What is Digg?824 Comments
- MrStabby, on 10/22/2007, -246/+944Ohhh. I get it...
When an Atheist uses logic to prove his case, he's a genius...But when the same is attempted by a Christian, he's an idiot?
As a non-partisan bystander, you must admit that Christianity, like Atheism comes in all sorts of packages. Not all of them are going to be the ideal version of the group. This is the case for most religions. It just so happens that anyone believing in "the fantasy of God" is automatically considered a lunatic and according to many Atheists loses all credibility. Christianity works the same way.
Respectable Christians respect Atheism. Respectable Atheists respect Christianity.
Everyone else is just taking part in useless circular rhetoric. - Scheissen, on 10/22/2007, -304/+794ahahahahahahahahhahahahaha
signed,
an atheist - dorshorst, on 10/22/2007, -90/+521"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. - mrmdc, on 10/22/2007, -22/+339MrStabby :
I for one welcome a scientific proof of God. Being an atheist certainly does not mean I don't *want* God to exist.. it simply means I don't believe he does.
The problem I foresee here is there will be no such proof. Instead we'll see a bunch non falsifiable claims being thrown around and arguments like "trees are proof of god", "the human circulatory system is proof of god".. etc - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/22/2007, -19/+324My guess is he will sound perfectly reasonable to those who want to believe and completely insane to those who don't. Nothing will change.
- bwjacket, on 10/22/2007, -66/+292I'm not familiar with the organization, but is "The Christian Post" a subsidiary of The Onion?
""Evolution is unscientific. In reality, it is a blind faith that's preached with religious zeal as the gospel truth. I'm embarrassed to admit that I was once a naïve believer in the theory,” said (Cameron)"
This all reads like a joke. - vertinox, on 10/22/2007, -63/+236Evolution itself is observable and has been proven true in plants, animals, and bacteria.
- UGM2099, on 10/22/2007, -33/+187Kirk Cameron will be in this debate? Pardon the expression but GOD I want tickets to this thing.
- deepdiggdude, on 10/12/2007, -24/+140siszam,
It's remarkable how many dumb things you can fit into a couple of sentences.
"What rational person believes by pure chance, a big bang created everything?"
No rational astrophysicist thinks that. Instead, through careful and verifiable observation, they assert that the universe as we know it began 13.7 billion years ago that from pure energy that already existed in a state of singularity. What was before that, they don't know, and aren't as arrogant or stupid enough to claim they do. Unlike creationists.
"Science is ever changing and things they thought were true forty years ago have changed"
Yes, that is the nature of science, to observe and then form theories which can be tested and sometimes refuted or improved. That kind of process brought you the entire world of modern medicine and technology which you surely benefit from but so easily criticize.
"you base your soul and eternity on things man says. That is so sad."
You base virtually every physical act on the years of toil by rational thinking scientists but when the very same people say there is no proof of God or a soul, you claim to know better, based on what non-rational people wrote in a old book. THAT ... is sad. - Buttercup, on 10/22/2007, -38/+153I'm still waiting to debate the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
- Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -130/+235@vertinox
Microevolution, yes. Macroevolution has never been empirically observed outside of a controlled environment (although that obviously doesn't disprove it). - meshman, on 10/12/2007, -11/+101"I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists"
God will be there? God will appear and proclaim its existence for all to see? Will it perform miracles before our very eyes? Will it regail us with first hand stories from thousands of years ago?
That's how you prove the existence of God beyond a shadow of a doubt. I look forward to this monumental appearance. He should bring Jesus to back up his claims. - linksdeity, on 10/22/2007, -26/+110@Akaji
Evolution has been observed on a larger scale, and in a natural environment.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+93You can't make this stuff up. A quote from Kirk Cameron in the article:
"Evolution is unscientific. In reality, it is a blind faith that's preached with religious zeal as the gospel truth. I'm embarrassed to admit that I was once a naïve believer in the theory,” said the former television star in a statement. “Atheism has become very popular in universities – where it's taught that we evolved from animals and that there are no moral absolutes. So we shouldn't be surprised when there are school shootings.”
Do we end the debate now? - nickbender, on 10/22/2007, -40/+106@Mr Stabby.
The problem I always run into with evangalists... is that they think that faith itself is about truth. FAITH IS NOT ABOUT PROOF. Faith isn't knowledge or logic or wisdom. Those who attempt to say 'god is real... i can prove it, is a little off mark as to what faith even is.
One actually CAN believe in both God and evolution, and even the bible, and not have any internal denial or conflict, because they are two different sides of the same coin, and not competing. One seeks to explain existence by verifiable fact in hopes that it will eventually find reason, the other gives undeniable reason in hopes that it will one day find verifiable fact. They are both working from opposite directions, but by definition, christians who say they KNOW it's true... are wrong. You may accept it as true based on your beliefs... but you don't know anything. To quote Bill Maher... God talks to no one, that's just the schizophrenia.
And yes, I do believe in both god and evolution. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -27/+85@ thetaoofbill:
"Marcoevolution" is a red herring. There is only one theory of Evolution. "Macro" and "micro" evolution are terms that were invented by idiot creationists, such as yourself, because of the proof of evolution one what you refer to as "mircroevolution's" scale. - onemanfilmcrew, on 10/12/2007, -5/+57At least he didn't blame the school shootings on Video Games.
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+59someone had to post it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sanplNTr6c
- ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+56Watch out Atheists! They might break out the "Banana Proves God" argument. TAKE COVER!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4472004596147265716
Morons. - DrMonkeyLove, on 10/12/2007, -7/+59"...you base your soul and eternity on things man says."
So do you. Last time I checked, men wrote the Bible, men are the ones preaching and teaching religion. I don't see God standing up there at the pulpit. Would anyone believe in God if no man ever said he existed? - signal15, on 10/12/2007, -13/+61From the article:
> "Why aren't they making videos that blaspheme Buddha or Mohammed or Ghandi? "
Buddhists are atheists.
> “Atheism has become very popular in universities – where it's taught that we evolved from animals and that there are no moral absolutes. So we shouldn't be surprised when there are school shootings.”
Morality is NOT determined by religion. Morality comes about in two ways:
1. We have *evolved* morality because the people that worked and played nice together were more likely to survive
2. Arguably an outcome of reason #1, we all place an intrinsic value on our own posessions, life, and liberties. Therefore, we also place this value on other people's rights to the same things. Ayn Rand and several others have written a great deal on this subject.
Also, as Richard Dawkins has said, if the only reason you aren't going out and doing terrible things is because you are afraid of the big surveillance camera in the sky, then we are doomed. - bo0m, on 10/12/2007, -18/+61I think the reason so many Christians and other faiths think of athiests as zealous and angry people for one reason: many are. Consider a little kid, when he is first told Santa Claus doesn't exist. He probably feels angry and fooled. He will go and tell as many kids he sees, that still believe in Santa, about his existence being nothing more than a lie. I think many athiests emulate that behavior. "God is fake, so I'm going to ruin it for you."
I must say that, I myself, am an athiest, and while I do carry a certain zeal for it, it's not because I'm looking to ruin a good time. It's hard to argue that there isn't any good in religion. It has carried us this far and in almost every large civilization (be it Zeus, God, or flying spaghetti monsters). I look at religion as more of an educational problem. Not in schools, but in the human brain as a species. We learn from bibles and other holy books that we are at the center of this world. We have the power to do what we want on this earth for as long as we are here. Which is partly true, but only because of human "intelligence." Not because we are predestined to rule this planet.
I guess I would call myself an angry naturalistic athiest. I don't consider people idiots for believing in gods of any type, but I don't feel religion has any place in our society either. So yes, I will be brash about calling the unnumeral inconsistencies in the bible and other faiths, because there is something _very_ wrong with religion itself.
First post on digg although I've been here for a while. Not sure if there is a name for my brand of athiesm, but it makes sense in my head. *shrug* - klown256, on 10/12/2007, -6/+49It will be fought to a stand off, the atheists will fire off things like: we have scientific proof the earth is millions of years old as opposed to the 10,000 or so years described in the bible, and the Christians will say something along the lines of that carbon dating method is flawed.
- Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -8/+51@drinkgreen
who can blame us for thinking christians are idiots when you use such stupid 'science'?
I mean you say that the earth 'may' be young because all the water hasnt evaporated off it yet like it has off mercury?
i swear i must of read that wrong (or at least I hope so) because if the heat of the sun was to cause all of earths water to evaporate
where would it evaporate too? thats right, the atmosphere, where it would accumulate, grow dense and fall back down in some form
of liquidy watery precipitation I like to call 'rain'
so you see, the sun is constantly evaporation all the earths water, its not going to one day fling it all off our rock into the depths off space
(the rest of your arguments sucked too, this was just the most absurd, if I read it right) - 89vision, on 10/12/2007, -9/+50Very very intelligent people have been debating this for centuries. What makes this ***** think he can be the one to finally "prove" the existence of god?
- ReidFleming, on 10/12/2007, -7/+47@Akaji
"Microevolution, yes. Macroevolution has never been empirically observed outside of a controlled environment (although that obviously doesn't disprove it)."
Further to the responses already posted: Macroevolution is simply the accumulation of Microevolution over time. There is no 'dividing line' between the two. - MammasMilk, on 10/12/2007, -15/+53@ Stabby
"When an Atheist uses logic to prove his case, he's a genius...But when the same is attempted by a Christian, he's an idiot?"
the point was that the particular Christians that make the case that evolution is false typically attack scientific facts and logic, but NOW that they want to "prove" God they claim that they will use logic. It's one of those funny little things.
"Respectable Christians respect Atheism. Respectable Atheists respect Christianity."
Absolutely correct and absolutely reasonable.
Unfortunately Kirk Cameron is a deluded twit and comes nowhere close to the "Respectable Christian" category. He made the assertion that beleiving in eveolution means you have no morals and thats why people kill each other. Guess the inquisition, crusades, and all the other terrible tings peopel have done in the name of religion are just fine and dandy.
The debate is over before it started. - slugicide, on 10/12/2007, -27/+65What rational person would debate with someone who *did* quote the bible?
- vp0ng, on 10/12/2007, -25/+60Here is a nice flowchart that is very fair to both sides representing both Scientific and Religious methods. It's quite relevant to the debate.
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.png - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -34/+68@MrStabby:
"Ohhh. I get it... When an Atheist uses logic to prove his case, he's a genius...But when the same is attempted by a Christian, he's an idiot?"
Exactly. The reason a Christian is an idiot for attempting to prove his case with logic is that there is no logical proof that there is a Christian God. - deepdiggdude, on 10/12/2007, -11/+41MrStabby,
Scientists have a good reason to think that the universe arose from pure energy and not a supernatural being. There is no good reason (other than it might make one feel good) to believe the universe arose from an all-knowing, deliberating entity. People who have reduced God to "just some force that started everything" are hardly religious and my comments are directed not at them, but mostly at those who take the word of the Bible literally.
"Criticism of a fallible method is the only way to improve the method, yes? "
No. The scientific method itself is not being criticized by knowledgeable people. The results of the method may, and should be challenged by others who employ the same process of discovery. Creationists, however, when it comes to bible-contradicting facts, attack the same process they benefit from when it comes to say, curing a bacterial infection. In short, science indiscriminately seeks the truth, while faith indiscriminately excludes the truth.
"The Bible is merely a book of rules, any true Christian will tell you this."
Who are you speaking for? Certainly not the millions of Americans who don't accept evolution. In any case, even if you are the laxest of Christians, then you still believe in an invisible, all-powerful, all-knowing God, for which there is no proof, and that instantly makes you unable to think clearly about the observable nature of our universe. - satanatnmtedu, on 10/22/2007, -12/+41@ MrStabby
No. A respectable atheist respects others' beliefs as being uniquely their own. And, the same should be true for a respectable member of any religion. This is not the same as respecting the religion or lack thereof. You are entitled to freedom of religion no matter how kooky. But, I can respect the person without respecting his views about religion. - sfrench, on 10/12/2007, -15/+44a) Science has a metaphorical mountain of scientific observation and experimentation that suggests we are products of millions of years of evolution.
b) Religion has a single book that says otherwise (fill in the creation story of your choice here).
Advantage: Science - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -51/+80Really guys, stop your idiocy. Gods do not exist. Period. You are no different from the indians who have an elephant headed god with millions of lesser gods and reincarnation(?), or the greeks who believed in Zeus and Poseidon. You believe in the god you do because you were raised in a christian system or selected your god from a supermarket of available gods. Now it's your own fault if your identity is so closely intertwined with your beliefs and it is impossible for you to shed it without having a crisis of identity and slitting your wrists. It used to be that your "I believe in wonderlands and angels and clouds" kind believed the sun was orbiting the earth, that the world is only 10000 years old. But that has changed as scientific endeavor revealed the lie in those fanciful beliefs. What you believe now about god would make those historical figures appalled at your heathen beliefs. You have absolutely no proof for your beliefs other than, "because I will cry if it's not true" which is an immature denial of life.
- fredxor, on 10/12/2007, -19/+47I'm interested into seeing how this turns out. I hope they don't use the argument, "A banana proves the existence of God because it has so many features that make it easy for humans to eat.", etcetera (there was a video with a guy talking about that a while ago). Todays bananas are a result of human selection (planting the ones that they like most, etcetera). The bananas weren't created for humans by anyone but humans. You could even look at it in a natural selection sort of way: the banana that animals prefer most is most often eaten and spread around.
Anyways, I think that these people are just delusioned Creationists who are going to pull out some arbitrary fact that is not relevant (Like a formation in wood being perceived as a depiction Jesus by crazy people). - ateoto, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33I had to login to respond to this. I simply can't stand by while people claim atheists have no morals. It's absurd! Being religious does not equate to being a moral person, and being atheist does not equate to not having morals. Religion and morality are two separate things. Religions were not invented to create morality, they were invented to enforce it. That being said, I don't need "God" to tell me not to kill people, anyone who does has more issues at hand than I'd care to know about. I'm an atheist and I would consider myself a nice, moral person. So go take your "Atheists are morally bankrupt heathens" ideals back to your prayer meeting. Bah! I say, Bah!
- lpetrazickis, on 10/12/2007, -20/+451. Definition: Time is part of Space-Time.
2. Definition: The Universe is defined by the presence of Space-Time.
3. Thus: There is no Time outside the Universe.
4. Assumption: Cause-and-Effect require the passage of Time.
5. Thus: There is no Cause-and-Effect outside the Universe.
6. Thus: The Universe is not an Effect.
7. Definition: The Creator is the Cause of The Creation. The Creation is the Effect of the Creator.
8. Thus: The Universe cannot be a Creation.
9. Thus: The Universe does not have a Creator.
10. Definition: God is the Creator of the Universe.
11. Thus: There is no God. - DFENS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25The main difference between scientists and religious idiots is that you'll actually hear a scientist admit to lacking knowledge and not having understanding. Religious people never say 'i don't know' - they just say that God did it, or God knows best. Atheists quite often, you will find, have a lot of humility. I gladly admit i have no certainty to how everything began. I lean towards the big bang theory, but we don't have proof yet. So i don't say i'm certain. Religious idiots never have that. Even when asked paradoxes within their own beliefs, they say 'ask god', or 'it's gods will'. It's hilarious :)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+34I don’t know man, that Ray Comfort guy is pretty damn smart. I mean did you see that “Atheist Worst Nightmare” thing he did with a banana? *****, it’s hard to argue with something that solid, that well founded in scientific fact, I wouldn’t want to butt heads with him, I’m afraid I’d start liking ***** crap ass *****-tard church music, and want to spend all my time praising and worshiping a long haired Jew.
I’m not going to watch the debate, I want to stay an Atheist… - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26"Up till now, scientists and respected atheist scholars have refused to have anything to do with a debate which covers Intelligent Design!
They have done this in order to give it exactly the right amount of legitimacy it deserves (none)."
At least a judge told it how it was recently. "Breathtaking inanity" It's like seeing a child become a grown man still believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and then demanding laws about the width of chimneys and the science of bunnies laying eggs to be taught in classes. - martel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25"Ray Comfort, author of God Doesn't Believe in Atheists, alongside fellow Christian and actor Kirk Cameron (Growing Pains) "
FULL STOP. I'd like to get off the crazy bus now. - fennecfoxen, on 10/12/2007, -9/+31I'll quote the Bible here. It's relevant. Perhaps someone will deign to debate me. :P
*ahemahem*
Jesus said unto [Thomas], "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are they who have not seen, and yet still believe." (John 20:29)
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. (2 Corinthians 4:18)
This guy is just being counterproductive to his own cause by trying to somehow Prove God's existence. It really can't be done, and it's really not meant to be done. He should try to be more like, oh, something like this:
Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy. (1 Peter 1:8) - Eivo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30"Martin Bashir, co-anchor of Nightline, will moderate the event."
I doubt it's going to be fair considering Mr. Bashir worked on the show "Songs of Praise", a show about traditional christian hymns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bashir
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songs_of_Praise - burkewendt, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30"Oh, Kirk Cameron???! How lucky are we?? Hey, Stewie, what did you do last night? Well, I just saw KIRK CAMERON play Jean Valjean! OH OH CURTAIN UP!"
- member57, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29I really don't get the atheism/evolution vs Christianity/creationism debate. Evolution itself does not prove the non-existence of God. Creationism is not a science, it is a matter of faith. Evolution is a scientific answer we limited humans have constructed to explain how life on this planet progresses. Even the most ardent scientist today will admit that the true origins of life are unknown. Do I, as a Christian, believe that Creationism should be taught in schools? No, that's my families job, not the State's. Do I agree with evolution being taught in schools? Yes, I see evolution as a natural process, and a good example of the scientific process. I don't see that being an atheist makes one any more intelligent or enlightened than anybody else, as far as I can tell, it makes you cynical of Christians faith, and less tolerant to supposed opposing beliefs.
- browwiw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Ok, granted, but these people's imaginary friends are telling them who to hate.
- streetscream, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Then how do you explain the damn coconut! Was it made by Satan cause it's hard as F to open!?!
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21"The reason its a theory is because there hasn't been significant amount of truth."
"Theroy" is the highest level that a scientific explanation can attain. An explanation is not dubbed a "theory" until it attains a high degree of confidence amongst scientists of relevant fields. If the theory did not have a "significant amount of truth" (as accepted by relevant scientists), it would not be a "theory".
If your argument relies on a fundamental ignorance of the importance of the relevant terminology, it will not be a sound argument. - browwiw, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24So you're saying religion is a poisoned arrow?
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Buddhism doesn't really go on about how you should behave as much as it explains reality. It does have parts to says you should not do this or that, but it doesn't threaten you with any punishment other than talking about karma hits.
It doesn't imply you have to believe anything... Most Sutras (that I have read) simply say here is how your existence works and here is how you go about trying to help yourself and others solve the problem of suffering. It does have supernatural aspects with some things as the allegories trying to explain the universe, but it doesn't imply absurd beliefs that conflict with reality or even other belief structures. Or the need to worship anyone or anything (including Buddha, but people venerate him. And keep in mind that "Buddha" is a title given to many people who have obtained enlightenment)
Technically you can be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time. Or an Atheist and a Buddhist... So it is kind of hard to given them grief about what they do. -
Show 51 - 100 of 814 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 