Conspiracy Theories and Athiesm

Status
Not open for further replies.


Deliguy said:
She attacked your religion NOT you. That's the difference between what he said and she said.

I'm not saying that qualified as against the rules because i know turbo can dish it just as much as she can take it, but its borderline. The courteous thing to do would be to not take each others religious beliefs so seriously that you feel the need to abuse them personally. We're trying to have a friendly debate here.
Click to expand...

She attacked adherents of Christianity as 'delusional'. Go back and read what she wrote. If that's not a direct attack on those who believe in the Immaculate Conception, I don't know what is. I don't really care either way as there's a ton of Christian-bashers on here and I don't really listen to Turbo's political/religious opinions, but there's plenty of 'hate' on both sides. Some are just more subtle and sneering about it.

And P.S., if we were really going by that forum rule you posted, Riddar would have to be banned for the complete mental breakdown she exhibited in the Tiller thread. But like I said, plenty of blame on both sides.
 
This thread is already filled to embarrassing levels with ill logic please don't exasperate it by trying to tell me that attacking something you believe in is a direct attack at you. It happens to be the exact opposite which is called an indirect attack.
*facepalm*
 
To be honest the longer I sit and think about this shit, the more questions I have and the more confused I become. Therefore, I try to channel that energy into more productive things, like making monies online.
 
Rusky said:
I just gave you argument above. You're obviously an idiot, and obviously dont realize your dont have an answer. Some atheists at least can admit to that.
Your whole statement is complete nonsense. Just like your theory.
You cant even produce a missing link. You guess one exists and call it science.
Click to expand...

Where in my post did I ever advocate evolution? You are arguing against a point I never held.

My theory is nonsense? I don't have a theory about creation or God... How could I with the lack of imperical evidence on which to base a theory?

So let's look back at your response and see how much of it was irrelevant, I'll highlight in red.

Rusky said:
I just gave you argument above. You're obviously an idiot, and obviously dont realize your dont have an answer. Some atheists at least can admit to that.
Your whole statement is complete nonsense. Just like your theory.
You cant even produce a missing link. You guess one exists and call it science.
Click to expand...

That's right, none of your response replied.

I am simply arguing that I don't know. For all I know there could be a God, and I think it's a somewhat plausible idea (not the religious portrayal of God though), however, why would I believe this with no evidence to do so? Under any other circumstance a sane and reasonably intelligent person wouldn't, I just don't understand what's different about God.

Fair enough, some people just 'feel' like there is a God. That's great, but don't try and come and argue that there is a God with no evidence or reason. If you have any evidence Rusky, or any compelling argument in favour of your position then please present it, because like I said before the burder of proof is on you, not me.
 
popeye said:
Must suck living life day to day knowing that you are no different than the dog taking a shit on the lawn next door. Must suck knowing that your life really means shit and that your death is the absolute end to your existence.

Why must athiest see everything black and white?

Sucks to be you!
Click to expand...

So lets make up a fantasy that makes you feel all nice and warm inside. Oh, no need, its been done around the world over, and over, and over again. Living in a dream world just because it makes me feel better just isn't an option for me.
 
Deliguy said:
^ damn dude harsh.

It's just her religious beliefs and she feels passionately about them. That's no reason to throw so much hate someones way.
Click to expand...

Not hate, just a observation. Feeling passionate about a certain stance is one thing. Pissing on someone elses beliefs because you don't believe the same way is something entirely different.
 
Religion is our flawed attempt at feeding our ego and emotions with delusional stories.

To look past these infantile thoughts one must first contemplate their place in the universe.

I'll help you get started,
http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-shit/54087-universe-you.html

Cliffnotes: We're crumbs in a sea of stars, NOTHING was ever made to serve us - we are the mere descendants of countless alterations of living bodies that fought every day to survive and get us here today. If you don't believe this - I'm led to believe your pass time is denying any form of logical evidence that goes against your strong emotional beliefs which are grounded in only that, your emotions.

Now that you know your place, realize how many different religions exist. I'll even add pictures if you're among the unimaginative mass of sheeples.
largest-religions-graph.gif


Realize how everyone firmly believes they are right. Do you even know how incredibly ignorant and arrogant it is to feed yourself this bullshit? How self destructive it is to put mental blocks on basic knowledge, thereby shackling you to a tiny box of ideas that a corporate entity wants you to believe(the church).

Can they all be right? Hahahah, none of them are.
 
zimok said:


Realize how everyone firmly believes they are right. Do you even know how incredibly ignorant and arrogant it is to feed yourself this bullshit? How self destructive it is to put mental blocks on basic knowledge, thereby shackling you to a tiny box of ideas that a corporate entity wants you to believe(the church).

Can they all be right? Hahahah, none of them are.
Click to expand...

Of course, of course - because everyone believes they are right, why, NONE of them must be, right? Right?...Fantastic logic!
 
Moderator--thank you for releasing my posts, sorry everyone they are repetitive, that was not my intent.

Now...none of the "expert atheist/agnostics" have a thing to say regarding information theory? Just going to go on driveling out how delusional and stupid ID folks are?
Please, either admit you can't answer or make an intelligent case how coded information occurs naturally. Good luck, and ANYONE who continues to state or believe that all Christians are non-reasoning fools worshiping what they have "no evidence for", consider yourselves called out.
 
Here's one for the small % of scientists believe in God argument

Does science lead us down a road that ends in the naturalistic explanation of everything we see? In the nineteenth century, it certainly looked as though science was going in that direction. The "God of the gaps" was finding himself in a narrower and narrower niche. However, 20th century and now 21st century science is leading us back down the road of design - not from a lack of scientific explanation, but from scientific explanation that requires an appeal to the extremely unlikely - something that science does not deal well with. As a result of the recent evidence in support of design, many scientists now believe in God. According to a recent article:
"I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
​
The degree to which the constants of physics must match a precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that there is some sort of "supernatural plan" or "Agency" behind it.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgQ6q0XI-yI"]YouTube - Evolution Intelligent Design debate Meyer V Ward 3of11[/ame]
 
What are some of the physics contstants to which the above post refers?

The constants of the laws of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering. Five of the more finely tuned numbers are included in the table below. For comments about what scientists think about these numbers, see the page Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe
Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe Parameter Max.
Deviation Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10 to the 37th power
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10 to the 40th power
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10 to the 55th power
Mass of Universe 1:10 to the 59th power
Cosmological Constant 1:10 to the 120th power

These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.
 
Theorist said:
What are some of the physics contstants to which the above post refers?

The constants of the laws of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering. Five of the more finely tuned numbers are included in the table below. For comments about what scientists think about these numbers, see the page Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe
Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe Parameter Max.
Deviation Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10 to the 37th power
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10 to the 40th power
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10 to the 55th power
Mass of Universe 1:10 to the 59th power
Cosmological Constant 1:10 to the 120th power

These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.
Click to expand...

In reference to this: Information Theory and DNA: The Origin of Life

I think it would be better asked on a science forum, not an atheist forum.

But even so, taking everything you said for granted...

Code: 
[FONT=Verdana]If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that                   occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.[/FONT]
DNA, possibly?

(2) All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.

So just because we don't know the origin of DNA (according to you) it therefore must come from a mind? That is not a valid argument.

It's up to YOU to prove that DNA was created by a mind. You haven't done this, I really don't see why you think your argument is so strong, that is not evidence for the existence of God.
​
 
^actually i got something to say in regards to a small portion of that.

Anyone here watch that awesome show called The Universe?
They were talking about the universe expanding and they said something very interesting and maybe someone can give me an exact quote on it.
They basically said that while they used to think the universe was expanding after incorporating Einsteins theory of relativity into the theory of dark matter it's entirely possible that the universe has already expanded and is now contracting back. Considering the short time frame we live it's impossible to say either way but its starting to be considered that the big bang wasn't a singular event and that the universe actually cycles out and back in on itself like a parabola. This would cause all the matter in the universe to come together, reach a critical mass, big bang, spiral outwards until it reached a point where gravity overpowers the expansion momentum and it pulls itself back together for another possible big bang. If Einsteins theory of relativity is correct and ecliptal patterns of orbits are caused by dark matter than its a possibility that we may be on our 10th or even 1,000th big bang.
 
Missed the Point

xentech said:
In reference to this: Information Theory and DNA: The Origin of Life

I think it would be better asked on a science forum, not an atheist forum.

But even so, taking everything you said for granted...

Code: 
[FONT=Verdana]If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that                   occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.[/FONT]
DNA, possibly?

(2) All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.

So just because we don't know the origin of DNA (according to you) it therefore must come from a mind? That is not a valid argument.​

It's up to YOU to prove that DNA was created by a mind. You haven't done this, I really don't see why you think your argument is so strong, that is not evidence for the existence of God.​
Click to expand...

ALL codes are created by a MIND. DNA is a code, therefore it was created by a mind. That is the central thesis. You are challenged to disprove that all codes come from a mind by providing a naturally occuring code. I can save you time--you will be unable to do so.

It is not up to me to prove it, it's been proven that all codes are created by a mind. That concept is supported by virtually all scientific literature since the 1960's!

Atheists believe there is no mind, that everything occurs by natural means. Since DNA is a code it is up to atheists to demonstrate a code that occurs naturally. Don't try to turn it around my friend, try to answer it.
 
Since the constants mentioned above are hard to grasp, here is an explantion by Dr. Hugh Ross:

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

  1. strong nuclear force constant
    if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
    if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
  2. weak nuclear force constant
    if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
    if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
  3. gravitational force constant
    if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
    if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
  4. electromagnetic force constant
    if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
    if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
  5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
    if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
  6. ratio of electron to proton mass
    if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
    if smaller: same as above
  7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
    if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
    if smaller: same as above
  8. expansion rate of the universe
    if larger: no galaxies would form
    if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
  9. entropy level of the universe
    if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
    if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
  10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
  11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
  12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
  13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
  14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
  15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
  16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
  17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
  18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
  19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
  20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
  21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
  22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
  23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
  24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
  25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
  26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
  27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
  28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
  29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
  30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
  31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
  32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
  33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
  34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
The balance is so unbelievably fine that it defies logic to believe it all occured so perfectly by chance. In fact it takes more faith in chance by a LONG shot than to believe in ID.
 
how can any one religion have it all right absolutely impossible. But if memory serves Jesus was crucified becasue he spoke out against organized religion and told the pharases they were basically full of it!
 
How?

PhilPaul said:
how can any one religion have it all right absolutely impossible. But if memory serves Jesus was crucified becasue he spoke out against organized religion and told the pharases they were basically full of it!
Click to expand...

Agreed. Unless that one religion resulted from God revealing himself supernaturally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom