Theist or Non-Theist - Page 8 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
View Poll Results: Are you a Theist or Non-Theist?
Theist 48 46.60%
Non-theist 55 53.40%
Voters: 103. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 16th, 2010, 08:27 AM   #141
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,879
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 93xjr View Post
Once again common sense and logic used brilliantly.

I didn't say I just got out of school. And thanks for assuming that because I don't agree with your views that I'm some dumb kid with no life experience fresh of the teet. I have a lot more religious experience and exposure than most people, and it is partly due to this that I now believe the way I do. I have been searching learning and asking questions for years trying to find answers that fit and don't contradict themselves.
It's ok, aber's version of logic is skewed.
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old March 16th, 2010, 08:40 AM   #142
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,457
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
It's ok, aber's version of logic is skewed.
Gee, ya think?
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 09:16 AM   #143
wolverine 00 xj
Senior Member
 
wolverine 00 xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-22-06
Location: Ypsilanti
Posts: 139
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I don't have the time or patience to read through all the pages of posts. I scanned several of them, and one thing I noticed is that those that are taking the nontheist position seem to generally be arguing that their position is not based on faith (which they seem to say must always be just blind belief that is either not supported by evidence, or contradicted by it). But if you're a nontheist, then you necessarily have to believe that life originated through some purely materialistic means, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for that. Even Richard Dawkins, the foremost spokesman for Darwinism, admits that no one knows how life began. Despite a century and a half or so of the most educated scientists trying to find such an explanation, they have come up emptyhanded. No doubt the atheists will say something like - well, an explanation will eventually be found; we just haven't had enough time yet. But that belief certainly meets your definition of "faith" - belief despite a lack of evidence to support it. You just have an unjustified belief that evidence will eventually be found to support your position.
wolverine 00 xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 09:26 AM   #144
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,457
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

True, scientist are not sure how the Universe began but they don't make up a line of bullshit to answer their questions. They propose an idea based on the evidence presented to them. If new evidence materializes, the idea is modifed to conform to the new information.

The untrained human mind is a strange thing. If it cannot find an answer to a question, it will make up its own.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 09:35 AM   #145
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,879
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
True, scientist are not sure how the Universe began but they don't make up a line of bullshit to answer their questions. They propose an idea based on the evidence presented to them. If new evidence materializes, the idea is modifed to conform to the new information.

The untrained human mind is a strange thing. If it cannot find an answer to a question, it will make up its own.
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 09:36 AM   #146
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 5,001
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
True, scientist are not sure how the Universe began but they don't make up a line of bullshit to answer their questions. They propose an idea based on the evidence presented to them. If new evidence materializes, the idea is modifed to conform to the new information.

The untrained human mind is a strange thing. If it cannot find an answer to a question, it will make up its own.
I tend to think the whoever wrote the stories of noah and those kinds of thins were actually the "scientists" of their time trying to describe what happened from what they have gathered as evidence from their region. IE, Many people talked about "the great flood" and to explain it.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 09:38 AM   #147
wolverine 00 xj
Senior Member
 
wolverine 00 xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-22-06
Location: Ypsilanti
Posts: 139
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
True, scientist are not sure how the Universe began but they don't make up a line of bullshit to answer their questions. They propose an idea based on the evidence presented to them. If new evidence materializes, the idea is modifed to conform to the new information.
So the theory of "panspermia" isn't just a "line of BS"? In case you're not familiar with it, it's the proposal that aliens came down and seeded the Earth with intelligent life, or at least something from which intelligent life could "evolve". This is not just a fringe idea; its main proponent is Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule. This is a prime example of a theory with absolutely no evidentiary support being embraced by scientists simply because its appeals to their underlying materialist philosophy. Despite the total failure of all materialist explanations for the origin of life, the theory still plugs away, not "modifed to conform to the new information."

Last edited by wolverine 00 xj; March 16th, 2010 at 09:49 AM.
wolverine 00 xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 09:48 AM   #148
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,457
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
I tend to think the whoever wrote the stories of noah and those kinds of thins were actually the "scientists" of their time trying to describe what happened from what they have gathered as evidence from their region. IE, Many people talked about "the great flood" and to explain it.
You can think that but in reality they are not. There is no evidence of a "Great Flood". True, there are places that have sea shells (and other marine stuff) high above sea level but that can be explained by geological movements. If there was a great flood that covered the earth, there would be a common sedimentary layer present throughout the globe. There is not.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 09:52 AM   #149
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,457
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverine 00 xj View Post
So the theory of "panspermia" isn't just a "line of BS"? In case you're not familiar with it, it's the proposal that aliens came down and seeded the Earth with intelligent life. This is not just a fringe idea; its main proponent is Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule. This is a prime example of a theory with absolutely no evidentiary support being embraced by scientists simply because its appeals to their underlying materialist philosophy. Despite the total failure of all materialist explanations for the origin of life, the theory still plugs away, not "modifed to conform to the new information."
You need to crack open a dictionary and find the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

Your proposal is not a widely accepted "theory". True, some scientist feel that this may have happened, but that is the nature of the scientific way.

Edit: For the record, I think the idea of aliens spinkling "smarts" to the dwellers of earth is alittle far fetched. That doesn't mean I wouldn't reconsider my opinion if more evidence came to light.

Last edited by Nuggets; March 16th, 2010 at 09:59 AM.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 10:23 AM   #150
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 93xjr View Post
I like to think that after 5 years in a private catholic school I do know a little about what I am saying.

But thanks for your 2 cents little sister.
You can think whatever you want, but what you said was incorrect.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 10:24 AM   #151
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,879
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
You need to crack open a dictionary and find the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

Your proposal is not a widely accepted "theory". True, some scientist feel that this may have happened, but that is the nature of the scientific way.

Edit: For the record, I think the idea of aliens spinkling "smarts" to the dwellers of earth is alittle far fetched. That doesn't mean I wouldn't reconsider my opinion if more evidence came to light.
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 10:28 AM   #152
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 93xjr View Post
Once again common sense and logic used brilliantly.

I didn't say I just got out of school. And thanks for assuming that because I don't agree with your views that I'm some dumb kid with no life experience fresh of the teet. I have a lot more religious experience and exposure than most people, and it is partly due to this that I now believe the way I do. I have been searching learning and asking questions for years trying to find answers that fit and don't contradict themselves.
I was thinking you where just starting school.
Uncalled for sarcasm.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 10:30 AM   #153
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
I think he was referring to a person who was not catholic, not a catholic kid who wasn't through with his "training".
"Well I'll give you one off the top of my head, the Catholic religion. If you have not been baptized, had communion, and gone to confession you sir are hell bound."



Like I said, read what the guy is writing.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 12:33 PM   #154
wolverine 00 xj
Senior Member
 
wolverine 00 xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-22-06
Location: Ypsilanti
Posts: 139
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
You need to crack open a dictionary and find the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

Your proposal is not a widely accepted "theory". True, some scientist feel that this may have happened, but that is the nature of the scientific way.
Always willing to learn, I took your sage advice and looked up the terms “theory” and “hypothesis” on Webster’s online dictionary. The comparison appears below. I guess that calling “panspermia” even a hypothesis (much less a theory – I’m always too generous) is incorrect, given that there’s no evidence for it at all. Call it a “hypothesis,” a “tentative explanatory proposal,” a “theory,” or a “turnip” if you want, the end result is the same. It’s an idea proposed by a famous scientist as an explanation for life without the slightest evidentiary support. When you invoke aliens seeding the Earth, with no evidence to support it, that sure qualifies in my book as making up a “line of bullshit to answer . . . questions,” even if coming from the mouth of a famous scientist.

Let me ask you this. If Crick or another qualified scientist said “I propose a hypothesis – that an intelligent agent must have been involved in the origin of life,” and then evidence were found to support the hypothesis, would you accept it?

“synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.”
wolverine 00 xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 01:59 PM   #155
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 5,001
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
You can think that but in reality they are not. There is no evidence of a "Great Flood". True, there are places that have sea shells (and other marine stuff) high above sea level but that can be explained by geological movements. If there was a great flood that covered the earth, there would be a common sedimentary layer present throughout the globe. There is not.
Unless This Flood caused such a stir among the earth that it didn't settle exactly how we THINK it should have. You're also going on the Assumtion that the earth has always been in the form it's in now. Well, at least Recently in the same form. According to the Flood Story, There was no rain. There was a Dense layer of Water Vapor much like the Ozone above the earth and springs from beneath fed the plants. When the Flood Hit, the Water Vapor Layer "Burst" and Caused Flash Flooding. It can also account for the humans of Pre-noah time living for longer. They weren't subjected to as much Solar Radiation as thier later Ancestors were/are.

^^^That makes sense to me. Maybe that's where I go from "Ok, Logical Guy" to "Religious Nut job". But it make sense to me.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 02:47 PM   #156
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,457
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverine 00 xj View Post
Always willing to learn, I took your sage advice and looked up the terms “theory” and “hypothesis” on Webster’s online dictionary. The comparison appears below. I guess that calling “panspermia” even a hypothesis (much less a theory – I’m always too generous) is incorrect, given that there’s no evidence for it at all. Call it a “hypothesis,” a “tentative explanatory proposal,” a “theory,” or a “turnip” if you want, the end result is the same. It’s an idea proposed by a famous scientist as an explanation for life without the slightest evidentiary support. When you invoke aliens seeding the Earth, with no evidence to support it, that sure qualifies in my book as making up a “line of bullshit to answer . . . questions,” even if coming from the mouth of a famous scientist.

Let me ask you this. If Crick or another qualified scientist said “I propose a hypothesis – that an intelligent agent must have been involved in the origin of life,” and then evidence were found to support the hypothesis, would you accept it?

“synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.”
I would consider the hypothosis (to which I already do). The Universe is far to vast for me to consider our planet the only one with life on it. I would also consider any religious story should enough evidence be found to support it.

No, I don't consider "the Bible says so" as a fact, it must be supported by another source or be repeatable. I consider the Bible a mix of fact and fiction but mostly a source of interesting allegorys.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 04:19 PM   #157
wolverine 00 xj
Senior Member
 
wolverine 00 xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-22-06
Location: Ypsilanti
Posts: 139
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
It's ok, aber's version of logic is skewed.
Are you seriously criticizing someone else's logic after your statement: "Yes, morality is subjective. For example, I am more moral than your God"? I don't know too many people that can totally contradict themselves in thirteen words.
wolverine 00 xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 05:53 PM   #158
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,273
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 93xjr View Post
Once again common sense and logic used brilliantly.

I didn't say I just got out of school. And thanks for assuming that because I don't agree with your views that I'm some dumb kid with no life experience fresh of the teet. I have a lot more religious experience and exposure than most people, and it is partly due to this that I now believe the way I do. I have been searching learning and asking questions for years trying to find answers that fit and don't contradict themselves.
Ok so you're not a smart a** kid and by your posts you seem to be inteligent.

Also having religious experience means nothing.
For the most part people with religion under their belt have a very limited grasp of what a relationship with Christ is all about.
It is about relationship with Jesus Christ and not about religion.
The pharases were the most religious of all. It was all about the outward appearence to look the part and Christ said it is within ones heart and only God knows a mans heart.
Maybe you could go on in great detail about all of your experience and exposure to the catholic religion you claim to have. Just curious to see were your coming from.
aber61 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 05:56 PM   #159
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,273
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
It's ok, aber's version of logic is skewed.
It depends which lens you view logic through.
aber61 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2010, 06:02 PM   #160
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,273
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
True, scientist are not sure how the Universe began but they don't make up a line of bullshit to answer their questions. They propose an idea based on the evidence presented to them. If new evidence materializes, the idea is modifed to conform to the new information.

The untrained human mind is a strange thing. If it cannot find an answer to a question, it will make up its own.
If yourself and evolution based thinkers were to look at other evidence than what you claim to be the only evidence out there in stead of making up a line of BS you may surprise yourself.
There are a lot of scientists that were trained to see evolution as the only way life began and after digging for more evidence they found that a young earth fit the model of what the bible says the earth is approx. 6000 years old.
aber61 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.51151 seconds with 81 queries