The Hitch said:I don't claim to know what happened when "everything was made". I just know that your (alleged) version of events is wrong.
And since you weren't there how exactly do you know that I'm wrong?
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
The Hitch said:I don't claim to know what happened when "everything was made". I just know that your (alleged) version of events is wrong.
Jspear said:And since you weren't there how exactly do you know that I'm wrong?
Jspear said:A basic definition of faith is believing in something or someone that you cannot see. You weren't there when everything was made, so sir, you're belief system(or the lack of one....how ever you want to word it) requires faith.
Jspear said:BigMac, I was not singling you out as arrogant. I don't believe at all that you're an arrogant person. I just think that it is an arrogant statement to say that you know for certain(implying infinite wisdom) that there is no God, and He couldn't have created people.
BigMac said:I am aware of the basic definition of faith. But when you write something along the lines of ''not believing takes more faith than beliving'', I have to say that one must see atheism as only the lack of, because what you said only served poetical purposes and essencially isn't true. Therefore I also said not to complicate what is a basic concept. There is no need to do so.
It doesn't take more faith to not belive in god than it does to believe. Because atheists don't need faith. Atheists simply assume that what cannot be seen or seems illogical isn't true and therefore does not exist.
I know you weren't. When I said 'I', I was portraying (or trying to) a group where most atheists include themselves.
Jspear said:I understand where you're coming from but I respectfully disagree. Even if you have a lack of belief, that's still a belief in what I don't believe. What I mean is that you believe that there is no God. That's a belief system, not a lack of belief. I could say that I don't believe in God, I just have a lack of belief in no God....doesn't really make much sense. We all believe something, and whatever that something is, we have faith in it. You have to hope(have faith) that you're right because you can't prove your position with physical evidence.
Jspear said:You said, "Atheists simply assume that what cannot be seen or seems illogical isn't true and therefore does not exist." Well, you weren't around when things came to be, so according to this statement, you can't believe in evolution.
BigMac said:I also get where you are coming from, and what I wrote on my previous post was concerning you saying that it takes more faith not to believe than it does to believe. Which isn't true, because atheism is more than a belief. Atheists are completely sure of the non-existance of god. Atheists do not believe god doesn't exist. They are sure it doesn't.
Not the same way you are sure god exists, because you have no visual evidence. And you don't need visual evidence to be sure that someting doesn't exist.
Do you beieve in Zeus? Of course not, and you don't need faith not to believe Zeus doesn't exist. Or do you have faith he doesn't exist?
And is the concept of this mythological figure any different from the christian/hebrew god?
Anyway this all happened because one of us took the meaning of the word 'faith' more literally than the other.
I wasn't around when things came to be, but evolution is logical and observable. If you watch any documentary on the Galapagos you'll notice several species on evolution, on different phases. Evolution is just not a theory. Here I quote The National Academy of Science on evolution.
''The theory of evolution explains how life on Earth has changed. In scientific terms, “theory” does not mean “guess” or “hunch” as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world''.
As I said, atheists assume what is illogical is wrong. To atheists evolution is logical, so it is to science. Therefore I can and do believe in evolution.
''Scientists most often use the word “fact” to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong''.
Jspear said:You cannot be totally sure that there is no God. That is impossible unless you claim to have unlimited knowledge of everything....Which I don't think you do.
The Hitch said:I absolutely can be totally sure that the Christian God doesn't exist. All one has to do is look at whether the ideas make any sense.
The idea that he waited for 99% of human history before even revealing himself alone makes no sense.
The idea that he is benevolent but sends people to hell for doing things he made them do in the first place. Thats just a contradiction and can't possibly be true.
One cannot possibly be benevolent and yet create people purely for the purpose of torturing them eternally. These are not compatible.
The idea that he bases all eternity on a few thousand years of human history is proposterous. Do you know how long 13.8 billion years is. If God exists you think he sat through all those years, 12 billion of which nothing happened, 1 billion of which was just bacteria, 800 million of which was non humans eating eachother, purely so that he could watch you and a handful of other humans who represent 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(continue for about a few hous)1% of beings that ever lived, make an attempt at living life for a few thousand years, and off that base what is going to happen for the rest of all eternity?
Why doesn't he just send everyone to heaven? What is the point of all this? It makes no sense.
These ideas made some sense before humans new all this.
Not anymore.
Jspear said:The idea makes sense....just not to the unbeliever. The word of God doesn't make sense to those who have chosen to reject him. The bible says in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 that God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. The origin of the earth is so simple that any child can understand it. Nonbelievers can't understand it because they have rejected the only truth....God and His word.
God revealed Himself to Adam(The first man). You are right, Jesus didn't come to the earth at the beginning of creation, but all those who where born and died before Jesus came, who put their faith in God(people like Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Daniel, ect.) were saved. They were looking ahead to the promises of a Savior.
If you asked God to save you He would. It says in Romans that if You confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in Your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
He doesn't send everyone to heaven because not everyone wants to be with Him. People reject Him, and thus are separated from Him. If you focus on that you are missing the point. You CAN be with Him. Recognize that only He is God. That you(and I and everyone else) are a sinner, repent, confess Him as Lord and you'll be saved.
BigMac said:No. I'm not vegan, I am vegetarian and I do think that ultimately, humans are on par with mice, insects, whatever. All of the fauna. It is extremely arrogant to think we are superior when we are made of the same matter. Just because we have developed intellectually as a species more than all the others, it doesn't make us special or better. Considering most of them were here before we did.
''If all the insects were to disappear from the earth, within 50 years all life on earth would end. If all human beings disappeared from the earth, within 50 years all forms of life would flourish''.
That'll be a short one, and the religious side won't even show up.Buffalo Soldier said:What about a real debate, based on real science? Facts?
Buffalo Soldier said:What about a real debate, based on real science? Facts?
Maaaaaaaarten said:Obviously, saying I think humans are superior to animals, doesn't mean I think animals are not important. Of course we are dependant on animals.
However, do you use any clothing that uses leather? Do you drink milk? Do you have a pet? Either you need to say no to all these things and become a strict vegan or you, however important you think animals are, don't feel animals are equally worthy as humans. Can you imagine clothing made from a human skin? Can you imagine keeping humans as slaves to produce milk for you? Can you imagine keeping a human as a pet? I for one cannot, because I feel it would devalue human life. Nevertheless I don't care at all about the fact that cows are forcefully restrained in farms and are being forced to produce milk for me.
So can you explain to me, why we can force animals to serve our comfort while we can't do the same to humans? Or do you object to drinking milk and eating eggs and keeping pets as well?
Maaaaaaaarten said:Can you imagine clothing made from a human skin? Can you imagine keeping humans as slaves to produce milk for you? Can you imagine keeping a human as a pet? I for one cannot, because I feel it would devalue human life.
hrotha said:Francoism was fascist until it was obvious the Axis was going to lose the war, basically.
The Falange wasn't Catholic? BS.
http://www.filosofia.org/his/h1933a1.htm
Vino attacks everyone said:Echoes is actually correct about Franco. Franco was indeed supporting the fascist part of the falange. But when he got the power he minimized thier ideology in favour of more like a technocratic society. He was an catholic nationalist though. And alot of his staff was die hard fascists.
Echoes said:1) Dozens of political analysts studied Franco's regime and came to the same conclusion: Javier Tusell, Stanley Payne, Manuel Perez Ledesma, Edward Malefakis, Virginie Philippe, ... Franco's regime was not a totalitarian state, there were different power centres (which he manipulated; "divide and conquer"), he didn't mobilize his people, did not wish to create a "New Order", etc. It was a classic dictatorship like there have been thousands in history but not a Fascist one.
The Hitch said:You do realize these things have been practised by humans historically, en masse quite recently and on a large scale even today?
The only one you may even have a point with is - don't eat humans, and it's not like that is unique in evolutionary history. Plenty of animals don't eat their own species, unless they get desperate. Humans have behaved exactly the same way.
We don't tend to do these things today because it works to our own benefit and is about a million times easier to take these things from animals.
" said:You think that makes you superior to them?
That's an arrogant claim and the idea that having the power to destroy something makes you superior to it is perfectly in line with the brutal medieval ideology from which your religion comes.
Buffalo Soldier said:What about a real debate, based on real science? Facts?
Echoes said:Lol always the same with atheists. Debate on facts, as if facts could be debated.
Morality can be debated, which means religion. Facts can't because they are what they are, stubborn. You can ignore them, invent them but that would be lies. Atheists are masters in that field.
I think it illustrates what GK Chesterton argued on page 1 of his "Heretics". Modernists care for details and not for the whole. They care for tramcars, for zoos, for Modigliani paintings, for bricks in a wall, but not for the whole.
"Everything matters except everything."
"There is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for philosophy. This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter, and this is done universally in the twentieth century, in the decadence of the great revolutionary period. General theories are everywhere condemned; the doctrine of the Rights of Man is dismissed with the doctrine of the Fall of Man. Atheism itself is too theological for us today. Revolution itself is too much of a system; liberty itself is too much of a restraint. We will have no generalizations. Mr Bernard Shaw has put the view in a perfect epigram: "The golden rule is that there is no golden rule." We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man's opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters - except everything."
I tend to bow before a genius...