b3ta.com board

Home » Messageboard » Creationism » Message 7296737

Darwin's had most of the possession lately

but God's trying hard for a comeback

From the Creationism challenge. See all 279 entries (closed)

(

kinks rock over London, rock on Chicago, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 23:19, archived)

this is football, so I don't get it!

lol!

(

discomeats This canoe, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 23:19, archived)

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Fundy atheists are really irritating and there seem to be a shitload of them.

(

LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 23:19, archived)

whats a fundy atheist?

(

op op op op op I stink therfore I spam, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 23:20, archived)

A man with a lisp

who only comes out the day after Saturday

(

Mstandot I suppose I should post more often., Thu 14 Jun 2007, 23:22, archived)

I deliberately didn't put Dawkins in because of you!

Congrats, btw.

(

kinks rock over London, rock on Chicago, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 23:20, archived)

i'm a total atheist

but i tend to avoid conversations about it because that whole
'denying the existance of god is as dogmatic as believing in god' bollocks

anyway, darwin wasn't an atheist, and shocked himself with his own theory, which is why he put in that 'irrreduceable complexity' get out clause

(

mictoboy shitting in your cunt since, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 23:21, archived)

Well, it is.

it's totally pointless. People can read what they like, but it surpasses man's understanding and, at the end of the day, we are all just making educated guesses.

The ID gang are clearly ignoring stuff, but so is Dawkins. To suggest that one can explain everything is daft - there are some things which require faith (be that in a religious theory or an atheist one) and we just have to accept that people believe differing things.

It's intolerance of the beliefs of others which causes wars, not science or religion.

(

LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 23:24, archived)

*wanders off*

(

mictoboy shitting in your cunt since, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 23:26, archived)

I thought it was unchecked hubris and greed

but there you go :)

(

discomeats This canoe, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 23:26, archived)

I've seen you post this

'easy way out' nonsense before. It might surpass your understanding but please don't speak for me. I've a pretty good grasp of how it all came about and how it's all going swimmingly to a horrible, self-induced end.

(

Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 23:29, archived)

^ this

(

kinks rock over London, rock on Chicago, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 23:36, archived)

*inserts tuppence into internet machine*

That's Ignosticism that is: "Can't be proven one way or the other, and is therefore a pointless argument, especially as God does not play a role in our day to day lives" w00! You learnded something!

'ning and 'night!

(

cynicist couldn't get rid of the comma on, Fri 15 Jun 2007, 0:08, archived)

To say that atheism requires a type of faith is not true.

Atheism is not about somebody saying, "This is what I will dogmatically believe", it stems from a complete lack of evidence to support religion. It's not a case of "I refuse to believe in God", but "Show me some evidence of God and then we can talk."

I doubt Dawkins would claim everything can be explained, but gaps in human knowledge are not evidence of a God. I am not sure which stuff you think he is ignoring.

I agree that religion itself is not the cause of wars though. I think human nature has generally been the cause of war, with religious beliefs providing a convenient excuse.

(

Mystery_Bob, Fri 15 Jun 2007, 0:12, archived)

I'm posting this hours later, so who knows if anyone will read it...

but Agnosticism is what you're describing. It basically means that we don't necessarily believe in God, but we're not dismissing the idea as definitely impossible or anything. It's what I believe, personally. Athiesm is a dogma, sorry. It's a distinct belief that there is DEFINITELY no God. Maybe you're an agnostic, not an atheist. I do agree with you that gaps in our knowledge aren't sufficient proof, though.

here's dictionary.com's take on atheism and agnosticism: An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.

(RDT <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><, Fri 15 Jun 2007, 3:03, archived)

By a staggering coincidence, I just looked back to see if anyone had replied to this thread.

maybe it was divine inspiration?

I don't consider my point of view to be agnostic - to me that suggests a certain indecision, giving existence of God a certain level of probability. I think of myself as an atheist, not through a dogmatic belief system, but as my logical conclusion after examining as much of the evidence as I can comprehend.

When I said, "Show me some evidence of God and then we can talk", that was meant to imply that I accept God cannot be disproved, not that I have any indecision. The Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Cosmic Teacup cannot be disproved either. It does not mean I consider those suggestions likely.

Calling myself agnostic would be to give the impression I am less ambivalent to the existence of God than I really am. If you flat out ask me if I think there is a God, my answer would be "No", not "Maybe yes, maybe no, we will never no"

(

Mystery_Bob, Fri 15 Jun 2007, 4:02, archived)

I see where you're coming from..

There is a bit of a gray area between atheism and agnosticism. I think that a lot of people consider agnosticism to be a sort of indecision (Christians certainly do). I think I actually have a very similar belief to you. I think the general organized religion idea of God is pretty far fetched (actually, I think it's bunk, but I'm trying to be diplomatic here), and I don't actually believe, in any way, in a higher power. I simply lack the strong belief that there definitely is absolutely nothing out there, period. I leave myself open to the fact that maybe there is some sort of higher power out there somewhere, simply because there's no scientific proof that it isn't true. I've always told people that if God wants to sit down and have a cup of coffee with me, I'll be glad to admit his existence :)

(RDT <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><, Fri 15 Jun 2007, 5:44, archived)

I am pretty comfortable

with the idea of that there is nothing out there, certainly nothing that can be classed as 'God' - traditional or not.

There is certainly stuff out there I do not understand and have no answer for, and probably I lack the comprehension to understand things on that scale, but I am reluctant to call those things I do not understand God.

However, that is me and my understanding as it works inside my head. I think it's important for everybody to try to figure it out for themselves - regardless of what they eventually decide to believe.

(

Mystery_Bob, Fri 15 Jun 2007, 5:59, archived)

divine inspiration again?

hehehe. I think that you and I actually do have very very similar beliefs, but just choose to define (label?) them slightly differently. Maybe I'm marginally more open to the idea of a higher power than you are, but I certainly don't need the belief in one to make me happy. Oh well. Doesn't matter anyway, does it?

Well, unless there is a God, and he's getting his lightning bolts ready for us....

(RDT <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><, Fri 15 Jun 2007, 6:19, archived)

Why are there some things that CAN'T be explained? Sure some things never will, but doesn't mean they can't, and doesn't mean we NEED faith in these things.

(engekomkommer, Fri 15 Jun 2007, 2:29, archived)

MB is right:

Faith is only required if you require an explaination for the things that science, which really, really is in it's infancy, can't yet recreate in a lab. I can live without understanding everything (though I am grateful for the efforts of those for whom this is not true), so I don't require even one imaginary friend. Also I am fully aware that yours don't exist: that's not faith, or a theory, that's knowledge.

And, yes, though religion LOOKS responsible for lotsa' war, it's just the flag of choice for the usual suspects to wrap themselves in, I suppose... Who knows.

(Smoked Oysters Yes, magick helmet! And I will give you a sample!, Fri 15 Jun 2007, 2:30, archived)

genius!

*clicks* My money is on Darwin always

(

op op op op op I stink therfore I spam, Thu 14 Jun 2007, 23:20, archived)

It's a man's world

Edit: Woo! :) and that's it for me tonight, Night B3tans!

(