Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism causes creationism

24567…24

Comments

  • #32
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    And it doesn't touch on spirit because it's a bullsh*t concept.


  • #33
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    You're still confusing the physical, a limited field, with the non physical.

    I'm not. Religious belief is a physical phenomena, it manifests itself in the action and behavior of humans.
    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Biology, rightly, does not attempt to decide concepts such as love, morality, democracy, thought, spirit, existance.

    Actually it attempts to understand all those concepts since they also are all physical phenomena.
    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Actually, the real problem is, other than the tired old ad homiem arguements, I have never seen anything else put forward to challenge them.

    Given the wealth of research done in this are I would imagine you are confusing not seeing something with not looking for or not understanding something.

    It is up to you to attempt to understand the science, this will depend on how interested you are and how genuinely open minded you are to the new ideas presented, ideas that might challenge your preconceived beliefs and notions about religion. Unfortunately in my experience deeply religious people seem to be lacking in both those qualities. Here's hoping that isn't you.


  • #34
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Sarky wrote: »
    And it doesn't touch on spirit because it's a bullsh*t concept.

    Well it touches on it indirectly, it touches on why people believe in concepts like the spirit in the first place. This is mostly dealt with in the theory of mind, the evolved instinct of humans to view a persons body and their mind as two independent entities that exist appart from each other.

    This can lead to the quite odd phenomena of some people, particularly religious people, taking it almost as an assumed given that something like the spirit exists without any evidence for such a proposition.

    They literally cannot imagine an alternative, the instinct to view the mind independently to the body is so strong and enforced in their mental processing.


  • #35
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Galvasean wrote: »
    With the exception of 'spirit' it does touch on all of those subjects.

    In a mechanical way, and it only barely touches the how, not the why. Next time a loved one says they love you, be sure to tell them it's only a mere chemical reaction, along with their thoughts hopes and aspirations.
    You guys really are the living dead.


  • #36
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Sarky wrote: »
    And it doesn't touch on spirit because it's a bullsh*t concept.

    Yes the spirit of determination, charity, etc. etc.what a bull**** concept indeed.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    In a mechanical way, and it only barely touches the how, not the why. Next time a loved one says they love you, be sure to tell them it's only a mere chemical reaction, along with their thoughts hopes and aspirations.
    You guys really are the living dead.

    And a sun set is "only" photons cascading through the atmosphere. A water fall is "only" water droplets being pulled to Earth by gravity.

    This constant need by (some) religious people to invent made up reasons to find something beautiful or wondrous other than because it is simply beautiful or wondrous is really quite distasteful. You can't enjoy something for what it is you have to make up a reason for why you should enjoy it as if you are embarrassed to simply find pleasure in things as they are.


  • #38
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,509 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    In a mechanical way, and it only barely touches the how, not the why. Next time a loved one says they love you, be sure to tell them it's only a mere chemical reaction, along with their thoughts hopes and aspirations.
    You guys really are the living dead.

    Much like the way all of us here regularly remind children that although its fun riding a bike, that they're inevitably going to die. Sigh.
    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Yes the spirit of determination, charity, etc. etc.what a bull**** concept indeed.

    You're obfuscating our attempt to challenge the concept of a spirit(which has no scientific merit nor evidence of any kind) by using a common turn of phrase to associate tangible human characteristics with the intangible.
    Ie...."There is a strong spirit of charity within this community" simply implies that people in the community are charitable. Not that people in the community are charitable because of their "spirits".


  • #39
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Next time a loved one says they love you, be sure to tell them it's only a mere chemical reaction, along with their thoughts hopes and aspirations.

    Eh, how about no?
    Not saying it isn't true, just that it seems dull to reduce something like that to s science lecture.
    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    You guys really are the living dead.

    Not this horse cack again.... :rolleyes:
    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Yes the spirit of determination, charity, etc. etc.what a bull**** concept indeed.

    So you don't mean 'spirit' as in an everlasting soul sort of way? Could you please clarify as it appears two different things are being discussed.


  • #40
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Zombrex wrote: »
    This constant need by (some) religious people to invent made up reasons to find something beautiful or wondrous other than because it is simply beautiful or wondrous is really quite distasteful. You can't enjoy something for what it is you have to make up a reason for why you should enjoy it as if you are embarrassed to simply find pleasure in things as they are.

    Claiming we only find something beautiful or wondrous because we believe God created it is rubbish. The question you desperately avoid is why. Claiming we only find something beautiful or wondrous because we believe in God created it is rubbish. The question you desperately avoid is why.

    Its all justs a mutli trillion to one, uncaused totally random cosmic accident ? Nothing created something.
    Now thats what I call deluding yourself.


  • #41
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Its all justs a mutli trillion to one, uncaused totally random cosmic accident ? Nothing created something.
    Now thats what I call deluding yourself.

    Yawn.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Its all justs a mutli trillion to one, uncaused totally random cosmic accident ?

    Close enough. Isn't it beautiful?


  • #43
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Yawn.

    I yawn at your yawn. Yawn.


  • #44
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Claiming we only find something beautiful or wondrous because we believe God created it is rubbish.

    You say that and then straight away you say this ...
    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Its all justs a mutli trillion to one, uncaused totally random cosmic accident ?

    So you can only enjoy something if you think God created it? You can't enjoy it if it is a "multi-trillion to one uncaused totally random cosmic accident"?

    Did you just say that wasn't the case, you could enjoy it simply for what it was, not based on what caused it to happen?


  • #45
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    Zombrex wrote: »
    You say that and then straight away you say this ...



    So you can only enjoy something if you think God created it? You can't enjoy it if it is a "multi-trillion to one uncaused totally random cosmic accident"?

    Did you just say that wasn't the case, you could enjoy it simply for what it was, not based on what caused it to happen?

    What was the trigger of the cosmic accident?


  • #46
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Nothing created something.
    Now thats what I call deluding yourself.

    Where did God come from again?


  • #47
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    OK, I get it. Sanity causes insanity. Reason engenders irrationality.:D:D

    Why didn't I see that before?:rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • #48
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Newsite wrote: »
    What was the trigger of the cosmic accident?
    Purple monkey dishwasher.


  • #49
    aidan24326
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Yes the spirit of determination, charity, etc. etc.what a bull**** concept indeed.

    Not the way religious people normally use the word spirit and you know that very well.


  • #50
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    Newsite wrote: »
    What was the trigger of the cosmic accident?
    This question is usually meant to be a gotcha, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are honestly asking. The simple answer is that we don't know what the trigger was or, more importantly, if there even was a trigger to begin with. But research is ongoing, there are a number of theories, most of which I only have a passing familiarity with and so I wouldn't do you the disservice of mangling them.

    The point is that there is a certain tendency to view any lack of knowledge as an excuse to insert a god as the answer (my favorite example of this is Bill O'Reilly's ongoing confusion about the moon). If there is one think I'm absolutely certain of, it's that if we ever want to discover the answer to these questions, assuming that the answer is god won't help.


  • #51
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    There's this ludicrous idea that some religious people hold that because we understand a certain thing, we don't feel it. Just because we know that love is caused by chemical reactions in our brains doesn't mean we can't fall in love.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Newsite wrote: »
    What was the trigger of the cosmic accident?

    I have absolutely no idea. The closest humans have ever come to an accurate theory of the formation of the universe is m-theory, but that is far from being testable and thus is currently unverifiable.

    Out of curiosity, do you agree with Quantum? That unless we propose that something was created by a god, we cannot enjoy it for what is? That if we understand its form we cannot enjoy its intrinsic beauty, or enjoy how it makes us feel if we understand the processes at work to produce such a feeling?

    I hope not. If you do I'm afraid all I have for you is pity at what you do not see :(


  • #53
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Purple monkey dishwasher.

    No answer for us then ;)


  • #54
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Zombrex wrote: »
    So you can only enjoy something if you think God created it?

    No, thats what you like to think I think. In fact I enjoy it doubly because I also know God created it.


  • #55
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Newsite wrote: »
    No answer for us then ;)
    My answer is more plausible than yours, we know monkeys exist.


  • #56
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,614 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Newsite wrote: »
    No answer for us then ;)

    The answer was a parable. An alternative answer is "mu".


  • #57
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I have absolutely no idea. The closest humans have ever come to an accurate theory of the formation of the universe is m-theory, but that is far from being testable and thus is currently unverifiable.

    I hope not. If you do I'm afraid all I have for you is pity at what you do not see :(

    So you have absolutely no idea what triggered it, no proof what caused it, no proof that it is not caused by God, but yet you posit that belief in God, for which 'there is no material proof', is silly.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, do you agree with Quantum? That unless we propose that something was created by a god, we cannot enjoy it for what is? That if we understand its form we cannot enjoy its intrinsic beauty, or enjoy how it makes us feel if we understand the processes at work to produce such a feeling?

    I certainly don't agree. Is this not a thing of beauty? :D


  • #58
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,023 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    No, thats what you like to think I think. In fact I enjoy it doubly because I also know God created it.

    you mean you believe God created it, to know God created it would require evidence.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #59
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    No, thats what you like to think I think. In fact I enjoy it doubly because I also know God created it.

    So by calling those who merely enjoy it once, and do not "enjoy it doubly", the "living dead" you were merely making pleasant small talk?


  • #60
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Newsite wrote: »
    What was the trigger of the cosmic accident?

    And what triggered the trigger?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Newsite wrote: »
    So you have absolutely no idea what triggered it, no proof what caused it, no proof that it is not caused by God, but yet you posit that belief in God, for which 'there is no material proof', is silly.

    Yes, given the evidence which we have been discussing presented in the other thread on the evolutionary origins of religious and magical thinking.
    Newsite wrote: »
    I certainly don't agree.

    I'm very pleased to here that Newsite :)


Advertisement