Materialist Manifesto. It is a fact that there is no soul.

[Mastardo]

Science exists to find natural answers to lifes mysteries. By definition a scientist cannot stop searching for a "natural" answer even if one does not exist. So theoretically if a non natural answer were to exists for any phenomena, science could spend untold billions of years searching for a reason that did not exist. Your faith is simply that a natural answer does exist for every mustery of existence. Thats fine, tithe at your Church as you choose. But its still only just a matter of faith.

Science exists to find answers, natural or not. Whatever is testable it seeks to determine. Your separation of the world into natural and non natural world is problematic, to say the least.

First of all, our concept of knowledge is based on certain causal properties of the universe. I know that if I drop a ball, it will fall down. Someone who supposed there might be deviations from this fact might, I guess, say that I don't know that the ball will fall down when I drop it. But one could make similar speculations of deviations from the causal properties of the universe ad infinitum, essentially invalidating knowledge.

People before science noticed some things that were very difficult to explain: consciousness, humans, animals... the list could go on. These things must have seemed to contradict the causal nature of the world they experienced every day. Stories were constructed, with similar motives, across many different cultures. A big man in the sky did it all.

Now that we have a much better explanation of these seeming inconsistencies, the supposedly causal properties of these religious stories have been exposed for what they are: stories, developed througout history as a result of human psychology and society.

 

[jerseyart]

First of all, you are half full of shit. Half of what you say is passable argument. The other half is just shit. Let's just clear up some issues right now. I have composed several research papers that have appeared in computer science journals in the US. I speak two languages fluently and I'm working on a third - and I don't mean only Western European languages which would be quite a lot easier. I have lived in 4 countries in my life so far. I travel a lot and I read a lot.

Translation: Im really really smart.

People in different corners of the world have relatively drastically differing views regarding sex and religion. But you act like anyone whom is not friendly towards western classical feminism and Christian ethical pride is a "kid". You are a very typical American. Your mind is not open and I doubt its worth debating with you. But since I started this thread I'll respond to your post.

Blah blah blah.

Translation: Im frustrated, and so now Im going to introduce more useless dribble into the discussion for filler. If I write enough, someone might imagine I actually had something useful to say

What about our current understanding of physics demonstrates that our material universe should not exist? Secondly, our current understanding of physics has more explanatory power and is vastly more thoroughly supported than our theological "understanding", regarding our physical universe.

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

And you keep making the same pointless point. Religion doesnt profess itself to be a science. At best its a form of philosphy. So to what end do you keep spweing the same tired line that it is unprovable?

Science answers the tiniest fraction of the questions asked, and as of yet has no reasonable answers for the most important ones. The straw man argument that what it knows it can prove is useless. It identifies some of the materials used in the construction, but still cant explain how it came to be.

There is no mathematical definition that would allow us to compute such a probability.

Actualy there are, and they have been reproduced in this forum before.

This is similar to expecting scientists to be able to document every single step in the evolution of species to the time of man. There are simply too many steps. Of course it can't be explained intricately enough to satisfy those who demand absolute proof (it doesn't exist) or would assume that instead "god" came down and created eyes. Some evolutionary biologists have made statements regarding the lack of clarity of neo darwinian theory, yet these biologists (Steven Jay Gould) still think that evolution happened, via natural selection, variation and mutation.

More useless drivel that can be summed up "yeah we dont know how, but we still believe it happened." I dont fault the scientists. Wouldnt be much of a scientist if your response was "I dont know the answer, so it must be God." It isnt a question of intircacy, but of likelehood and probablility, which do not favor your side. The eye for example is a useless device unless an untold number of parts are working correctly. How does it evolve?

However, even if there are major flaws in evolutionary theory, the entire neo darwinian theoretical framework need not be taken down. Science, in theory, should be corrected whenever possible and the correctness of its components are not usually interdependent. There are many more logically possible explanations.

No disagreement, but neither should intellectual children be making rash and rodiculkous statements claiming God is dead based off of an article they read which doesnt even begin to address the issue. I didnt embarass you in this discussion, you embarassed yourself, with a flippant, obnoxious, and rather idiotioc analysis.

I would expect so much more form a self professed "mommas brightest lil boy"

Firstly, you need to open your mind. Secondly, you need to realize that I never stated that science negated the idea of a creator. I said that: Relatively recent developments in philosophy, using relatively recent scientific ideas, provide a generally more complete and consistent explanation of our universe and of the self than monotheistic religion. Treated as any other academic subject, we would deem the religious explanation/story to be false. Treated as any other non-academic subject, we would even more quickly deem the religious explanation/story to be false. This is knowledge without anthropic bias.

Again, straw man. See above

Anthropic bias permeates atheism-theism debates and "intelligent design" ID theory. In atheism-theism debates it amounts to the very strange treatment of religious subjects: the perpetual doubt that knowledge regarding the correctness of religious explanations of the universe is possible, the requirement of absolute proof when evaluating arguments for atheism. ID is the idea that humans were very unlikely to result from naturalistic explanations of the universe, that because of this naturalism is likely to be false, and (in some accounts) that since naturalism is false that theism must be true. For the last point, there are usually other ideas presented: that intelligent things usually have intelligent creators, etc. I honestly don't have time to deal with this argument much further. The probability alone is flawed. The idea that every intelligent thing has an intelligent creator is full of holes and counter examples. Anthropology is obvious counter example. If you want to argue for Intelligent Design... fire away.

Im not going to argue in favor of intelligent design as proof of the divine. Its a pseudo scientific answer. Science either knows or it doesnt know. Intelligent design proponents essentially claim "we can go no further" which is hardly a scientific approach.

As I stated earleir science is intended to keep pursuing answers even if they only repeatedly lead to dead ends. Intelligent design is nothing more than a surrender.

Conversely it does address substantive questions which are not as of yet even close to being answered in any meaningful way.

Practice you faith as you wish, just dont try telling me its anything other than what it is

 

[Mastardo]

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

And you keep making the same pointless point. Religion doesnt profess itself to be a science. At best its a form of philosphy. So to what end do you keep spweing the same tired line that it is unprovable?

Science answers the tiniest fraction of the questions asked, and as of yet has no reasonable answers for the most important ones. The straw man argument that what it knows it can prove is useless. It identifies some of the materials used in the construction, but still cant explain how it came to be.

The question of 'why' the universe exists assumes there is a reason and religion simply presents another problem in place of the initial one. Is there a reason? Perhaps not, perhaps so. "God did it" is not much of an explanation, for at that point we need to explain god.

My idea is that *in general* science has more explanatory power, and that religious ideas have been changed, contradicted and shown to be non-causative to the point that what is left of religious ideas is a sort of skeleton.

The reason I state that religion has less explanatory power of the universe, over and over again, is to show that religious "explanations" are not causative. I've said the same thing many times - a non-causative statement (especially those that contradict our ideas of causality such as the "tooth fairy") is generally deemed false, without further reason to entertain such statements.

Actualy there are, and they have been reproduced in this forum before.

Ok, then you present them.

More useless drivel that can be summed up "yeah we dont know how, but we still believe it happened." I dont fault the scientists. Wouldnt be much of a scientist if your response was "I dont know the answer, so it must be God." It isnt a question of intircacy, but of likelehood and probablility, which do not favor your side. The eye for example is a useless device unless an untold number of parts are working correctly. How does it evolve?

You just said "It isnt a question of intircacy, but of likelehood and probablility, which do not favor your side." Then you said "The eye for example is a useless device unless an untold number of parts are working correctly. How does it evolve?" You have no mathematical model, yet claim that it is a question of likelihood. Then you basically state that it is unknown how eyes evolved. Your argument is flawed. Re-read my response to that point.

No disagreement, but neither should intellectual children be making rash and rodiculkous statements claiming God is dead based off of an article they read which doesnt even begin to address the issue. I didnt embarass you in this discussion, you embarassed yourself, with a flippant, obnoxious, and rather idiotioc analysis.

Based on an article? Its seemingly hard for you to believe that an educated person would hold such opinions, yet so many do.

 

[jerseyart]

The question of 'why' the universe exists assumes there is a reason and religion simply presents another problem in place of the initial one. Is there a reason? Perhaps not, perhaps so. "God did it" is not much of an explanation, for at that point we need to explain god.

My idea is that *in general* science has more explanatory power, and that religious ideas have been changed, contradicted and shown to be non-causative to the point that what is left of religious ideas is a sort of skeleton.

The reason I state that religion has less explanatory power of the universe, over and over again, is to show that religious "explanations" are not causative. I've said the same thing many times - a non-causative statement (especially those that contradict our ideas of causality such as the "tooth fairy") is generally deemed false, without further reason to entertain such statements.
Ok, then you present them.

You just said "It isnt a question of intircacy, but of likelehood and probablility, which do not favor your side." Then you said "The eye for example is a useless device unless an untold number of parts are working correctly. How does it evolve?" You have no mathematical model, yet claim that it is a question of likelihood. Then you basically state that it is unknown how eyes evolved. Your argument is flawed. Re-read my response to that point.

Based on an article? Its seemingly hard for you to believe that an educated person would hold such opinions, yet so many do.

Thi is getting boringly repetitive

Science is more scientific

Gotcha

Any other profound statements you wish to declare, while ignoring everything thats addressed to you in rebuttal?

As to "what remains being skeletal, thats just silly hyperbole? What religion, what doctrine, please be specific. I have no intention of debating inane charecterizations.

Whats hard for me to understand is how an "educated" person can so blithely make the absurd representations you did in your initial post.

I dont know how much further I can dumb it down for you.

Your article presents a how, which is the province of science.

The rest of "why" is a theologicasl or philosophical debate.

You parrot ad nauseum that theology isnt science. Who made that claim but you, in an attempt to set up a straw man argument?

 

[Mastardo]

God doesnt exist, lightning proves it.

Exactly.

 

[Mr. dB]

Last time I will parrot my response. And again ytou set up straw men and use insinuation to make a non point.

Ten men in different parts of the world are about to commit the same type of horrific crime against a child. In each circumstance the assailant is struck down and killed by lightning prior to completeing the horrendous act.

Scientists are called out to examine the phenomena. An explanation is given for what causes lightning. It is pointed out that in half the cases the requisite conditions for lightning , according to scientific models, did not exists in those locations. In one case the ligtning struck the assailant inside a building thats should have been proof against any such occurence. The scientists rightly determine that they cant offer an acceptable explanation, but that given time, they will.

You accuse someone else of setting up a straw man argument, then you propose this ridiculous hypothetical fairy tale about lightning?

 

[jerseyart]

You accuse someone else of setting up a straw man argument, then you propose this ridiculous hypothetical fairy tale about lightning?

Its intended to illustrate a point.

Not everything that has a potential natural cause can easily be dismissed as having occured naturally

 

[vigilante]

its pointless to argue such things, the human mind is not capable of understanding these things to a certainty. Maybe computers/AI/whatever one day (brought from olur mind,just like most the world around you)
will be able to but there are too many options/too many paths/too many factors and its pointless, people need to learn one thing

humans are NOT the only life/intelligent being there is

open your eyes, the whole fucking planet,universe,in a large view or just to a single thing has its pattern, its rules, its limitations--too difficult for me to describe or even comprehend

and on the subject of god, if god created all, what created god? what created the creator of god? it goes on and on, its nerve wrecking to try to figure it out, so time for a drink, I highly suggest you do the same and stop wasting your thoughts on that which cannot be explained

 

[CFZB]

I got Soul.

 

[big_bad_buff]

It is a fact that there is no soul.

There is no god, there is no soul. Get over it bitches.

I’d say there are a couple billion people in the world today that would disagree with your nonsense.