Being an Atheist in Ireland is a Cnut

Sam Vimes

Jakkass is a protestant I think (not RCC anyway) so I don't think he'll try to argue with you there

weeder

read about 14 pages of this and got a headache from the repetitiveness of it, i think the thread has a strayed a good bit from the oringinal topic but thats neither here nor there.

Jakkass wrote: »

I find it a bit of a stretch to believe that things do not have a purpose given that it is clear that our legs have the purpose to enable us to walk and our eyes enable us to see.

I have an appendix, this does not serve a purpose, i could have it removed tomorrow and lose no abilitys of my body.

<SNIP>

Spear

To sum up the thread

banjopaul

weeder wrote: »

I have an appendix, this does not serve a purpose, i could have it removed tomorrow and lose no abilitys of my body.

The appendix is only considered vestigial with regard to the digestive system, it still has functions that are lost with its removal.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/dumc-aiu100807.php

pablomakaveli

weeder wrote: »

I have an appendix, this does not serve a purpose, i could have it removed tomorrow and lose no abilitys of my body.

Actually i think this is debated. I remember reading somewhere that people without an appendix have weaker immune systems or something along those lines.

pablomakaveli

banjopaul wrote: »

The appendix is only considered vestigial with regard to the digestive system, it still has functions that are lost with its removal.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/dumc-aiu100807.php

Or what he said.:pac:

Sam Vimes

Well besides the appendix I can give an example of something that we have that serves no purpose whatsoever and we would actually be better off without:

Link

Point proven :pac:

Pub07

Jakkass wrote: »

est of validity.

2) Christian history does not make sense without a Resurrection event:
Let's go through this bit by bit:
a. You have been with a charismatic preacher for 3 years in Israel,
b. You have seen this man endure trials of all sorts, and you have come to know His personal character during this time.
c. You see this man die.
x. -
d. You and the others who were with you at the time, spread the teachings of this individuals thousands of miles throughout the Gentile world, preaching that we can become a new Creation in Christ Jesus if we are baptized and confess that Jesus is Lord (2 Corinthians 5).
e. These men are zealous for the spiritual truths that this man taught throughout His worldly existence, even until the point of death, by stoning (James the Righteous - see Josephus' Jewish Antiquities), Thomas who is believed to have been gored with a spear in India, Peter said to be crucified upside down, James Son of Zebedee who was said to have been put to death by Herod in the book of Acts.
Now, what on earth can explain the difference between d and e. How on earth if you have seen your best friend, if you have seen this man who has testified to such truths while alive, could they possibly have endured to spread it as zealously as they did and until the point of death? It does not make sense unless something extraordinary happened inbetween both of these events. I'm not saying that this necessarily has to be the Resurrection, but it certainly gives credence to it.
If you cannot explain to me conclusively how all 11 disciples went through to the lengths that they did in a reasonable manner, then this will always give credence to something extraordinary having happened to bring these men to those lengths.
Then taking into account that in the accounts the mention of women running to the tomb would have been seen as laughable in Jewish society at the time, a lack of an attempt to cover this up would indicate that it was indeed the honest and frank truth of the situation.
There are more and more textual implications like these in the Gospels themselves.

That was low man, using the Chewbacca defense to defend your supposed beliefs - http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454 How can we argue with something that does not make sense?

My name is URL

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Actually i think this is debated. I remember reading somewhere that people without an appendix have weaker immune systems or something along those lines.

I dunno if I'd be convinced that it's really beneficial. There's other phenomena in the body that could be described as useless or counterproductive like the blood vessels that supply the retina which have to pass in front of the retina which. thus actually reducing vision.

If nothing else, these things are a good indication that we are still evolving

philologos

Pub07 wrote: »

That was low man, using the Chewbacca defense to defend your supposed beliefs - http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454 How can we argue with something that does not make sense?

Read the second clause of that sentence: "without a Resurrection event".

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Read the second clause of that sentence: "without a Resurrection event".

Of course the idea that the followers might have been zealous to the point of giving up their lives without a resurrection event makes perfect sense because people have been shown throughout history to be just as zealous for causes that actually had the truth as ones that didn't (9/11 anyone?). Correlation!=causation. But don't let that stop you

STBR

Don't worry about it.

It's just their age.

I don't know ONE person below the age of approx. 30 who honestly believes in any deities.

In fact, the only people I do know who are actually fully into the faith are all over 65.

Once that generation you're talking about is gone, we're fine.

I love being a Rationalist.

Sam Vimes

Upward Spiral wrote: »

I dunno if I'd be convinced that it's really beneficial. There's other phenomena in the body that could be described as useless or counterproductive like the blood vessels that supply the retina which have to pass in front of the retina which. thus actually reducing vision.

If nothing else, these things are a good indication that we are still evolving

And the fact that if I have my legs separated, someone doesn't have to be very accurate at all with a kick because my legs will guide their foot right to my nads. A truly omnipotent designer would have designed nads that could stay on the insde where they're safe.

If that doesn't disprove God I don't know what does

My name is URL

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And the fact that if I have my legs separated, someone doesn't have to be very accurate at all with a kick because my legs will guide their foot right to my nads. A truly omnipotent designer would have designed nads that could stay on the insde where they're safe.

If that doesn't disprove God I don't know what does

That's correct, I wrote a dissertation on the very subject of dangling balls & the evolutionary process - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055521990 :pac:

Sam Vimes

Upward Spiral wrote: »

That's correct, I wrote a dissertation on the very subject of dangling balls & the evolutionary process - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055521990 :pac:

Would an omnipotent God designing people in his image allow something like this to happen:

http://dreadnaught.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/man-gets-testicles-stuck-in-deckchair/

Man Gets Testicles Stuck In Deckchair
Posted on June 7, 2008 by yojoe

Listed under “things you hope never happen to you” is the story of Mario Visnjic, who:

had gone swimming naked in the sea at the Valalta beach in western Croatia, reports 24sata. His testicles had shrunk while in the cool sea and slipped through the wooden slats when he sat back down on his wooden deckchair. But as he lay in the sun they expanded back to normal size and got stuck between the slats.

Overblood

Jakkass I never knew you were an intelligent-designist.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Not the best example. Computers operate with components that are designed by humans.

That's completely irrelevant to my point. Which would imply you don't understand the point and are simply happy with the illusion of providing a counter to my argument. Not suprising I suppose.

philologos

Overblood wrote: »

Jakkass I never knew you were an intelligent-designist.

I think every Christian believes that God created the world, people debate the how.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that God created the world with a purpose through the scientific mechanisms we have come to know.

I'd avoid the term ID though because people would confuse that with YEC.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I think every Christian believes that God created the world, people debate the how.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that God created the world with a purpose through the scientific mechanisms we have come to know.

I'd avoid the term ID though because people would confuse that with YEC.

What's YEC?

You said:

View Post
I find it a bit of a stretch to believe that things do not have a purpose given that it is clear that our legs have the purpose to enable us to walk and our eyes enable us to see.

That is the core belief of intelligent design proponents

Zillah

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What's YEC?

Young Earth Creationism I presume. Even people who believe in magic Jewish zombies are allowed make fun of them. Apparently.

condra

LMAO. It's funny 'cos it's true.

Dashticle

Jakkass wrote: »

3) Creation without a higher power does not make sense.
The probability of the world coming into existence through natural processes, according to Roger Penrose is in the millions of billions of zeroes. 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 is quite a huge number. This is commonly deemed by mathematicians and physicists to be mathematical impossibility. It would seem to me that the prudent thing to do would be to look to the possibility of a Creator or a means of causation to explain how the universe came into existence given the co-ordination of the planets in the right distance from the Sun to create life, and the forming of the earth with the correct chemical composition in the universe to sustain life. It is incredible to me to suggest that this world was not created by a supernatural force given that what is natural is frequently observable, what happened in the formation of the earth is not frequently observable by any means. In addition to this, when looking to how the universe has come into being, we can only assess what is within the universe, rather than what is external to it.
It's quite frankly ridiculous that those who believe that miracles are an impossibility can deem that the creation of the world by purely natural means is in anyway more probable. Miracles by their nature are hugely improbable by natural means if and of their own, however if there is a supernatural force behind said miracles by which the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are known, then it is rather probable that indeed that miracles can take place, just as it is quite probable that the universe came into existence through a supernatural force. This gives credence to me that the earth is the creation of God.
The reasoning that William Lane Craig common proponent of the kalam cosmological argument, gives for believing in a God of miracles is as follows:
a) God makes sense of the universes origins.
b) God makes sense of the universes complexity.
c) God makes sense of objective moral values.
d) God makes sense of the resurrection.
e) God can be immediately experienced
(I'll quote from him when dealing with spiritual experiences)

I know this was like twenty odd pages of arguing ago but I remember a Creationist brought this up when arguing with me before. The point I forgot to make at the time was: Even if the odds of our planet and our species ocurring are extremely narrow, almost a mathematical impossibility you say, wouldn't it still be absolutely guaranteed to happen considering space is infinite? Any infinte number < infinity. Y/N?

Zillah

Dashticle wrote: »

I know this was like twenty odd pages of arguing ago but I remember a Creationist brought this up when arguing with me before. The point I forgot to make at the time was: Even if the odds of our planet and our species ocurring are extremely narrow, almost a mathematical impossibility you say, wouldn't it still be absolutely guaranteed to happen considering space is infinite? Any infinte number < infinity. Y/N?

Nope. Space is infinite, matter and energy are not. That's not to say that you're not right, but for the wrong reasons.

Sam Vimes

Dashticle wrote: »

I know this was like twenty odd pages of arguing ago but I remember a Creationist brought this up when arguing with me before. The point I forgot to make at the time was: Even if the odds of our planet and our species ocurring are extremely narrow, almost a mathematical impossibility you say, wouldn't it still be absolutely guaranteed to happen considering space is infinite? Any infinte number < infinity. Y/N?

The point has been made to him many times by many different people. He doesn't accept it

Sam Vimes

Zillah wrote: »

Nope. Space is infinite, matter and energy are not. That's not to say that you're not right, but for the wrong reasons.

I suppose he is right but his numbers are too high. A better example would be:

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (amount of matter) * 1000000000000000000000 (number of years the universe has existed) >10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (chances of life evolving)

Jakkass can't get his head around the scale of the universe in both time and space so can't see how it makes unlikely things a virtual certainty to happen somewhere at some time


edit: The figures are approximations :P

Sam Vimes

Dashticle wrote: »

I know this was like twenty odd pages of arguing ago but I remember a Creationist brought this up when arguing with me before. The point I forgot to make at the time was: Even if the odds of our planet and our species ocurring are extremely narrow, almost a mathematical impossibility you say, wouldn't it still be absolutely guaranteed to happen considering space is infinite? Any infinte number < infinity. Y/N?

This is the second time in two pages that someone has posted one of his reasons with a response so here's a handy reference with a response to each of them that I'm sure you will agree with

1. Conclusion based on unsubstansiated evidence. And there is conflicting evidence, ie Jews claim that he did not fulfil the Messianic prophecies (http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/why_dont_jews_believe_in_jesus$.asp). We have no way to know who's right.
2. Correlation!=causation. People without the truth have been shown to be just as zealous, therefore such zealousness does not require having the truth.
3. Intelligent design, pseudo science. Human knowledge has not progressed far enough to say what created the universe, we simply don't know. A god is one of the possibilities but it is not the only one and to say he is the only possibility is to say that you know everything about the universe.
   Also this is not a reason for believing specifically in Christianity and so does not belong on a list of "reasons why I believe in Christianity". It could equally be applied to any religion.
4. Human perception has been shown to be faulty. It is filtered through their understanding and their prejudices. Eye-witness accounts of events usually vary widely and are considered unreliable. This has been verified experimentally countless times, just because people think they had a spiritual experience does not mean they did. Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence and an eye-witness account is not remarkable evidence
5. (and 6)Non-sequitur argument. Proving that a man existed or a place existed does not indicate that he actually did the things it was claimed he did in the places he claimed he did them. You are not attempting to prove the man or the place, you are attempting to prove the claims
6. See above
7. The example he gave before was the work of Aristotle. His work is not a "historical record", it is a book of ideas which can be judged on their own merit. Its authenticity is irrelevant. And if we must reject other historical records that do not fit with what we know to be true about the time or with the laws of nature then we will. That's how science works.

edit:His reasons: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59698572&postcount=178

condra

Whatever about Jakkass, at least he doesn't send childish private messages.

Sam, if you can't take other people disagreeing with you, and having the odd pop at your "personality type", you should get out more instead of spending all your time on the internet, disagreeing with people.

As evidenced in this thread, and the old one about the chair from argos, you can give it but you can't take it, and you wont back down until you have the last word. That is how children behave - obsessive and insecure.

Please stop wasting my time and your own. Don't PM me again.

philologos

Dashticle wrote: »

The point I forgot to make at the time was: Even if the odds of our planet and our species ocurring are extremely narrow, almost a mathematical impossibility you say, wouldn't it still be absolutely guaranteed to happen considering space is infinite?

Finite time since Big Bang surely? 15 billion years is still finite. If the universe began expanding following the Big Bang surely there has also been a finite amount of expansion?

condra

Jakkass do you think life elsewhere in the universe is unlikely because it is not big enough or because you are religious?

philologos

womoma wrote: »

Jakkass do you think life elsewhere in the universe is unlikely because it is not big enough or because you are religious?

It wouldn't effect my beliefs in the slighest. I have no reason to believe that God didn't create the whole universe and all that is in it. Actually it would be interesting to see if there were intelligent beings who had received divine revelation in a similar way to the way that we had.

As for the not big enough equation, I don't think I said the universe is currently in any way small, just that it indeed is of a finite size, given that it has had a finite time of expansion.