RE: You can't explain that!'

RE: You can't explain that!' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

sexyred1 -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 10:06:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop God is having the cats curled up with me in bed purring. God is hugging my Mom. God is happy memories of times with my Grandfather, trying to grasp mathematics (even if I was horrible at it) God is the love and affection from my friends, and loving and being affectionate TO my friends. God is knowing that despite my failings (which are many) that I am successful (if not by Wall Street standards, at least by the standards taht matter.. ) God is in the appreciating of a rainbow.. of a day of relaxation, of a day of giggling with my friends, a night of sleep free of nightmares, a moment of smelling the scents of nature, an instant of knowing the awesomness of taking a breath... I could go on, but why? I love that, Greedy. It really addresses what is important in one's life after you get rid of the clutter.

thishereboi -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 10:12:22 AM)
quote: Actually that is not the point of the post... So what is it? To show how ignorant it is to believe in god or how smart you are because you don't?

tazzygirl -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 11:32:16 AM)
quote: i just wanna know all the other things which 'You can't explain that' could stand to argue the existence of god... Why does anyone have to argue for or against the existence of god? I dont feel a need to take one side or the other. Do you?

Termyn8or -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 11:54:24 AM)
I'm in hot water,,,,err something, either way. T^T

rulemylife -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 12:24:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: i just wanna know all the other things which 'You can't explain that' could stand to argue the existence of god... Why does anyone have to argue for or against the existence of god? I dont feel a need to take one side or the other. Do you? I do. What makes this topic different from any other?

Fellow -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 12:43:45 PM)
There is no controversy. The original poster believes in Scientism (science explains everything). Bill O'Reilly with his argument goes beyond that and this is all the story.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 1:01:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow There is no controversy. The original poster believes in Scientism (science explains everything). Bill O'Reilly with his argument goes beyond that and this is all the story. Ie there is no story.

cpK69 -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 2:21:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This is called the watchmaker anolgy or sometimes the '747 assembled by a tornado' argument. It is deeply fallacious. Read The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins to have the argument completely examined and discredited. I think I get it, there is too much randomness involved with the tornado and dryer scenarios to be comparable with evolution; the watchmaker example is too precise; yes? I will reduce the number to two. [;)] Kim

DomKen -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 4:00:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This is called the watchmaker anolgy or sometimes the '747 assembled by a tornado' argument. It is deeply fallacious. Read The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins to have the argument completely examined and discredited. I think I get it, there is too much randomness involved with the tornado and dryer scenarios to be comparable with evolution; the watchmaker example is too precise; yes? I will reduce the number to two. [;)] Kim No, you don't seem to get it. Organisms do not show evidence of conscience design but they are also not the products of a purely random process. The part that seems to be misunderstood is that natural selection acts as a non random filter on the random mutations that occur in a population.

Elisabella -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 4:08:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife You are trying to make an argument that because people believe in something it must be true. So if you go go back in history, as you suggest, then the existence of the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses must be accepted as fact. I'm not saying that because people believe something it must be true, I just find it interesting that every culture has had an idea of the divine. I don't believe any one description of God is true, it is the divine after all, if we were able to understand and explain the exact nature of God we'd all be little Buddhas and Christs walking around. It's not the fact that someone believes in something that makes it true, it's just the ubiquity of the idea that I think gives weight to it. I've heard people say that ancient cultures believed in God to explain things they couldn't explain - but every single one coming to that conclusion makes me wonder how they even thought of it, if they were just making it up. I don't think there's any real "proof" of God to use in debates, it's something that the individual has to experience to believe, but if there was any objective argument in favor of the idea of divinity, it's how cultures that never met all came up with it on their own.

Hillwilliam -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 4:14:17 PM)
So, Bill O'Reilly has decided that, since He can't explain everything under the sun (and the sun itself), God must be doing it. Maybe he's just ignorant. NOTE: I'm not saying that those who believe in a deity are ignorant. I'm saying that if the ONLY reason they believe in said deity is to explain the things they dont know they are ARE ignorant.

rulemylife -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 4:30:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife You are trying to make an argument that because people believe in something it must be true. So if you go go back in history, as you suggest, then the existence of the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses must be accepted as fact. I'm not saying that because people believe something it must be true, I just find it interesting that every culture has had an idea of the divine. I don't believe any one description of God is true, it is the divine after all, if we were able to understand and explain the exact nature of God we'd all be little Buddhas and Christs walking around. It's not the fact that someone believes in something that makes it true, it's just the ubiquity of the idea that I think gives weight to it. I've heard people say that ancient cultures believed in God to explain things they couldn't explain - but every single one coming to that conclusion makes me wonder how they even thought of it, if they were just making it up. I don't think there's any real "proof" of God to use in debates, it's something that the individual has to experience to believe, but if there was any objective argument in favor of the idea of divinity, it's how cultures that never met all came up with it on their own. Or maybe it is just a human need for support that causes us to believe in something which is likely not true.

Elisabella -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 5:03:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Or maybe it is just a human need for support that causes us to believe in something which is likely not true. The human need for support is filled by other humans...in fact all of our human needs - love, friendship, romance, etc. are able to be filled. It wouldn't make sense for us to have a need for something greater than ourselves that couldn't be fulfilled.

rulemylife -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 5:05:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Or maybe it is just a human need for support that causes us to believe in something which is likely not true. The human need for support is filled by other humans...in fact all of our human needs - love, friendship, romance, etc. are able to be filled. It wouldn't make sense for us to have a need for something greater than ourselves that couldn't be fulfilled. Really? So now you want to make the argument that all our wants and desires are sensible?

Termyn8or -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 5:29:48 PM)
"The part that seems to be misunderstood is that natural selection acts as a non random filter on the random mutations that occur in a population." True, but in and of itself is too Darwinist for me. It seems to say that all others died off. There is also the factor of adaptability, in only one generation. A change in environment for example by migration or climactic/topographical changes if dealt with successfully, means that generation has adapted. Having survived, they are of course more likely to reproduce. When they do, the offspring will have been born into a different environment and no significant genetic change will have occured, pretty much for sure. Rare exceptions need not be addressed right now. I am not sayiing you are wrong, but environmental changes can bring on actual physiological changes, which can outpace evolution easily. T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 5:33:57 PM)
"I'm not saying that those who believe in a deity are ignorant. I'm saying that if the ONLY reason they believe in said deity is to explain the things they dont know they are ARE ignorant." I'll have to write tht down. Really, if you took an ipod back in time to certain places, you would be burned as a witch. T^T

Elisabella -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 5:56:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Really? So now you want to make the argument that all our wants and desires are sensible? All the desires that are considered 'human needs' - love, friendship, support, security. Yes. Not every single whim of every individual. Anyway I'm leaving this conversation now, because you seem to want to simplify/reclassify everything I've been saying. I say that an idea is given weight because every culture independently came to the same conclusion, you turn that into someone, somewhere believes something so it must be true. I say that all our human needs are able to be filled, and you turn that into "all our wants and desires." I don't know if I'm not making my point clearly enough, or if you're not making enough of an attempt to understand. Either way, I'm going to save myself the frustration of continued miscommunication.

rulemylife -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 6:07:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Really? So now you want to make the argument that all our wants and desires are sensible? All the desires that are considered 'human needs' - love, friendship, support, security. Yes. Not every single whim of every individual. Anyway I'm leaving this conversation now, because you seem to want to simplify/reclassify everything I've been saying. I say that an idea is given weight because every culture independently came to the same conclusion, you turn that into someone, somewhere believes something so it must be true. I say that all our human needs are able to be filled, and you turn that into "all our wants and desires." I don't know if I'm not making my point clearly enough, or if you're not making enough of an attempt to understand. Either way, I'm going to save myself the frustration of continued miscommunication. Or maybe it is that you want to complicate things in an effort to reinforce what you want to believe.

Jeffff -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 6:43:16 PM)
44 more pages of God vs. No God coming up. I can hardly wait.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: You can't explain that!' (2/14/2011 7:04:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Or maybe it is that you want to complicate things in an effort to reinforce what you want to believe. Or maybe you're making absolutely no attempt whatsoever to understand what it is she's trying to say because you're having too much fun ridiculing her and you don't want anything to get in the way of that.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125