If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[Taz]

It can sometimes, not always, like in this case.

You can always find something to be thankful for. It’s one of the keys to happiness.

Someone in constant pain can’t be happy or thankful and in fact, some people kill themselves because of the pain. You’re just a fucking idiot.

Are most deformities painful? Which ones?

Look it up, seriously, you’ll see some pretty gruesome stuff.

I have. I haven't found one where they are in constant pain as you describe.

And you’re dishonest.

 

[ding]

You can always find something to be thankful for. It’s one of the keys to happiness.

Someone in constant pain can’t be happy or thankful and in fact, some people kill themselves because of the pain. You’re just a fucking idiot.

Are most deformities painful? Which ones?

Look it up, seriously, you’ll see some pretty gruesome stuff.

I have. I haven't found one where they are in constant pain as you describe.

And you’re dishonest.

Apparently you haven’t found one either.

 

[Taz]

Someone in constant pain can’t be happy or thankful and in fact, some people kill themselves because of the pain. You’re just a fucking idiot.

Are most deformities painful? Which ones?

Look it up, seriously, you’ll see some pretty gruesome stuff.

I have. I haven't found one where they are in constant pain as you describe.

And you’re dishonest.

Apparently you haven’t found one either.

No, you’re right, there are no people in constant pain. Anywhere. Not here. Not there. And fuck man are you ever a dumbass.

 

[ding]

Are most deformities painful? Which ones?

Look it up, seriously, you’ll see some pretty gruesome stuff.

I have. I haven't found one where they are in constant pain as you describe.

And you’re dishonest.

Apparently you haven’t found one either.

No, you’re right, there are no people in constant pain. Anywhere. Not here. Not there. And fuck man are you ever a dumbass.

^ not a link

 

[Taz]

Look it up, seriously, you’ll see some pretty gruesome stuff.

I have. I haven't found one where they are in constant pain as you describe.

And you’re dishonest.

Apparently you haven’t found one either.

No, you’re right, there are no people in constant pain. Anywhere. Not here. Not there. And fuck man are you ever a dumbass.

^ not a link

We're already at the place that proves you're a dumbass. Dumbass.

 

[ding]

^ dunning effect

 

[Taz]

^ dummy effect

 

[ding]

^ still the dunning effect

 

[Taz]

^ still a dummy

 

[ding]

^ doesn’t understand the dunning effect.

 

[Taz]

^ knows he's a dummy

 

[Lysistrata]

I'm new to this thread. But I have to admit that I am queasy. The Roman Catholic experience and the fundie protestant experience, like frankie graham, focus on the family, family research council, et al., have me teetering on the brink of simply becoming an agnostic. I know that no people on this earth have any knowledge or communication with any Supreme Creator. I have always tried to believe in the existence of a Creator, but these people have destroyed any belief I would have.

 

[ding]

^ knows he's a dummy

^ triggered

 

[MaryL]

To see proves god is real.

What about blind people, did god fuck them up on purpose?

What made me wonder about the Christian God of mercy, Children's Hospital has a wall with children's art work. Crayon scribbles, hand turkeys...of children that recently died. It broke my heart. Suffer the little children onto me...really?

 

[ViewFromAbove]

There is no evidence for any “spirit” of the type you describe.

Wouldn’t the material world be that evidence?

Assuming of course spirit did create the material world, right?

The material/natural world we perceive provides LOTS of evidence for evolution through self-organization and emergence processes.
Your “spirit” perception is not based on any credible evidence or rational thought, in my opinion.

Sure it is. The laws of nature existed before space and time were created from nothing.

Huh?? How do YOU know that?
Space and time created from “nothing”?
Even if you were a philosopher of physics, you cannot justify that claim.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

To say “the laws were in place before the universe itself” is TOTAL SPECULATION with NO EVIDENCE.
Physicists can only theorize what that “singularity” was like before the Big Bang, a theory in itself.
That gravitational/spacetime singularity may represent pure quantum energy in a “neutral state”.

NOT “nothing”, as we normally think of matter. Maybe “virtual time” existed then, but not spacetime as we observe it.
Black holes are considered singularities, and astrophysicists believe there are billions of them.

No need to bring in a “God” to explain “our” universe’s creation, because that is the height of IGNORANCE mixed with ARROGANCE.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

Whatever makes YOU happy, but don’t pretend your beliefs are based on reality.
The benefits of natural realism outweigh those of supernatural inventions, in my opinion.

I'm glad you have your opinions and beliefs. I asked a question. I didn't accuse or belittle someones belief because it is different than mine.

In the end it comes down to this, when I die and you turn out to be right I've lost nothing. However, when you die and I turn out to be right, you've lost everything.

Pascal’s wager (your thought preference) is not rational, and it’s ethnocentric.

Why would a benevolent God punish you for being honest about your ignorance?
I’m an ethical person and strongly believe in the “golden rule” principle. It makes no sense that a just god would punish me for exercising my “god given” empathy.

Even if you believe in a Christian God, would you not be punished for being an “infidel” if the Islamic God existed?
Religion is a cultural artifact.

Pascal’s wager Is misunderstood. The benefits of faith are so overwhelming that not having faith is irrational. And by benefits I mean to say benefits in living life.

Contraire! Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational; it leads to technological & knowledge advancements.

Darwin says otherwise. The data overwhelmingly shows that man is a spiritual being. It is for good reason that David Foster Wallace said that we all worship something and the only choice in the matter is what we choose to worship. We are literally hardwired for it. Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. When we look at the data today we see that more and more people are rejecting organized religion but have not abandoned their belief that they are more than just matter or that there is a force which connects or binds us all. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that spirituality offers a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that spirituality is a behavior which leads to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, it would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic we became the less satisfied we became.

So what is the functional advantage of faith? I believe that William James captured it best.

"When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of religion, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the religious life, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill."

You are making up stuff again. This time about Biological knowledge. You need more education here as well as Physics.

Darwin’s natural selection is NOT about behavior.
It’s about genetics.
It’s about which sets of DNA get passed on to the next generation.
Species evolve due in great part to natural selection of their genetic profiles.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

The curse of the agnostic is that they don’t know. This includes not knowing there is evidence or is not evidence. For if they knew there was or wasn’t, they wouldn’t be agnostic.

Honesty about one’s ignorance is not a curse; it’s rational. Scientists practice objectivity 99% of the time, and usually conclude their research with probabilities based on their data and “more research needed”.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to make predictions of nature. Since it is performed by humans, bias is still a risk. So I question that 99% of the time they are truly objective. With that said, I do believe they try to be objective.

By definition science is never truly conclusive because if new information comes along everything is fair game to change.

My point about agnostics is that they aren’t really agnostic because if they were they wouldn’t hold any opinions on the existence or non-existence of a creator. By definition they not only do not know they believe it is not possible to know.

Most self professed agnostics are atheists.

Scientists are agnostic by nature of their methods. Of course, they have theories and hypotheses, but they are tested objectively (unless corruption occurs).
As mentioned previously, an agnostic stance leads to weak atheism (no belief). A strong atheist is not agnostic.

Do you consider yourself an atheist?

I am an atheist about current religious beliefs, but agnostic about creation beliefs.

 

[MaryL]

I have been following current science models. Its confusing, say the quantum theory stuff regarding singularities and string theory and dark matter....

 

[ViewFromAbove]

A common definition of ATHIEST is:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

A “strong athiest” disbelieves there is any god, while a “weak athiest” simply has no belief in a god (hence a-theist).
An agnostic (don’t know!) is also a weak athiest.

That is what I said. Claiming that they are agnostic is somewhat arrogant, wouldn't you say?

You are confusing arrogance with honesty about ignorance.
To be dishonest and pretend you know something beyond your experiences or rational perceptions of knowledge is arrogant.

No, I am claiming that it is arrogant to claim to know what someone believes more than they do. If someone does not believe in any god, they are, by definition, and atheist. To claim that they are an agnostic is arrogant and insulting.

I am not claiming to know what others believe!-
I am simply saying that if you/others are not honest about your ignorance and claim knowledge of a god, then YOU claimants are arrogant ... OR put up your evidence.

An ignostic (don’t know) is also a weak atheist (no belief). If you admit ignorance, then you have no belief ... if you are honest and logical.

I am very honest. I do not believe in any deity or god. That, by definition, is an atheist.

That sounds like you have “no belief” (weak atheist), as distinct from having a belief ... that there are no gods (strong atheist).
An honest agnostic is also a “weak atheist”.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

I have been following current science models. Its confusing, say the quantum theory stuff regarding singularities and string theory and dark matter....

It’s confusing to agnostic physicists too!