schutzenkonig

To add to what you were saying, Jimi, I was thoroughly conviced (I was fairly convinced before that) that there is a higher power when we got talking about the complexities of organic chemistry. Jimi (well anyone that's taken organic) can understand that with all of the different ways that the molecules can be put together, be it constitutional or stereo isomers (or whatever else is out there, my knowledge in the subject is limited), is just too complex to have come about with luck like people that don't believe suggest.

Jimi

It's like I tell people, every artist has their signature, and our artist's signature is DNA, being that every organism has it. The funny thing is that people don't really realize how DNA works. We are programmed beings. Our DNA works much like the binary coding of computers. Actually, exactly like it. Binary coding just uses 1's n 0's, instead of C, G, T, and A. Depending on how a particular DNA strand is coded, is how we become what and who we are. The enigma with this is that even complex programming can't explain conciousness. We understand the coding of lesser organisms, such as amoebas. However, we can't even begin to fathom the actual programming that goes into thought process. Scientists are so "aware" that there's not a higher-power, that they completely disregard the evidence. Religions are so dead-set on their opinions of a higher-power, that they disregard any science. This stuff goes hand-in-hand people, they're not seperate.

Master Chief

I never said faith was bad, I just said that I don't believe in it, because it is illogical. I'm aware that the concept of faith is instinctual, but I assumed I didn't have to specifiy that I have been talking about faith IN RELIGION in this entire argument. Faith in love and faith in religion aren't quite the same thing.

I would rather not know the answer to a question than to accept an answer pulled out of the blue, that has no concrete support.

...but I have no concrete support for the lack of a god, right? No, I don't, but that doesn't make me illogical at all. Believing facts isn't illogical. Disbelieving fiction isn't illogical either.

- - - - -

These are just some sites I've come across. I know that you can't believe in everything you read on the internet, but check these out if you have some free time.

Atheism

Religion

Master Chief

Just a quote from that Atheism site.

"Ultimately though, it’s not necessary to prove that a god doesn’t exist. It is up to the god-believers to prove that their god or gods exist, for they are making the assertion of the existence of something that is not immediately visible. For example, if I were to claim that there is an invisible ten-foot tall pink unicorn in this room, and demand that you feed her, you could justifiably expect some sort of hard proof. The same concept of proof lies with those who claim that an invisible, immaterial god exists. Thus, even if all proofs of the nonexistence of gods were to fail, it would still be necessary for theists to prove the actual existence of their god, if they expect us to take them seriously."

Jimi

Faith is faith is faith. As far as making my assertation that a God DOES exist, without having have seen it.... there is evidence that oxygen exists, that helium exists, that nitrogen exists, due to evidence pointing such out. You nor I have ever seen such gasses. Again, with the illogical.... it isn't illogical to believe in God, nor is it illogical not to. It depends on personal search and study. You have yet to give a logical point; until then, I suggest you read up on religions, and maybe study some science before you continue with your "logical" outlook. Until you can give some actual substance to you "illogical" claim, give this debate up.

Jimi

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

By the way, I study religion as well, so I'd suggest not going into a blind debate.

Master Chief

Faith in different things, are just that, different, even if the concept is the same.

Gases can be cooled until they are visible, and they can be seen by ways other than the human eye.

Faith is illogical.

Faith is defined as: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
Illogic is defined as: "A lack of logic."

Is the dictionary logical enough for you?

Sorry for the lack of paragraphs and rhetoric, I'm a little tired.

Jimi

Just because you have come to the conlclusion that faith is illogical, which, by the way, you say faith is different in different cases (hypcritical), doesn't mean it is so. As I've said, you've given no valid argument to science, you've given no valid argument against religion, you're purely just saying it's illogical because you don't believe in it. Faith is the same in all matters. It is just that, faith. Have you ever seen frozen oxygen? Have you ever seen frozen helium? That was my point. And, don't say yes, I've been working in science my whole life, and I've yet to see either. Have you seen nutrinos? No? Good, no one has. The fact is, science basis a lot of things on faith, and theories, and other stuff...... except scientists a lot of times won't validate religion. Except the most brilliant ones.... Einstein, Newton, Da Vinci.... etc. As far as this debate goes.... I have shown much more logic in the religious reasoning than you have against it. The fact is, you're obviously quite unversed in both science and religion. Like I said before, once you atleast make an attempt to understand one, or the other, preferably both, then maybe your points will be taken into consideration, until then... keep on keeping yourself busy in the vaginarium.

Jimi

By the way, you said faith is different in different situations, trying to justify youreself, THEN you went on to still say that faith is illogical.

Dude, I've been drinking all night, and I'm still showing your illogical ass up. Come on!

Lorill

That was once my line to you, Jimi, bad form!...er... I guess I said MANginarium. Please continue, this is entertaining. I am going to let Chief beat you up a little bit more before I come in and finish you off. Haha. J/K.

billpl

Religion is perfectly logical! Just ask my 6 year old niece. She'd tell you exactly how it all works. She learned it all at summer camp. But by the time she turns 10, I'm sure she'll move on to more relevant things, as do most of the kids that don't have religion crammed down their throats....

Jimi

Neither of my parents are religious, neither is any of my family. Nothing's been "crammed" down my throat.

I base my beliefs simply on my own study and my own scientific method. If you have any valid argument, then state it. If not.... the keep on keepin' on. If you will simply question my beliefs scientifically, historically, or religiously, then maybe we can have an actual conversation here. Otherwise, there are other ways to occupy my thought.

Master Chief

I didn't say religion is illogical. Faith is illogical, as defined by the DICTIONARY. That does make it so. I don't believe in faith.

I haven't seen frozen oxygen, but I know it exists, because there are people who have seen it. Has anyone seen a god? Only when they are hallucinating.

I am unversed in both science and religion compared to you apparantly, and I don't deny that. I never said that I was.

Once again, all I have said, is that faith is illogical. You can't argue against the definitions of the words.

And if you think I will learn more about religion and science, just to argue more with you, or people like you, you're sadly mistaken. I know all I need to know to form an opinion on the subject.

I'm a very logical person. I believe that faith is an illogical state of mind. I cannot believe in something that isn't able to be proved, whether now, or in the future.

ButterMup

Oh-ho, are you kids lucky! I've got half a mind to send you all to separate corners of the forum for a time out!

Seriously, It could take hours to clean up the trainwreck this thread has become - and I'd try too, you can bet your asses...but for the fact that it's getting late, and I'm just plum tuckered out.

Instead, I digress somewhat, and leave you all to your own gods (or lack thereof) and your own devices by which to prove or disprove anything as you see fit.
Just a few miscellaneous notes before I'm out:

Schutz,
You're using the law of probability in your defense against evolution, as near as I can tell, by claiming that the odds of every process occurring in just such a way, every chemical and compound being available in just the right concentration, at just the right time, are too wildly astronomical for evolution to have simply *happened* the way it has.
In pratical fact, you're right. The odds are stacked soundly in your favor.
But consider this:
How would we know if it had ever been otherwise?
Without every circumstance playing out in absolute perfection, even at once-in-an-eternity odds, humans would not have evolved the way we have - the way which allows us to have developed the abilities (cognitive, physical, take your pick; it all comes in the same package) to be having this discussion at all. Life as we know it would never have existed...and had the tiniest of evolutionary events not gone down in just such a way, we wouldn't be here right now to argue this point at all.
How do we know, then, that this wasn't the "inconceivable" lucky one-off?
It's an infinite universe, after all, so far as anyone can tell. An infinite universe presumably supports infinite possiblities.
How many times in all of that limitless expanse might the precise scenario which brought us here have almost played out? How many times, in how many places which we've not yet even imagined exist, might one tiny molecule have bonded incorrectly, throwing off the entire evolutionary process of what would, otherwise, have essentially been humanity redux?
We know, now, that there is simple carbon-based life on other planets, even just within our own solar system. How many more are out there? How many more of those were SO close, but not quite?
How many near misses?
You're probably right, and an evolutionary fluke of such grand magnitude as humanity will never happen again, anywhere. It is, after all, highly improbable. But not impossible. There's no such thing.
All it had to take to put us here on Earth was that one lucky break.
Just one bullseye, fired from a quiver that never runs out of arrows, no matter how incrdible it seems to mankind's egocentric view of ourselves...and just like that - *poof* - here we are.

Jimi:
You're far and away doing a great job providing qualified proof for your arguments in here, which is something you don't always do, and I'm proud of ya, boyo.
But don't stoop to petty intimidation with statements like, "By the way, I study religion as well, so I'd suggest not going into a blind debate."
That's like saying, "I know what I'm talking about, so obviously, you don't."
That's stupid.
You may have a fascination with many things religious, and that's well and good, but you're far from a qualified expert on the matter, which puts you squarely in league with everyone else on this board (any ordained ministers in the crowd may exit, stage left, please).
We all have our opinions, all of which are every bit as valid as your own.
Again, you're doing well offering honest-to-goodness empirical proof that you're not talking out of your ass with (most of) the statements you've made herein, and that is the best way to get people to believe you and respect you, even if they'll never be convinced by you.
Know what you're talking about, and show us. Don't just tell.

Master Chief:
I'm trying to back you up, brother.
I don't know you from Adam, but it looks like we're coming at this from roughly the same angle, and I'm trying my damndest to work with that.
Trying, mind you, but not necessarily succeeding. Jimi's a tough nut to crack, and schutz isn't exactly the poster boy for Dudes Who Are Pushovers either.
The best you can do in a debate with these two guys is stick to your guns, and for shit's sake, don't backpedal! The fact remains that faith is an illogical principle, and the word itself has simply been bastardized to fit alternate connotations over time, which is causing some semantic hangups here. Don't let 'em get you down.
I could rail for an hour about how many ways "faith", as a word, is misapplied in the American vernacular, but this is too long alr