Gunny's Thread on Religion

[tigerbob]

So Allie, serious question: So the only people who are going to heaven are the tiny sliver pf people who completely adhere to the bible and believe in jesus...? Maybe a max of 10% of the world's people? No muslims, no hindus, no ...?
Btw, calling someone an asshole, is that a christian term?

Depends how seriously you want to take your dogma. There are, as you are well aware, numerous branches of Christianity, all with varying degrees of adherence to certain sacred texts. The same can be said of Hindus, Muslims, etc.

Allie's answer would represent her own faith, but would not be representative of the entire Christian faith. Christianity does not fit conveniently into the box you might like it to.

BTW, of course asshole isn't a Christian term (I'm sure you're just being argumentative), but nobody ever said Christians were perfect. If someone behaves like an asshole, Christians are likely to call them an asshole. They are Christians, not Christ.

Some good advice would be if one doesn't want to be called an asshole one shouldn't behave like one.

 

[LOki]

The Big bang is based on a theory of something being created from nothing.

No it's not.

Simple scientific equation: you cannot create something from nothing.

This seems to assert then that the universe was not created--therefore no creator.

 

[LOki]

A creator is more logical than any other explanation.

I'm interested in this logic that argues for a creator more validly than any other explanation. Plese present it. Question-begging logic won't impress me, however.

 

[LOki]

Sorry, I don't lie. The Big Bang theory is EXACTLY what it's called -- a theory. Nothing more.

"A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis."

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing."

You can read up some more here, but as you can see, a scientific theory, ANY scientific theory is far more logical and reasonable than the arguments for a creator.

 

[LOki]

my entire point from the beginning is that it ALL requires faith. Your belief and mine.

This is where you're wong. No one has to deny the evidence of reality or valid logic--only the faithful have to do this.

Yet you attempt to present theory as fact.

Scientific theories are derived from facts--facts validated by evidence and valid logic. It is entirely legitimate to present scientific theories as fact. On the other hand, it is entirely illegitimate to present superstitions as fact; it is illegitimate to demand that a perfectly obtuse denial of contrary evidence is in any way validation of the point being contradicted.

The Big Bang and the "expanding universe are no more guesswork than intelligent design.

This is entirely false, considering how "intelligent design" is demonstrably false, and simply superstition dressed up in the vernacular of reason, whereas the Big Bang theory is supported by evidence and valid logic.

If I can get through to ONE MFer on this board, my point is that your shit stinks like everyone else's.

Well, this much is true, but we are not discussing shit, but rather beliefs. Some beliefs are just baseless crap, while others are objectively valid.

There's no superiority.

I disagree; there certainly is. Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, are far superior to beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic--in so far as those beliefs are to be usefully applied to reality. In the "reality" of leprechauns, unicorns, and flying reindeer, there's no reasonable argument against the existence of an invisible white father who lives in the sky.

I can hang with you on any topic you so desire to bring up. This one included.

No you can't--not if you're going to insist that beliefs validated by faith are validated by reality. Evidence and valid logic are the validating standard for my arguments, denials of evidence and logic--the arguments from faith--will just fail. Wishful thinking only works in the imaginations of the faithful--not in the real world.

I only ask that you THINK next time before you blindly attack anyone who believes in a God.

This is a fair request. Just bear in mind that when you attack the beliefs of others with faith, you are necessarily attacking their beliefs blindly. Such is the intrinsic and necessary nature of beliefs validated by faith.

We don't differ much in that I can't stand people who try to shove their religion on others. We differ in the fact that don't conder attacking you whenever and wherever you can be found fr your religious beliefs.

This may be a fair observation of JBeukema, but you know that if I stalk you it's only because you make sense sometimes--and I heard you have free beer.

 

[Yukon]

I see my Negro friend is at it again.

 

[DamnYankee]

Everything has consequences, for or from people we share space with here on earth, or future generations who have to deal with or enjoy what we leave in our wake. It isn't necessary for the results of our actions to be judged from on high, as it were, to care about the results. There is plenty to get wrong or right from an ethical standpoint. Ethics and morals might seem similar, but ethics are independent of religious dogma.

Really? If you don't get it right the first time, how does what happens differ from you getting it wrong if there is no afterlife in which to suffer consequences?

Ethics don't mean a thing to eternally dead.

It means something to others who have to live with the results of the life one has lived on earth. Some consider other peoples well being even without the threat of being darned to heck, or the promise of a castle in the clouds. By what authority do you assume what ethics mean to others? If we must assume at all, isn't it better (and in the case of Christians, more Christ like) to assume our fellows best intentions?

I don't know why you would assume anything, particularly given the evidence all around you that indicates the worst of intentions by what appears to by the vast majority.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So Allie, serious question: So the only people who are going to heaven are the tiny sliver pf people who completely adhere to the bible and believe in jesus...? Maybe a max of 10% of the world's people? No muslims, no hindus, no ...?

That's what jesus said... and I believe him... you may choose not to believe him, but according to the Lord, there is only one way to the Father and that is through him...

Now where you find you disagree, you'll have to take that up with him; which again, according to Christ is a certainty and one which will not go well for the Muslims and the Hindus, the pagans and all the rest.

The simple fact is that this is the one question which I'd like to have posed to the President.

"Mr. President, as a Christian sir, is it your belief that all Muslims are going to hell?"

This one question would lay to rest any doubts regarding his having adopted a faith distinct from that in which he was born; as to be a Christian is to have only one understanding within the scope of that issue.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

my entire point from the beginning is that it ALL requires faith. Your belief and mine.

This is where you're wong. No one has to deny the evidence of reality or valid logic--only the faithful have to do this.

Once again the atheist comes to project a false premise as truth, and to take a stand on those shifting intellectual sands... As usual, your projection is that religion is not founded in evidence and valid logic, and despite your chronic attempt to establish that your position is superior, due to your demand that such rests or the bed rock of valid reasoning, such is demonstrably false.

To wit:

With regard to the Creator; you exist therefore you were created; you did not create yourself, thus there is a Creator which is not you; no one here on this earth created you, therefore the Creator is not of this earth.

Now you'll naturally take the path which you've taken previously and consistantly, that what I define as Creation is merely the biological happenstance; and you'll base this upon your means, or the means of human science, to understand and observe the biological mechanics which are present in the developement of all biologics; mechanics which have been tested and observed. And it is through this means to test thee natural processes that you conclude that such is occuring without the aid and without assistance of any design established by an outside force.

But you've no means to test for such a force, no means to know how to test for such a force, no means to comprehend what such a force would consist of and thus you conclude that the existence of such a force is impossible, due to your inability to observe such.

Nothing logical about that... its a raw demonstration of the appeal to ignorance, wherein you rest your argument upon the ignorance which exist within your inability to recognize such.

You'll now return to rename the outside force with a witticism... such as the great BigMac and large coke force...and demand that such could also exist... Which of course is false, as a Bigmac and Large coke are perfectly observable, and thus readily subject to a test which would easily determine the existance of such... yet where you would then return to assert that you were simply renaming the original force, with an innocuous term, to lesson the perceived authority of such, wherein you'd be right back where you started; as it doesn't matter what name is given to the Creator; the fact remains that science simply is not sufficiently heeled to understand what exist beyond what we, as a species are capable of observing; and it is wholly illogical to relegate as logical any conclusion which rests on such circumstances, asserting such as authoritative, thus providing for the means to render same as illegitimate.

As demonstrated above, faith is founded in facts; and theories exist which reasonably extrapolate from those known facts, projecting hypothesis to explain the unknown; just as is the case in science, which, FTR, historically stems from; and owes its existence to, the same curiosity and the ensuing quest for answers to that which is unknown.

Christianity in no way contests science; and as a church, we do not challenge objective science at ANY LEVEL... We do however vehemently contests the pseudo-sciences, such as Atheism, which exists for no other purpose than to reject our beliefs on the intellectually unsound and logically invalid arguments, such as those you chronically pose.

I will note again that throughout MOST of human history, GRAVITY was not even recognized as a force of any kind; it simply was... The best minds or the collective sum of the brightest minds of humanity could not even fathom that there existed an invisible force which drew their mass to the center of the mass on which they were standing... YET... Gravity existed, long before humanity came along and through to the present; where as a matter of fact, gravity REMAINS largely a mystery...

Only in the theoretical sciences can gravity be explained; and only there, in the theories which hypothesize a mulitverse, do the mathematical calculations which seek to understand it's origins, hold up. I do not pretend to understand, beyond an elementary level, the language of mathematics... but as I understand it; where science has sought to understand the origins of gravity and the elements of such, which differentiate the qualities of conceptually similar qualities of gravity from those of electro-magneticism for example, the mathematical reasoning breaks down very quickly, except where the theoretical hypothesis of the multiverse are applied, at which time they reasoning regains it plausibility. That gravity is a force which originates within a realm of sub-atomic reality, beyond out means of observation.

Now you're reasoning, to remain consistent, would thus be forced to reject gravity... except for the base Newtonian observation that what goes up must come down; as we simply do not understand, nor can we observe much more than the realization of this force, as it plays on our reality; being some form of attraction between bodies of matter.

As to the legitimacy of declaring unproven scientific as fact, you rest your entire argument, with regard to the Creator, on such which is subject to change without notice, and which is not FACT, but stands in every conceivable facet, no more fact than that which you come to declare as FICTION.

Again, those who hyptothesized that gravity is simply a function of atomic attraction, early in the 20th century, stood such as 'fact' for most of that time and through to the present in many, if not most cases; have found that the mathematical consistency does not hold up, except where outside forces that we neither understand, nor can observe are considered. Now many in the scientific community vehemently dispute this mathematical reasoning... and despite the reasoning being sustained well beyond any other theories, many in the scientific community simply have too much invested in other theories to consider such to be viable...

THUS: THE SCIENTIC COMMUNITY IS JUST AS PRONE TO DOGMATIC BELIEF, AS ARE THOSE YOU CONSISTANTLY COME TO LAMENT IN THE "RELIGIOUS" COMMUNITY... proving the point brought by the Gunny... that faith is inevitably a natural function of all... and frankly, this is a result of a distinct lack of options and while some consider it a pyshosis... others consider it a virtue...

I fall into the virtue camp; where as long as the faith is open to the possibilities, it does not bend to every potential alternative, until such can be established through reason. I believe in the Creator... and in the teachings of Christ and the goods news presented through his teachings; as such rests upon immutable reasoning; the principles of which are self sustaining and incontrovertible; representing rare perfection and where such perfection exist... reason requires that it originates from a source far beyond the severely limited means of humanity, who have yet to create a sustained perfection of any kind.

 

[Al Gunn]

my entire point from the beginning is that it ALL requires faith. Your belief and mine.

This is where you're wong. No one has to deny the evidence of reality or valid logic--only the faithful have to do this.

Indeed... but your projection is that religion is not founded in evidence and valid logic, such is demonstrably false.

To wit:

With regard to the Creator; you exist therefore you were created; you did not create yourself, thus there is a Creator which is not you; no one here on this earth created you, therefore the Creator is not of this earth.

Now you'll naturally take the path which you've taken previously and consistantly, that what I define as Creation is merely the biological happenstance; and you'll base this upon your means, or the means of human science, to understand and observe the biological mechanics which are present in the developement of all biologics; mechanics which have been tested and observed. And it is through this means to test thee natural processes that you conclude that such is occuring without the aid and without assistance of any design established by an outside force.

But you've no means to test for such a force, no means to know how to test for such a force, no means to comprehend what such a force would consist of and thus you conclude that the existence of such a force is impossible, due to your inability to observe such.

Nothing logical about that... its a raw demonstration of the appeal to ignorance, wherein you rest your argument upon the ignorance which exist within your inability to recognize such.

You'll now return to rename the outside force with a witticism... such as the great BigMac and large coke force...and demand that such could also exist... Which of course is false, as a Bigmac and Large coke are perfectly observable, and thus readily subject to a test which would easily determine the existance of such... yet where you would then return to assert that you were simply renaming the original force, with an innocuous term, to lesson the perceived authority of such, wherein you'd be right back where you started; as it doesn't matter what name is given to the Creator; the fact remains that science simply is not sufficiently heeled to understand what exist beyond what we, as a species are capable of observing; and it is wholly illogical to relegate as logical any conclusion which rests on such circumstances, asserting such as authoritative, thus providing for the means to render same as illegitimate.

As demonstrated above, faith is founded in facts; and theories exist which reasonably extrapolate from those known facts, projecting hypothesis to explain the unknown; just as is the case in science, which, FTR, historically stems from; and owes its existence to, the same curiosity and the ensuing quest for answers to that which is unknown.

Christianity in no way contests science; and as a church, we do not challenge objective science at ANY LEVEL... We do however vehemently contests the pseudo-sciences, such as Atheism, which exists for no other purpose than to reject our beliefs on the intellectually unsound and logically invalid arguments, such as those you chronically pose.

So basically, you can't test for a creator... but he's there anyways because you deem we have to have been created by something? So ignorance of how we came to being points to a creator?

Christianity not only contests science by claiming floods, parting of seas... when NO scientific proof has ever been found for such events. Christianity also contests common sense for the same reasons.

 

[Al Gunn]

So Allie, serious question: So the only people who are going to heaven are the tiny sliver pf people who completely adhere to the bible and believe in jesus...? Maybe a max of 10% of the world's people? No muslims, no hindus, no ...?

That's what jesus said... and I believe him... you may choose not to believe him, but according to the Lord, there is only one way to the Father and that is through him...

Now where you find you disagree, you'll have to take that up with him; which again, according to Christ is a certainty and one which will not go well for the Muslims and the Hindus, the pagans and all the rest.

The simple fact is that this is the one question which I'd like to have posed to the President.

"Mr. President, as a Christian sir, is it your belief that all Muslims are going to hell?"

This one question would lay to rest any doubts regarding his having adopted a faith distinct from that in which he was born; as to be a Christian is to have only one understanding within the scope of that issue.

So basically, christians are heavily racist people. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is going to hell. That's pretty much what most if not all religions say: we're right and everyone else is wrong. That's why we have so many wars, 9/11...

 

[Barb]

Really? If you don't get it right the first time, how does what happens differ from you getting it wrong if there is no afterlife in which to suffer consequences?

Ethics don't mean a thing to eternally dead.

It means something to others who have to live with the results of the life one has lived on earth. Some consider other peoples well being even without the threat of being darned to heck, or the promise of a castle in the clouds. By what authority do you assume what ethics mean to others? If we must assume at all, isn't it better (and in the case of Christians, more Christ like) to assume our fellows best intentions?

I don't know why you would assume anything, particularly given the evidence all around you that indicates the worst of intentions by what appears to by the vast majority.

But what appears to be is only what we are shown, and becomes what we look for. The news doesn't feature the good in people, and television plots, for the most part, are based on conflict; the "good guys" are the regulars, and the "vast majority" are struggled against or "managed." Watch enough prime time television and you'd naturally think the world was an awfully scary place.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

my entire point from the beginning is that it ALL requires faith. Your belief and mine.

This is where you're wong. No one has to deny the evidence of reality or valid logic--only the faithful have to do this.

Once again the atheist comes to project a false premise as truth, and to take a stand on those shifting intellectual sands... As usual, your projection is that religion is not founded in evidence and valid logic, and despite your chronic attempt to establish that your position is superior, due to your demand that such rests or the bed rock of valid reasoning, such is demonstrably false.

To wit:

With regard to the Creator; you exist therefore you were created; you did not create yourself, thus there is a Creator which is not you; no one here on this earth created you, therefore the Creator is not of this earth.

Now you'll naturally take the path which you've taken previously and consistantly, that what I define as Creation is merely the biological happenstance; and you'll base this upon your means, or the means of human science, to understand and observe the biological mechanics which are present in the developement of all biologics; mechanics which have been tested and observed. And it is through this means to test thee natural processes that you conclude that such is occuring without the aid and without assistance of any design established by an outside force.

But you've no means to test for such a force, no means to know how to test for such a force, no means to comprehend what such a force would consist of and thus you conclude that the existence of such a force is impossible, due to your inability to observe such.

Nothing logical about that... its a raw demonstration of the appeal to ignorance, wherein you rest your argument upon the ignorance which exist within your inability to recognize such.

You'll now return to rename the outside force with a witticism... such as the great BigMac and large coke force...and demand that such could also exist... Which of course is false, as a Bigmac and Large coke are perfectly observable, and thus readily subject to a test which would easily determine the existance of such... yet where you would then return to assert that you were simply renaming the original force, with an innocuous term, to lesson the perceived authority of such, wherein you'd be right back where you started; as it doesn't matter what name is given to the Creator; the fact remains that science simply is not sufficiently heeled to understand what exist beyond what we, as a species are capable of observing; and it is wholly illogical to relegate as logical any conclusion which rests on such circumstances, asserting such as authoritative, thus providing for the means to render same as illegitimate.

As demonstrated above, faith is founded in facts; and theories exist which reasonably extrapolate from those known facts, projecting hypothesis to explain the unknown; just as is the case in science, which, FTR, historically stems from; and owes its existence to, the same curiosity and the ensuing quest for answers to that which is unknown.

Christianity in no way contests science; and as a church, we do not challenge objective science at ANY LEVEL... We do however vehemently contests the pseudo-sciences, such as Atheism, which exists for no other purpose than to reject our beliefs on the intellectually unsound and logically invalid arguments, such as those you chronically pose.

I will note again that throughout MOST of human history, GRAVITY was not even recognized as a force of any kind; it simply was... The best minds or the collective sum of the brightest minds of humanity could not even fathom that there existed an invisible force which drew their mass to the center of the mass on which they were standing... YET... Gravity existed, long before humanity came along and through to the present; where as a matter of fact, gravity REMAINS largely a mystery...

Only in the theoretical sciences can gravity be explained; and only there, in the theories which hypothesize a mulitverse, do the mathematical calculations which seek to understand it's origins, hold up. I do not pretend to understand, beyond an elementary level, the language of mathematics... but as I understand it; where science has sought to understand the origins of gravity and the elements of such, which differentiate the qualities of conceptually similar qualities of gravity from those of electro-magneticism for example, the mathematical reasoning breaks down very quickly, except where the theoretical hypothesis of the multiverse are applied, at which time they reasoning regains it plausibility. That gravity is a force which originates within a realm of sub-atomic reality, beyond out means of observation.

Now you're reasoning, to remain consistent, would thus be forced to reject gravity... except for the base Newtonian observation that what goes up must come down; as we simply do not understand, nor can we observe much more than the realization of this force, as it plays on our reality; being some form of attraction between bodies of matter.

As to the legitimacy of declaring unproven scientific as fact, you rest your entire argument, with regard to the Creator, on such which is subject to change without notice, and which is not FACT, but stands in every conceivable facet, no more fact than that which you come to declare as FICTION.

Again, those who hyptothesized that gravity is simply a function of atomic attraction, early in the 20th century, stood such as 'fact' for most of that time and through to the present in many, if not most cases; have found that the mathematical consistency does not hold up, except where outside forces that we neither understand, nor can observe are considered. Now many in the scientific community vehemently dispute this mathematical reasoning... and despite the reasoning being sustained well beyond any other theories, many in the scientific community simply have too much invested in other theories to consider such to be viable...

THUS: THE SCIENTIC COMMUNITY IS JUST AS PRONE TO DOGMATIC BELIEF, AS ARE THOSE YOU CONSISTANTLY COME TO LAMENT IN THE "RELIGIOUS" COMMUNITY... proving the point brought by the Gunny... that faith is inevitably a natural function of all... and frankly, this is a result of a distinct lack of options and while some consider it a pyshosis... others consider it a virtue...

I fall into the virtue camp; where as long as the faith is open to the possibilities, it does not bend to every potential alternative, until such can be established through reason. I believe in the Creator... and in the teachings of Christ and the goods news presented through his teachings; as such rests upon immutable reasoning; the principles of which are self sustaining and incontrovertible; representing rare perfection and where such perfection exist... reason requires that it originates from a source far beyond the severely limited means of humanity, who have yet to create a sustained perfection of any kind.

So basically, you can't test for a creator... but he's there anyways because you deem we have to have been created by something? So ignorance of how we came to being points to a creator?

Christianity not only contests science by claiming floods, parting of seas... when NO scientific proof has ever been found for such events. Christianity also contests common sense for the same reasons.

It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created... now you can surmise, that your elementray understanding of the biological links, which you can THEORIZE were a function of naturally occuring happenstance; but in so doing, you make the same leap in reasoning which you come to lament and belittle... which is a rather foolish perspective... as the FACT IS, that you know far less than the sum of that which you do not know; and in effect what you're demanding is your knowledge repsents that which is floating in the sea of ignorance, and that because you're floating this somehow represents you 'ruling that sea...'

History is repleat with the demise of such 'rulers,' through the simple, imperceptible swipe of that sea... Yet here you are wholly ignorant of your foolishness... proudly standing on the turd of your knowledge as it bobs away on a body of ignorance which you can't even muster the intellectual means to recognize, while you boast that you 'command it all...'

It's quite childlike...

There is no scientific evidence that I took a crap yesterday at 7:30 am... Yet such is a fact... such did happen and the absence of any testable evidence of that, and the absence of any observation of such, doesn't alter that very real and certain fact.

You may choose to reject that fact, you can demand that the absence of any tangible record; the evidence of such having washed and co-mingled with with the multitudes of other craps, flowing indiscernibly into imperceptible history; resulting in the means to test for such, being practically impossible, sets aside the possibility of such; but when its all said and done, your ignorance of such does not stand as evidence and your rejection of same is therefore reduced to a fallacious hypothesis of the rather flaccid variety...

Feel better?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So Allie, serious question: So the only people who are going to heaven are the tiny sliver pf people who completely adhere to the bible and believe in jesus...? Maybe a max of 10% of the world's people? No muslims, no hindus, no ...?

That's what jesus said... and I believe him... you may choose not to believe him, but according to the Lord, there is only one way to the Father and that is through him...

Now where you find you disagree, you'll have to take that up with him; which again, according to Christ is a certainty and one which will not go well for the Muslims and the Hindus, the pagans and all the rest.

The simple fact is that this is the one question which I'd like to have posed to the President.

"Mr. President, as a Christian sir, is it your belief that all Muslims are going to hell?"

This one question would lay to rest any doubts regarding his having adopted a faith distinct from that in which he was born; as to be a Christian is to have only one understanding within the scope of that issue.

So basically, christians are heavily racist people.

ROFLMNAO.. WOW! As non sequiturs go... THAT is a WHOPPER!

In the final analysis, what we believe is meaningless... as the reality of Nature is what it is...

But with regard to your argument, Christ in no way relegated his good news to any race... and nothing I said spoke, at any level to race... and you're concluding that such was the case is simply indisputable evidence that your means to reason is indiscernible; and that your position is one which comes with it's own hard and fast prejudices...

So where you hoped to claim some moral or intellectual superiority, in reality you've proven yourself to be a highly limited individual who seeks to simply establish your fallacious reasoning as the purest essence of reason itself, superior to all others...


Sadly, for you, unsound reasoning which rests within an illogical construct rarely enjoys such a status, beyond the confines of the addled mind.

Everyone who doesn't agree with you is going to hell. That's pretty much what most if not all religions say: we're right and everyone else is wrong. That's why we have so many wars, 9/11...

Again... I don't set the rules of Nature sis... If you have a problem with those rules, take it up with Nature... just try to let the rest of us know what you two decide...

Wars are fought because PEOPLE disgree... and to the extent that one group determines that it will no longer tolerate the position of the other... now the subject of such may be religion, it may be economic, it may be ideological, sexual... and the list is endless.

9-11 was a function of one group determining that their rights provided them with the justification to usurp the rights of another group... the reasoning behind that is irrelevant; that such was founded in their would-be religion is just, if not more irrelevant. If the Muslims had decided to execute 9-11 because the US was ruining the environment, it would be just as unjustified as had they done so for any other reason...

Wars are fought for one reason and one reason only... to establish who sets the rules... the looming American Civil War will be fought over the same basis and the result will be the same; the establishment of what group gets to set the rules.

That the ideological left has come to fester as a rhetorical boil on the ass of the worlds culture, is a function of the TOLERANCE which the predominately Christian culture has advanced... you will no doubt conclude that when the limit of that tolerance is crossed and that culture seeks to remove the source of that infectio, you will no doubt conclude that such is a function of INTOLERANCE... but such is a result of your limited perspective and hardly stands as the arbiter of the truth.

 

[JBeukema]

With regard to the Creator; you exist therefore you were created; you did not create yourself, thus there is a Creator which is not you; no one here on this earth created you, therefore the Creator is not of this earth.

Let's run with this...

god exists therefore god was created; god did not create himself (something can't come from nothing), thus there is a Uber-Creator which is not god; no one here in heaven created god, therefore the Uber-Creator is not of this heaven...

The Uber-Creator yet a higher god. Now this cycle terminates at His Noodliness, as I explained in brief here


Now, how can we summarize your assertion? Well, in your own words:

Nothing logical about that... its a raw demonstration of the appeal to ignorance, wherein you rest your argument upon the ignorance which exist within your inability[/OTE]

As demonstrated above, faith is founded in facts;

 

[Al Gunn]

"It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created... "

prove it.

"now you can surmise, that your elementray understanding of the biological links, which you can THEORIZE were a function of naturally occuring happenstance; but in so doing, you make the same leap in reasoning which you come to lament and belittle... which is a rather foolish perspective... "

So you're putting words in my mouth?

"as the FACT IS, that you know far less than the sum of that which you do not know; and in effect what you're demanding is your knowledge repsents that which is floating in the sea of ignorance, and that because you're floating this somehow represents you 'ruling that sea...'"

Sounds like you like to hear yourself talk for no particular reason.

" while you boast that you 'command it all...'"

never said I knew anything, prove I said what you think I said or stfu.

"There is no scientific evidence that I took a crap yesterday at 7:30 am... Yet such is a fact... such did happen and the absence of any testable evidence of that, and the absence of any observation of such, doesn't alter that very real and certain fact."

There is also no scientific proof that god doesn't walk around with a large black hard cock up his ass all day either, doesn't mean it's so. Lack of evidence is not proof. Only a complete moronic simpleton would think that.

You can also stay deluded that religions are never reason for war and that all religions are racists, but the real fact remains that religions separate people into groups who are all at odds with each other and that causes war, like in Palestine and with 9/11 (which stems from the US support of Israel).

 

[tigerbob]

"It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created... "

prove it.

Classic!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

With regard to the Creator; you exist therefore you were created; you did not create yourself, thus there is a Creator which is not you; no one here on this earth created you, therefore the Creator is not of this earth.

Let's run with this...

god exists therefore god was created; god did not create himself (something can't come from nothing), thus there is a Uber-Creator which is not god; no one here in heaven created god, therefore the Uber-Creator is not of this earth....

The Uber-Creator yet a higher god. Now this cycle terminates at His Noodliness, as I explained in brief here


Now, how can we summarize your assertion? Well, in your own words:

Nothing logical about that... its a raw demonstration of the appeal to ignorance, wherein you rest your argument upon the ignorance which exist within your inability

As demonstrated above, faith is founded in facts;

Isn't it cool, how with every opportunity which comes along, the deep thinkers of the atheist community can't get beyond their own skin...

YOU, human beings, biologics who are limited to the confines of this dimension, this universe... who are saddled with the limitations of such, YOU exist.... and given that biological entities are not known to have been crafted from the ether; and given that you likely have some form of witness which testifies to your birth, you are a result of a process which you had no part in creating... Now one presumes you will not return to contest that; thus we'll take it as an established fact.

Thus, something other than you, something other than another biologic created the process by which you came into existence...

Again, the presumption is, that given your consistent position, you will now come to asssert that you know, through your simple understanding of biology, chemistry and other such studies of the physical universe, to which our species is privy, that biological life, came to pass via a series of chemical and biological processes, which resulted from the happenstance of critical circumstances coming to pass...

Which I believe are fairly well reasoned theories, and neither myself or anyone that I personally know would or have brought an argument to contest those theories...

Where we present a contest is in your assertion that these processes were merely an accident... you claim they were; you claim that these processes can be observed, predicted and tested and therefore they occur as a function of simple chemistry and time...

My assertion is that such is unlikely, that given the instinctive understanding to the contrary, given the outcome, it quite likely that such was a result of a intelligent design, where such processes were set into motion by a creator... who very much intended for such processes to occur and for life to form and for life to evolve.

You claim that such can't be proven, therefore the hypothesis is invalid.

And this is where your position becomes a raw appeal to ignorance... and this is why your argument fails.

The Creator, in what ever form of which it is comprised, clearly exists beyond the dimension to which our minds are tuned... and exists beyond the means of our understanding; so from our perspective, the actual composition of or the nature of God is wholly irrelevant... as we've no means to contest it, no means to compete with it and no means to resist or otherwise reject what ever power it might subject us to.

What IS relevant is that for your thesis to hold, it must stand on the certainty that nothing can exist beyond human understanding; and that sis, is absolutely beyond absurd.

But here's what I would like you to answer J...

Of all of the knowledge and all of the facts, which exist throughout the ages and across the scope of time and space; and beyond into what we have no means to possibly know... Which is to say of all of the knowledge that is... what percent of that knowledge do you believe that you possess?

A-100%
B-50%
C-25%
D-An infinitesimal percentage which is so small that the actual value exists into what science would classify as 'infinity?'
E- Vastly less than that...

 

[JBeukema]

YOU, human beings, biologics who are limited to the confines of this dimension, this universe...

Yes, lord Xenu?

who are saddled with the limitations of such, YOU exist.... and given that biological entities are not known to have been crafted from the ether;

the ether? No wonder you're confused; you haven't read a book in 200 years

and given that you likely have some form of witness which testifies to your birth, you are a result of a process which you had no part in creating...

Prove it

Thus, something other than you, something other than another biologic created the process by which you came into existence...

you see, when two people are really drunk and they think they love eachother...

Where we present a contest

Who is 'we'?

is in your assertion that these processes were merely an accident...

Feel free to link to where I ever said any such think

The Creator,

demonstrate a creator.

, clearly exists beyond the dimension to which our minds are tuned

if it's so clear, why have you yet to demonstrate it?

 

[Al Gunn]

"It is an incontrovertible fact, that life was created... "

prove it.

Classic!

He said "incontrovertible fact". I just would like to know how that is.

As for Plubius, he's an asshole who thinks it's a fact that an invisible superbeing exists = wait of time and space.