Jump to content

Clodhopper

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    495

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Clodhopper

    Atheism vs. Theism

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Mythos Ruler:

    It makes perfect sense, Mythos. Either there is a god or there isn't. See, if there is a "spirit" or "force" that would not go under the "god" group, it would go under the "no god" group. If it's not a god, it's not a god. If there is something that fits in the "god" group, than it would not fit in the "no god" group. So there actually is only 2 choices, not multiple.

    It's a false dichotomy because the question ignores all the other possibilites.
    Like I said: not so.
    Plus, which "God" is he talking about?
    It's not which god, but a god.
    Wouldn't proof of the existance of Zeus kind of throw a monkey wrench into his argument?
    No, because this is theism vs. atheism, not Christianity vs. atheism.

    Atheism vs. Theism

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted · Edited by Clodhopper

    Mithrandil:

    Well, I can spell it, but I won't use it since my language isn't english and that's a rather 'difficult' word for people who don't have english as their primary language 

    Nah, I was just being sarcastic. :)

    Well, I don't think so. There can't be a mistake in evolution, since it IS proven,

    You know as well as I do that science can never prove anything, dude. And evolution has lots of problems with it. That's all well and good, but for you to say the Creationism is disproved... that's going stepping over the line of "logic."

    -Why would a God make various ecosystems (one for Australia, New-Zealand, one for the continent, ... and many variations of them) when there could just be one?

    To bring glory unto himself.

    -It isn't easy to make up such a complex natural life when if you're an almighty creator you could make anything

    I don't think this is a question as much as it is a statement... did you make a mistake on this one or something?

    And please tell me you don't believe what's in the Bible.

    Ummm... Why not?

    Yes, it probably is. I admit that there could be some supernatural thing behind logic, being probably our spirit in your thinking, but this is very unlikely when you consider all the other facts. I grant that the paranormal world is an interesting one if it was true, but I use logic, my logic being interaction between cells (in my own unique way, because we are all unique), that it isn't right. My theories fit into a perfect plan, while the biblical, or even all the religious ones are easely broken.

    So this could mean that everything that you see and feel could just be- interaction between cells? And since logic could just be interaction between cells, wouldn't it be different for everyone, considering the theory of evolution that you hold so dearly?
    No, not at all. Firstly, I don't believe in black-and-white thinking, so that is out of the question. There are variaties, although to the church they will, or would all have been considered "herecy". If it doesn't fit into the church's dogma's, everything is herecy. The protestants were heretics, the kathares were heretics, the atheists and even the deists were heretics. It's simply said quite ridiculous.

    Well, I'm not Catholic, so you don't have to talk to me about heresy.
    And about my miswriting, you are right, and I humbly appologise. (was appologise even rightly spelled? I think not)
    Ok, I knew what you meant, anyway. :P

    The Geologic Column

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Yiuel:

    Never saw one thing and another such thing being put together and be three things. If you know one such occurence, please tell me
    You never saw two things being put together and getting three things. How can you be sure of anything? Can you be sure of them?

    ---

    But I will say it is, and in dozens of way. If one finds a dinosaur in a layer dated before a layer where the first archosaurs are found, this completely destructs the evolution theory. (Or finding birds predating the avenment of theropodes, or reptiles before the first amphibians, or amphibians before the first fishes, or fishes before the first chordea...) It's quite easy, theoretically, to find : look through the layers, and find some! This hasn't been found, it seems.

    Hasn't been found, eh? I'm sure that you've heard of the anomalies in the Jurra Mountains in Switzerland? The Agate Springs fossil graveyard? "Heart Mountain Thrust" in Wyoming? "Lewis Overthrust" in Montana? Trees that extend through several layers of sediment in the Mount St. Helens eruption area?

    ---

    What would then be impossible?

    The contrary of my belief.

    ---

    As in another post, I went on with the ad absurdum logic: Then, the lack of Creator to that Creator is also impossible, and this, until one gets bored of all the Creators that preceded our own... That means we have a conceptual problem here : or there is an infinity, and that, because of this, there is no final answer, or there is at some point "self-explanatoriness" (EO Memestigeco) hence also leading to no possible answer.
    ad absurdum? Can't you just say "illogical?" What's so hard to believe about God having no beginning? Why is that illogical?

    ---

    To me, there is no lack of observation. In fact, I can find by my own tons of observations in books, and, if I want, I can arrange a trip to Miguasha QC (or Dinosaur National Park AB) and study the rocks there and see by myself. Or perhaps, shall I go to Jamésie and see the wonderful speciation of some ants, or maybe, as a final resort, find my way to Galapagos and look at what Darwin saw on his Beagle tour. Along this thread, I have also gained some knowledge about evolution as well, and further detailed my own Theory of Evolution. Evidence is quite easy to find.

    Please refer to quote No. 2. By the way, there is a saying in the scientific world, (I'm not sure if I directly quoted this) "a truly beautiful theory murdered by an ugly fact."

    ---

    I've also noticed that your view on evolution is so broad we can't pin it down. You need to work that out.

    Klaas:

    Are saying creationism is not believed by faith?
    I'm saying that, considering all the problems with evolution, Creationism is the most reasonable to believe.

    ---

    Maybe you should spend some time reading the sites Mythos and I referred you too?
    That site is just another evolutionist site misleading people. Besides, it's a mess, anyway.

    ---

    I don't understand what you're getting at here. AFAIK it can't by using specimens died after nuclear testing. First you're trying to say there are no recent specimens and now they should prove the carbon theory?
    Indeed, I believe I stated that quite clearly. It is I who doesn't know what you're not understanding.

    ---

    Anyway, it can be proven by using specimens from before the nuclear testing, and I suppose they have.
    Is there an emphasis on "suppose?"

    ---

    Why in the world would it be such a widely used method anyway if that wouldn't even work?

    That is the question, isn't it?

    ---

    Is the carbon theory now also regarded as something believed by faith?
    Depends what you're viewpoint, I suppose. But for a minute, let's suppose that carbon-dating proved that the earth was 4 or 5 billion years old, that would not prove evolution or disprove Creationism. Besides, like I said, we can disscuss this till we turn blue, but as long as we ignore the core issue, we're not getting anywhere.

    ---

    You do know that the whole concept of that thing you're now typing on is based on logical mathematics I hope

    Actually it's epistemology.

    Well, it's off to go camping for me, mates! I won't be back until Sunday afternoon.

    Atheism vs. Theism

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Well, evolution is proven, and creation is proved impossible (except the whole big bang (and it's predecessors :) ),
    Can we spell, "Reification Fallacy?"
    but then you are a deïst like me), so there you are
    I'm sorry, but when did I say that?
    Yes, one can observe the interaction between those cells. It's done several times, and well, just read this through.

    Granted there is interaction between cells, but is that all logic is?

    Well, that's not true. Atheists believe there is a god who personally interferes with things going on in the world. Deïsts think that there is a God, or there has been one, in any form possible, but or he doesn't care for humanity, he doesn't exist anymore, or he is just energy that can't really think. Atheists think there is no God at all, and there never was one. Agnostics don't seem to care which is kind of strange to me, especially when they participate in a topic like this (just kidding :P;) )

    Mithrandil, first, I believe that you mean "theists" the first time you said, "Atheists?" Anyway, like I said, it's impossible to be neither atheist or theist, either there is a god or there isn't, not both. Simple, no?

    Atheism vs. Theism

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Mythrandil:

    I believe this has been said before, but it's not because you can't sence it, that it is not. One cannot detect atoms, yet, they exist. One can definitly not detect electrons, though they exist, because we can detect the results of them. We can detect the results of logics, being an answer to a question. Electrons are material, even energy is material. Like I said before, logics is merely interaction between cells, so it is material.

    Ah, here is where we get somewhere: First, we can detect atoms. Secondly, one can say the same thing about God (or a god). Once evolution is proved impossible, the only other optioin to believe in except for: Creation. For creation, you need a creator, and we can see that that would take care of this issue (but we need to prove evolution wrong first :) ). Of course, people say that they will believe something if they have proof of it (i. e. the existence of a god), but we know that it is, like ProgramZeta says, the exception and not the rule. Not only that, but you say that logic is merely interaction within cells, eh? Do you have any proof for this claim? Can you observe this interaction between cells? Or is it just like the atoms or electrons? Or is it because since you are materialist, it is impossible for anything to be immaterial and therefore it has to be interaction between cells?

    Natedog:

    I'm not really Atheist or Theist.

    That is impossible. Either there is a god or there isn't. Not both or neither.

    Klaas:

    This explains only why you are not part of a religion; not why you believe there is no god.

    Hiroshima

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Yes, that was a good post. I also saw some history channel documentaries (I think they were history channel) that said that the Japanese had underground factories impervious to A-bombs for building aircraft, among other things.

    Atheism vs. Theism

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    dathui:

    Haha, here is a link: The Great Debate

    Yiuel:

    I am basically "agnostic", which means that "on subjects that goes beyond my senses (out of physics, metaphysics, outside of what is felt), I can have no knowledge".

    And guess what the Laws of Logic falls under? Immaterial. You can't feel, smell, see, taste, or hear them. Like I said, the Laws of Logic reflect the thinking of God. So, basically, you are borrowing from my worldveiw to explain yours.

    It is meaningless logically...
    Oh? And how can you use logic, since obviously there is nothing immaterial in the universe.
    the said definition of the Universe : "All that is.".
    Where do you get that?

    And what makes you think that the universe is all that there is? After all, the definition, (according to you) was coined by man, who, as we all know, does not know nearly all there is to know. So, here you are taking definitions from ignorant sources (man).

    So, if something stays strictly metauniversal, it has no influence over the Universe itself, so, even if "it has some existence out of the Universe" (even though such sentence is language abuse), it is irrelevant to our existence, to this world.
    Really? Like I said, the laws of logic are immaterial; you cannot sense them. Does this mean we cannot use them? Does this mean they do not affect us? Absolutely not! That is not a valid argument.
    And if This do exists, well, I tell this : "come to me and say it to me".
    What makes you think that this god would think you important enough to do so? What bearing does this have on whether a god is out there or not?

    Argalius:

    Yes, or atleast it's one of the factors. Parents influence you greatly, because they learned you most things. One thing that I didn't learn is that God exists, I haven't been in church for a few years now and if I got there it was only because of a funeral. We never went, much, to church and maybe if we did I might think there's a God. And not going to church was a decision of my parents...

    I understand what you mean, but just because your parents don't believe there is a god does not mean that there is no god.
    I don't know what to make of that comment...

    That smilie is the : disagree : one. :king:

    Hope for everything... Just hope in general, the last thing that remained in Pandora's Box.
    What is hope?
×
×
  • Create New...