Godites have god on their side...

Umm, no. No sky daddy, sorry. I think you're getting your religions mixed up here. Generally speaking polytheistic religions have a sky deity or "sky daddy" as you are so fond of saying. They also have river deities, sun deties, wisdom deities etc. Monotheistic religions on the other hand do not have sky deities. Monotheistic religions believe in only one God, who is usually a universal God with no particular physical dwelling such as a river or mountian, or even the sky. In most cases the God of monotheistic religons is believed to be non-corporeal, though is sometimes thought to be capable of assuming a corporeal form should the need arise. In most cases the only "residence" (if it can even be called that) of the monotheistic deity is believed to be "heaven", an exrta-dimensional like realm which is not physically connected to or otherwise associated with the sky. I should add though that the monotheistic deity's essence or spirit is often though to pervaed everything, though again in a non-corporeal manner.

So no sky daddy for Christianity, Judaism, or Islam as they are all monotheistic religions.

 

Oh well... "Beyond-The-Sky Daddy".

Feel better now?

PSSST... Just for a little tid bit of info...I was well aware of the fact that it wasn't the actual "sky"... k? *twitch, twitch* It's just that sky daddy is basic and people "get it". Well....SOME people.

 

I find it ridiculous how some people get so worked up over the fact that most people do believe that there is some kind of higher order in whatever way they believe, whether it be a god that created all matter to begin with, or some kind of a spirtual force, or an all powerful god that arranged almost everything in the universe.

 

it is interesting to me why it bothers an individual who professes no religious belief that others do. Why is this a problem that all people do not share the same beliefs. People trying to force a belief system even if it is the absence of is the cause of judgmental attitudes and narrow minded unacceptance of individuals as part of humanity and everone should all be accepted no matter their religious or non-religious affiliations. every human deserves love and acceptance no matter what otherwise we will continue in this world on a downward spiral of hate.

 

Call it a backlash.

Built up over centuries of OPPRESSION, SLAVERY, TORTURE, & MURDER by RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS & BIGOTS!

Built up from the treatment that "unbelievers" get from arrogant sky daddy believers all the time. Treating us as if we are inferior because we don't swallow a fucking fairytale...

If you don't think after all the shit these assholes put people through (and still do) that I or anyone don't have the right to be angry and speak out, I got two words for you: GET REAL!

You want to talk about a "spiral of hate", well sister, it's being going on for centuries and my people have been the victims. So, you think I'm going to turn around and kiss ass now?

Think again.

 

What happens when someone who has no respect for God is given a cushy life, such as yours? They bitch and complain about things they would accept if they understood what was going on.

 

I am quoting this from Wikipedia:

"A protein (from the Greek protas meaning "of primary importance") is a complex, high-molecular-mass, organic compound that consists of amino acids joined by peptide bonds." - Wikipedia.org

"Proteins are essentially polymers made up of a specific sequence of amino acids. The details of this sequence are stored in the code of a gene." - Wikipedia.org

What you said above is not true. Proteins can be made without nucleic acids. Not necessarily every complex protein we have today -- nobody is claiming that. But, protein CAN be synthesized without nucleic acids. They aren't even made of nucleic acid -- they are AMINO acids, which CAN be formed spontaneously -- it's been PROVEN.

What *about* RNA?

Nobody (in their right mind) is claiming that everything was RNA and that we evolved from RNA strands, but even so, RNA is made up of amino acids just like DNA is.

The experiment was an ATTEMPT to replicate the primordial soup of Earth before life existed on it. It isn't perfect. And there have been other attempts. And there will continue to be attempts.

Regardless, scientists proved that protocells, including amino acids, CAN formed SPONTANEOUSLY in a primordial soup, even if that primordial soup wasn't *exactly* what the Earth was like.

It is still a strong argument for abiogenesis.

I'm sure it did emerge quickly. If different combinations are being tried and being destroyed ... as soon as you have one good protocell that can reproduce, a short time later you're going to have two. Then four, then eight, and maybe a year or two later, billions upon billions. The argument that it arose quickly is not "evidence against abiogenesis."

People say "geological and geochemical evidence suggests that prebiotic atmospheric conditions were hostile, not friendly, to the production of amino acids and other essential building blocks of life."

However, I have only ever heard this claimed. I have not seen half an ounce of biological evidence supporting this. Even if it were true -- there are all kinds of different environments on Earth. Land, sea, sky. There's the bottom of the sea, which is different from the top. There's the soil in the crust. All kinds of places. Maybe several of these places werent' fit for abiogenesis. That doesn't mean that where we originated from also wasn't.

As as for the fourth argument there, this has been shown time and time again. People constantly cite "irreducible complexity" and baloney like that -- it's all hogwash. Things that we used to claim as "irreducibly complex" have been explained by science.

Even that one moron who cited blood coagulation being "irreducibly complex" had his arse handed to him by scientists, who figured it out, and then when that guy was asked to comment, he started mouthing off about "it's not actually irreducibly complex" and then started going on about how it would be irreducibly complex if it had three different parts instead of two, etc. But it didn't have three different parts. It had two. That's the point.

Nothing is irreducibly complex. Just because we can't do it right now, doesn't mean that its nature is irreducibly complex.

There is no such thing as a problem that cannot be solved.

I believe you weren't paying attention. The Christo-Judean and Islamic gods were included in the list of those gods. They are easily considered "sky deities" because they're always shown up in the clouds and in a "firmanent" that is "above" Earth.

And yes, about 3/4 of the Earth DOES believe in such a deity.

What do you think "God" is?

If YHWH isn't a sky deity, what makes Zeus one? Or Jupiter? Or Shu?

Here's the difference.

When science is proven wrong, the theories change, and science remains science.

Yet, people have been claiming things about, for example, near death experiences (NDEs). Science has shown that it is DMT which is produce in the brain, causing NDEs. There are various examples such as this one, where religions explainations for "supernatural" phenomena have been shown to be only natural phenomena. But where does this put religion? Religion claims it has the truth. Science only claims that it has probability of correct relationships among things. Religion can't fall back and say "looks like we were wrong! Time to change our theories!" Religion just gets proved incorrect, and then because nobody wants to be wrong, they dogmatically deny it.

You're twisting Libertine's words around.

Who are you to define what "sky daddy" means? Libertine is the one who brought the term in here. He uses it to talk about any of those famous "omni-max" deities that "exist everywhere" and "know everything".

It's pretty obvious that he came up with "sky daddy" from the connotation of "heaven" with "sky," and "Father" with "daddy."

So stop twisting his words around. You know what he means. You're simply putting up a strawman to get attacked.

Why would it bother us? Good question.

Did you ever consider the fact that, several times a year, we get people knocking on our doors trying to convert us?

Maybe the billboards placed all over the landscape -- you know, the ones that say "Jesus is coming -- as lightning." and "Got Jesus?" etc.

Why would it bother us?

Why would the Crusades bother us? It's only tens of millions of murders.

But wait a second! Why should that bother us, everybody knows that we hedonistic, nihilist atheist bastards have NO moral code, right? Right?

... Why would it bother us? ... good question indeed ...

 

What I am about to say adds nothing to the debate, but I would ust like to say that i saw one of thse the other day that made me laugh. Acctually, it is what my sister did that made me laugh. The sign read "Have you put your life in Jesus' hands?" and because we were driving, she took hr hands off the wheel and was like "Ahhh, save me Jesus!"

I thought it was quite funny...

 

You know that those wern't "REAL" christians, right?

Most christian's version of christianity is nothing but imaginary (infallibility of the bible, good, evil, heaven, hell, god), but unfortunatly society's past, present, and future are left to suffer it's reality. Organized religions like christianity (religions that believe that you are either with them or deserving of punishment, choose them or you are choosing evil) breed centuries of hate and intolerance.

 

Lib. my people the Natives of this great land have been vicitms of bad people professing religious rightiousness as well. But I being of a more indepenent belief system and a greater understanding of love thy neighbor understand and love the true message of my sky daddy. I just don't understand belittleing a whole for the actions of some or generalizing and name calling where it is not warranted. You can say all day long that this kind of person is wrong, but in the end it all comes down to the individuals ability to love. Not every person who has a belief system wants to attack those who don't. I think its great to that people are differnt and have systems of belief different from one another and even don't have a belief in anything but science. I would have nothing new to learn about people and the world if this were not the case and nothing new to love about another person. For me my beliefs are stemmed from love and my inability to believe that I have no soul and that those around me have no soul and that when we die that is the end and all we do is become mud in a box. I need the hope of living on in soul to keep living in this harsh and dangerous world. Fear of death is a great motivator of religion. And unconditional love and forgivness are also great motivators. love to everyone.

 

I have love without any sky daddy. And I don't care if you want to believe in one, but I am fed up with the Godism being pushed in this country and the world. These Christo/Islamo/Judeo fascist fundamentalist wackjobs who want to argue that some sky daddy blesses and honors them over others and uses this excuse to maim, torture, and kill other humans is DISGUSTING!

And I will always stand against violence of any kind, but it just so happens that most conflicts in the modern (and ancient) worlds some how, some way come down to who's "god" has the bigger dick.

Sheer insanity!

 

Hahah ... that is pretty funny.

Speaking of good billboards, there was this one that used to be in Pennsylvania, it was one of those "flip" ones, where every 10 seconds it flips to show you a different side. I forget what the one side said exactly, but it had a question alon the lines of "what's nice, and hot, and 99 cents on Mondays?" and it had a picture of a supermodel, and then the billboard flips and it's an add for the local coffeeshop.

Then it's time for alleged "REAL" Christians to change their name. Remember when "perverted" used to mean "bastardized"? But it doesn't anymore. "Christianity" has followed the same dark road.

Well said.

 

Lib. I will have to agree with you on about being against violence of any kind I am not defending those who use religion as a means to belittle others or harm others in any way. I am standing up for those who are lumped together with them because of they have a certain set of beliefs. speaking on christianity i can say that all who use it a support for causing harm against others or belittleing others are not chrisitian in any interpretation of the religion they are lying and twisting doctrine to suit themselves and that is unacceptable as well. These people are bad people without religion and if they had no religion would just find some other source to blame for the evil they commit against others because that is the demented world they live in.
so to that I will agree with you whole heartedly.

 

It's because a fundi is a fundi is a fundi. Now we all know about Christian fundamentalists; condemning everybody else to hell and all that crap. Lib is merely a fundamentlist of a different stripe. Instead of condemning people who don't belong to his club to hell he angrily calls them all evil violent hateful stupid bigots, accuses them of having done all kinds of wrongs to him somehow; due of course to events that happened to "his people" hundreds of years ago in europe when atheistic humanism didn't even exist. But in the end the only difference really is vocabulary. Christian fundamentalists use words like "hell" "sin" "un-saved" "non-Christian", you know the speil. Libs kind of fundamentalist uses words like "hateful" "bigoted" "persecution" etc. Really though, it is all the same shit, just a means of belittling and vilifying people who don't belong to your group as a way to feel superior.

 

It's true.

But if you look very very closely,
Behind the curtain and beyond the veil ...

One of them is correct, logical and rational, time-tested.

The other is not.

 

John Lennon was a fundamentalist according to your dumbass definition.

Prof. Jumbo just wants to apologize away the truth with his rhetoric. The truth that atheists are, in fact, belittled STILL in today's AmeriKa and that anyone who points that out is an extremist.

Well, I guess I am pretty extreme then. Because when Jumbo likes to close his eyes and ignore the bullshit spewed out by HATEFUL BIGOTS (yep, them ol' fundy words!), the rest of us have our eyes open and see the shit that goes on.

It's ok to hide and ignore the plights of others, call them "extremists" and continue to act in an arrogant fashion like nothing is going on, but one day, if Jumbo isn't IN with it, he may find himself wishing he'd lent an ear to such "fundamentalists" like Libertine.

EQUAL RECOGNITION IS OUR RIGHT AND DEMOCRACY, NOT THEOCRACY IS WHAT AMERICA WAS FOUNDED UPON.

And whether Jumbo or Pat Robertson or Bushes like it, history tells our story and eventually will give us justice. Like or Not, Learn to LOVE it, because it's gonna happen.

People have been discriminated against in all degrees. Blacks were enslaved, Women degraded and denied the right to vote, Indians tossed off their lands, Irish immigrants discriminated against, Japanese immigrants enslaved in camps, Gays treated as second-class citizens and atheists treated as "non" citizens with no voice and an arrogant government legislating invisible sky daddy into everything in the 1950s to the current time.

Hell, even gays are viewed in a little more of a positive light today (not enough, though). But atheists still have a long of a way to go. But, it will happen. As Bill Clinton once said America is a nation of people who have a right to believe in god anyway they want OR THE RIGHT NOT TO BELIEVE.

Damn right, Bill! Maybe the BUSHES need to take that advice.

 

"But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise with out a cause"

-David Hume

Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang, ask you ask me, "what made that bang?" and I reply " Nothing it just happened" would you not accpet that?

-Kai Nielsen

a British physicist has concluded the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars-a necessity for palnets and htus life-is one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros.

To say that the Big Bang was a chaotic happenstance is no diffrent then beliving in God.

And even more silly then a God is the theory of Many Worlds."There are so many diffrent worlds that one was bound to substaine life". Funny part is I can use that same theory in a Poker Game.

For example If I were to draw 4 aces in a row in 5 card stud you'd call me a cheat. But now I can simply refute you by saying "Well there are so many worlds that some universe would have a person draw 4 aces in a row every time they dealt, By God I'm in that universe!" I know its not the same, but that is they theory generalized to the most basic of examples.

If I was to randomly blow up a Ford or Chevy factory I don't expect for a fully functional brand new Truck to come out. Why? Chaos does not create order.

Evidence points to Order not Chaos. And Random roll of the Cosmic dice is chaos.

What ever begins to exist has a cause. The universe had a begining, so it must have a cause.

I find it to make more sense to belive in a uncaused,changeless, timeless, and immaterialistic being and force.

You can only go so far back with science, and only so far foreward.

It still falls down to the same argument. To be athiest is to belive nothing came from nothing. To be Theist means to belive Something that always has createad something that never was.


You can't argue God/No God with Science only Philosphy, and since all Philosphy can be subjective there really is no point in arguing about it is there?

 

Usually, the only people who agree with fundamentalists are others of the same select group. Generally they lack some significant piece of wisdom that scews their whole perspective on reality. They can look upon the truth without perceiving its true nature.

 

*ROFL*

You really have no clue about evolution or the science behind the theory of the origins of the universe, do ya?

Just suppose that every thing has a cause, then the argument is still invalid, for the Universe is not a thing, it is the set of all things. And a set cannot be a member of itself, so a conclusion about things in the Universe is not necessarily valid for the Universe itself.

So, since not everything seems to have a cause, and the Universe is not a thing at all, the First Cause argument fails. But suppose that it doesn't, that everything does have a cause. Then, I'm afraid, we have to say that "God" had a cause too, and that that cause had a cause too, ad infinitum.

If someone protests that "God" did not have a cause, we see that this person denies the first axiom, and the entire argument falls. The First Cause argument simply fails.

And if someone claims "God" is transcendent, where is the evidence of such a being? And such a quality of such a being beyond the whole of existing things?

PROVIDE ONE IOTA OF EVIDENCE.

This whole argument is built on a foundation of "APPEAL TO IGNORANCE" (I can't explain it, it looks inexplicable, thus I'd throw in a "god" to explain it).

This foundation has been spanked throughout history by science and reason. And will continue because it is a LOGICAL FALLACY.

You can't use a "mystery" to explain another "mystery".

 

Just something to point out --

Anything that exists must have a beginning. Therefore, God had a beginning, so he must also have a cause.

Many people say that "God is the first cause."

But could that not also be said about the universe/Big Bang?

Use Ockham's Razor here, the principal of parsimony, which is more logical?

1: The Universe came into existance one day, or has always existed.
2: The Universe was created by God, who came into existance one day, or has always existed.

Hmm?

That's not entirely true. Atheists don't believe that nothing came from nothing. Obviously the Universe came from something (by your logic), right? We just don't know where it came from yet, and we cite statistics and logic that suggests that, wherever it did come from, it wasn't the Christo-Judean God.

Subjective philosphy is useful in talks between two or a handful or so of people.

But it is by no means "definitive" or "universal," and conclusions drawn from subjective philosophy do not apply to all people.

I have never heard it put this way before -- and while that kind of makes sense, even if the Universe is not a thing and does not need a cause, the things inside of it do need a cause and origin. The Universe's origin is dependent on the origin of that which is part of it.

(You didn't think I was going to butt heads with Lib too, did you?)