always seem to get drawn into this type of discussion. For the sake of disclosure I believe in God and even in a particular God. Although I disagree, I can understand how atheists come to some of their conclusions. I fully understand that my belief in God is a belief, and not knowledge. I watched the first Dawkins video which is interesting but does seem to me to address God at all (despite its title). My major question for atheists is why so many of them seem to believe in and assert the concept of free will. To me, if there is no God, free will along with many other concepts becomes a mere perception, not a reality. We'd all have to be a collection of atoms which are behaving in predictable manner the way atoms do. It may not be predictable by us, but it has to be predictable. If it is, our fates are all pre-determined and free will is an illusion. I see and hear many atheists espousing all sorts of concepts but pre-determination is not one of them and certainly not the primary notion. Dawkins in his video talks about how we can or should approach viewing the world; what we may be able to do better train ourselves as a species to evolve outside Middle World, and several other seemingly noble tasks, but he never throws up his arms and says we can't help ourselves. How can free will truly exist in his world? I would guess a vast majority of believers and non-believers in God believe in free will. To me this belief is more compatible with God than with no God. If an atheist argues pre-determination, his argument holds more water. There are billions of people who believe in God and probably not two who believe in exactly the same thing. One of the strongest facets of my belief is that if God were good at his job, he would make himself unprovable (Thanks God). If he walked down the street saving everyone from oncoming buses, what would be the point? The thought that religion is the major cause for global strife and violence is odd to me. It has certainly played a role in history, but if we all magically became atheists tomorrow I see very little chance of violence disappearing. There are plenty of examples of violence (mass and individual) that have nothing to do with religion. If you're looking for a core reason for war, persecution, holocaust, and other ugliness I'd suggest blaming human nature, not religion. Religion has certainly served as an excuse, but excuses are a dime a dozen and easily replaced. I know, it is the same argument that I have heard specifically from women's group that if women ran the world everything would be better and no more wars.... My argument is that the style might be different, but inevitably the human condition and likely conflicts take over. Hey aren't most of the anacharists athiets.. and they seem to be fomenting conflict every chance they get! So much for that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 It's theoretically possible to create a new universe. I'll refer you to this NPR article and podcast - it's really interesting: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6545246 For argument's sake, let's assume that this is possible. If you spawned a new universe in this manner and it grew and eventually developed life, would you suddenly know everything about it (like god)? Would you suddenly have the power to control what happens there? Would you suddenly be immortal and capable of controlling such a creation? I think not. That article from hippy haven NPR defintiely offers insight, not on God or science, but on hippys. The last line says it all. Just imagine if it's true and there's even a small chance it really could work," he said. "In this perspective, each of us can become a god. That's what hippies always want: All of the glory with none of the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Usually those that feel the need to "disprove" God to such an extent are currently undergoing internal struggles, or hold on to deep anger from perceived unjust treatment. I feel bad, because there is legitimate pain that triggers a defense mechanism. You almost NEED to convince yourself there is no God so you can cope. It is ironic in a sense that some would say those who do believe are the ones attempting to cope. I understand the hypocracy of many organized religions turns people off. Someday your anger will subside and hopefully you can see the simple things in life as the blessings they are. So if putting down anger will help lead to faith, what do people have to do to gain the ability to pull financial secrets and predictions from the Bible? (besides living under power lines and eating paint chips) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I'm not sure why, but I always seem to get drawn into this type of discussion. For the sake of disclosure I believe in God and even in a particular God. Although I disagree, I can understand how atheists come to some of their conclusions. I fully understand that my belief in God is a belief, and not knowledge. I watched the first Dawkins video which is interesting but does seem to me to address God at all (despite its title). My major question for atheists is why so many of them seem to believe in and assert the concept of free will. To me, if there is no God, free will along with many other concepts becomes a mere perception, not a reality. We'd all have to be a collection of atoms which are behaving in predictable manner the way atoms do. It may not be predictable by us, but it has to be predictable. If it is, our fates are all pre-determined and free will is an illusion. I see and hear many atheists espousing all sorts of concepts but pre-determination is not one of them and certainly not the primary notion. Dawkins in his video talks about how we can or should approach viewing the world; what we may be able to do better train ourselves as a species to evolve outside Middle World, and several other seemingly noble tasks, but he never throws up his arms and says we can't help ourselves. How can free will truly exist in his world? I would guess a vast majority of believers and non-believers in God believe in free will. To me this belief is more compatible with God than with no God. If an atheist argues pre-determination, his argument holds more water. There are billions of people who believe in God and probably not two who believe in exactly the same thing. One of the strongest facets of my belief is that if God were good at his job, he would make himself unprovable (Thanks God). If he walked down the street saving everyone from oncoming buses, what would be the point? The thought that religion is the major cause for global strife and violence is odd to me. It has certainly played a role in history, but if we all magically became atheists tomorrow I see very little chance of violence disappearing. There are plenty of examples of violence (mass and individual) that have nothing to do with religion. If you're looking for a core reason for war, persecution, holocaust, and other ugliness I'd suggest blaming human nature, not religion. Religion has certainly served as an excuse, but excuses are a dime a dozen and easily replaced. Holy shite, I'm glad you brought this up! I was listening to the most amazing episode of Radiolab entitled "Is Free Will Really Free?". It brings into question the exact thing you're talking about and the possiblity that free will is just an illusion after all! Reality is sooooo much cooler that fantasy. Anyway give it a listen if you have the time: It's scary to think that choice might just be an illusion. Perhaps we are not so in control as we would like to be. In a conversation at the 92nd St Y, Malcolm Gladwell talks to Robert about the common sense of dissatisfaction felt by people required to justify a choice to others before they made it, and he brings up the unsettling idea of priming--that certain stimuli could predispose us toward certain choices or behaviors. Yale psychology professor John Bargh takes us a step further by describing an experiment where researcher Lawrence Williams was able to alter people's opinions without their knowledge using nothing but a simple cup of coffee. http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episode...segments/113310 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 he brings up the unsettling idea of priming--that certain stimuli could predispose us toward certain choices or behaviors. Yale psychology professor John Bargh takes us a step Yale. It takes a Yale professor to point out that certain stimuli could predispose us toward certain choices or behaviors?. You mean like Rosie O'Donnell standing in front of you could prompt a different response than a hot chick like say Lee or someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 And for all of you pop psychologists with nothing but your own intuition and "experience with atheists" to go on, please don't try to pigeonhole me as someone who had a bad experience or became disillusioned with the church. You don't know what motivates me. I grew up Catholic, attended 12 years of Catholic school and never had a bad experience with anyone in that system or in any other context pertaining to religion. I have a loving family, a good job and a very satisfying life to this point. Outside of family, friends, sports, etc... the only thing that really matters to me is truth. I consider myself a Skeptic and don't buy into the garbage that most people accept as fact without first applying critical thought. This is what led my to my current views on god and religion. The wars, bigotry and problems that religion has caused since it has been around has made me more than just agnostic. The scandals within the Catholic Church, especially the seeming predilection for priests to be pedophiles, has made it easy to abandon that entity. The Intelligent Design movement and its battle against Evolution has pushed me further toward being what some of you would consider a militant atheist. None of this really matters. My motivations or anyone else's motivations do not affect the truth about religion. You may not like me or what I think. You may want to say I'm a bigot or whatever, but that doesn't change anything at all in this conversation. The truth is that religion is, always was and always will be supernatural and irrational. This is a fact and nothing you can say about me or anything else will change that fact. This is not a disparaging remark. It is the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Yale. It takes a Yale professor to point out that certain stimuli could predispose us toward certain choices or behaviors?. You mean like Rosie O'Donnell standing in front of you could prompt a different response than a hot chick like say Lee or someone? If you listen to the podcast (and I don't necessarily expect you to), you will find an experiment in which brain waves are monitored with very precise timing. It seems that the movement of your arm, for example, begins just slightly before you make the decision to move your arm. Very interesting stuff should you take the time to try to understand before responding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 The truth is that religion is, always was and always will be supernatural and irrational. This is a fact and nothing you can say about me or anything else will change that fact. This is not a disparaging remark. It is the truth. Like it or not, Gene, with your aboslute belief (and make no mistake, your belief in nothing is a belief) you have adopted a new religion. An atheistic humanistic religion based on absolute belief in the inerrancy of science and what is known in the here and now. And by your own standards set above, you are irrational. One hell of a predicament you have there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I grew up Catholic, attended 12 years of Catholic school and never had a bad experience with anyone in that system or in any other context pertaining to religion. Damn, I had buttraped by a Redneck prison Baptist Minister, in the pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Damn, I had buttraped by a Redneck prison Baptist Minister, in the pool. fixed it for ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Damn, I had buttraped by a Redneck prison Baptist Minister, in the pool. So close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 So close. I give props to Magox he was part of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts