The Logical, Rational, and Reasonable Debate About Religion: No Insults Allowed Threa

A lot of species are unique in their own way, we happened to get lucky and evolved the fastest and the most in earth's history, but who's to say a meteorite won't whack us again and wipe us out and next time it'll be another species that evolves faster and better than the rest. If we're so special, why did it take 4 billion years for us to appear? Why wouldn't god have made us first?

I agree that absence of proof doesn't mean it'll never be proven so, but the burden of proof rests with those who claim something to be, and until then, I personally don't see any reason to believe in the invisible space daddy with the evidence provided so far. In this case, it's just absence of evidence, hence why I'm an agnostic, the only logical choice.
 
But your entire argument is based on human reasoning, logic, and knowledge. Therefore, since you've admitted that there is a limit to that reasoning, logic and knowledge, you can't simply dismiss the possibility of a higher being based on that criteria alone either. Maybe there is another plane of existance that we are completely unaware of and unable to experience or 'prove' with our logic, our science, or our understanding of the universe?

A valid point. Maybe there is. I don't know and neither does anyone else. But I don't believe it, but neither do I DISBELIEVE it. If there is a higher plane of existence or God, I don't physically sense it with my 5 senses. I also don't sense it using a psychic Sixth sense. Therefore I don't believe it because I have a choice. I don't have a choice believing in love because I can sense evidence of it: my girlfriend shows me she loves me, I hear her tell me she loves me, I physically feel love for her. And science has shown that love is chemical and psychological. There is a reason for it. And it CAN be explained biologically and that explaination aligns perfectly well with evolutionary theories. In order to NOT believe in love I would have to deny my senses, my experiences, and my learning. In order to believe in God I would have to deny my sense, my experiences, and my learning.

Humans have defined the sky to be 'blue'. It's a label we gave to a color, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily blue, it's an agreement, for the necessity of society so that we can all understand references to a color called 'blue'.

Yes, anything can be doubted except my existence (from my point of view: Cogito ergo sum).

As someone mentioned, you believe in other intangible things, such as love, what logic and reasoning do you ascribe too to prove that love exists? What is the purpose of love, from where does it originate. Animals are given survival instincts, yet man will sacrifice survival to save someone that he 'loves', which goes against all science would tell you about instincts. How do you explain that? Why are humans unique in that?

Humans aren't the only animal that loves: all maternal animals love their offspring, and most mammals do as well. In fact, mothers of most mammalian species will risk sacrificing themselves to save their young. Its a survival instinct which preserves the species and one's offspring. There, you have your biological and evolutionary explaination.

Do you see humans as different from animals? Or do you see us as just another animal?

I see us as animals. I see human beings as different from other species in certain characteristics, of I should say, in degrees of those characteristics: we are more intelligent than any other species, and physically weaker than most other animal species, but in just about every other way we are no different than animals. I think we are special as a species because of our intelligence: we can direct our species' destiny, we can know the difference between love and hate, and we can rationally act ethically to eachother, among the many things our intelligence allows us to do that no other animal can. But, we seem more often to act as animals: rape, murder, hurting eachother, destroying our environment, selfishness, territoriality, etc.
 
A valid point. Maybe there is. I don't know and neither does anyone else. But I don't believe it, but neither do I DISBELIEVE it. If there is a higher plane of existence or God, I don't physically sense it with my 5 senses. I also don't sense it using a psychic Sixth sense. Therefore I don't believe it because I have a choice. I don't have a choice believing in love because I can sense evidence of it: my girlfriend shows me she loves me, I hear her tell me she loves me, I physically feel love for her. And science has shown that love is chemical and psychological. There is a reason for it. And it CAN be explained biologically and that explaination aligns perfectly well with evolutionary theories. In order to NOT believe in love I would have to deny my senses, my experiences, and my learning. In order to believe in God I would have to deny my sense, my experiences, and my learning.

It's just all about YOU, isn't it??? Typical male. :lol: I was more referring to emotional, intangible love, not physical love. Anyone can display the characteristics of what we as humans define as love, but that doesn't mean that it's really there. Your girlfriend can go thru the motions in a completely calculated way to mislead you to believe that she loves you. I certainly hope not, for your sake. I guess what I'm saying is that you have to have a certain amount of belief and faith that her love for you exists, there is no phsyical way for you to prove via science or logic that it is really there in her 'heart'. Really, 'heart' was always the wrong term for that I thought, because it's something that's not physical, which is where the concept of the soul comes in.

Yes, anything can be doubted except my existence (from my point of view: Cogito ergo sum).

How do you know you exist? Maybe you're just a figure in someone else's dream? :lol:

Humans aren't the only animal that loves: all maternal animals love their offspring, and most mammals do as well. In fact, mothers of most mammalian species will risk sacrificing themselves to save their young. Its a survival instinct which preserves the species and one's offspring. There, you have your biological and evolutionary explaination.

Loving your offspring is instinctual tho, like you said, for the preservation of the species. I'm talking about other sacrifices where it isn't offspring.

I see us as animals. I see human beings as different from other species in certain characteristics, of I should say, in degrees of those characteristics: we are more intelligent than any other species, and physically weaker than most other animal species, but in just about every other way we are no different than animals. I think we are special as a species because of our intelligence: we can direct our species' destiny, we can know the difference between love and hate, and we can rationally act ethically to eachother, among the many things our intelligence allows us to do that no other animal can. But, we seem more often to act as animals: rape, murder, hurting eachother, destroying our environment, selfishness, territoriality, etc.

But the very last things you mentioned aren't characteristics of animals tho. Animals kill for survival, some could argue for sport, like when a cat kills a mouse. But, there is no emotion with it like there are when humans rape, murder or kill. Animals don't destroy their environment, their existance is the natural order of the environment, ours is not. Selfishness and being territorial may be attributed to instintual nature, but we have to have some instince or we wouldn't survive nearly as long as we do.

I think we are vastly different from animals, if we were not then you would see at least one other species a lot closer to human evolution than there is, which is none. There's a reason for that, I don't believe it is coincidence just like I don't believe our planet and how we exist on it is coincidence.
 
A lot of species are unique in their own way, we happened to get lucky and evolved the fastest and the most in earth's history, but who's to say a meteorite won't whack us again and wipe us out and next time it'll be another species that evolves faster and better than the rest. If we're so special, why did it take 4 billion years for us to appear? Why wouldn't god have made us first?

I agree that absence of proof doesn't mean it'll never be proven so, but the burden of proof rests with those who claim something to be, and until then, I personally don't see any reason to believe in the invisible space daddy with the evidence provided so far. In this case, it's just absence of evidence, hence why I'm an agnostic, the only logical choice.


But that's where you're wrong, I don't have to 'prove' anything to you. I mean you're basically asking to prove that hamburgers are 'better' than hotdogs. It's entirely subjective to the personal preferences of each person as to which one is 'better'. There is no proof involved.

I'm not asking you to believe anything you don't want to believe.
 
A lot of species are unique in their own way, we happened to get lucky and evolved the fastest and the most in earth's history, but who's to say a meteorite won't whack us again and wipe us out and next time it'll be another species that evolves faster and better than the rest. If we're so special, why did it take 4 billion years for us to appear? Why wouldn't god have made us first?

I agree that absence of proof doesn't mean it'll never be proven so, but the burden of proof rests with those who claim something to be, and until then, I personally don't see any reason to believe in the invisible space daddy with the evidence provided so far. In this case, it's just absence of evidence, hence why I'm an agnostic, the only logical choice.


But that's where you're wrong, I don't have to 'prove' anything to you. I mean you're basically asking to prove that hamburgers are 'better' than hotdogs. It's entirely subjective to the personal preferences of each person as to which one is 'better'. There is no proof involved.

I'm not asking you to believe anything you don't want to believe.

Hamburgers and hot dogs exist, we all agree on that. You're saying something (god) exists even if you (or anyone else) can't prove it does. That makes it a theory, not fact. So it's not god that exists, just the theory that he does.
 
A lot of species are unique in their own way, we happened to get lucky and evolved the fastest and the most in earth's history, but who's to say a meteorite won't whack us again and wipe us out and next time it'll be another species that evolves faster and better than the rest. If we're so special, why did it take 4 billion years for us to appear? Why wouldn't god have made us first?

I agree that absence of proof doesn't mean it'll never be proven so, but the burden of proof rests with those who claim something to be, and until then, I personally don't see any reason to believe in the invisible space daddy with the evidence provided so far. In this case, it's just absence of evidence, hence why I'm an agnostic, the only logical choice.


But that's where you're wrong, I don't have to 'prove' anything to you. I mean you're basically asking to prove that hamburgers are 'better' than hotdogs. It's entirely subjective to the personal preferences of each person as to which one is 'better'. There is no proof involved.

I'm not asking you to believe anything you don't want to believe.

Hamburgers and hot dogs exist, we all agree on that. You're saying something (god) exists even if you (or anyone else) can't prove it does. That makes it a theory, not fact. So it's not god that exists, just the theory that he does.

You missed the point. I wasn't contending that hot dogs or hamburgers weren't tangible, existing objects. I was contending that whether one was better than another is subjective, therefore you can't prove that one is 'better' than another. I look at taking the human perspective on science and the universe as the final word to prove whether something intangible or subjective exists or not as the same thing. You can't use mankind's perceptions of science as the final conclusion as to whether something exists or not. It's entirely subjective to each person, just like whether or not a hamburger is better than a hot dog is subjective to each person. Maybe you want to rely on human science as the final verdict as to whether or not a higher being exists, I tend to be more open minded about it and can realize the limitations of my own existance and perceptions.
 
Last edited:
A lot of species are unique in their own way, we happened to get lucky and evolved the fastest and the most in earth's history, but who's to say a meteorite won't whack us again and wipe us out and next time it'll be another species that evolves faster and better than the rest. If we're so special, why did it take 4 billion years for us to appear? Why wouldn't god have made us first?

I agree that absence of proof doesn't mean it'll never be proven so, but the burden of proof rests with those who claim something to be, and until then, I personally don't see any reason to believe in the invisible space daddy with the evidence provided so far. In this case, it's just absence of evidence, hence why I'm an agnostic, the only logical choice.


But that's where you're wrong, I don't have to 'prove' anything to you. I mean you're basically asking to prove that hamburgers are 'better' than hotdogs. It's entirely subjective to the personal preferences of each person as to which one is 'better'. There is no proof involved.

I'm not asking you to believe anything you don't want to believe.

Hamburgers and hot dogs exist, we all agree on that. You're saying something (god) exists even if you (or anyone else) can't prove it does. That makes it a theory, not fact. So it's not god that exists, just the theory that he does.

And btw, where you go wrong is in saying that I'm saying absolutely that God exists. I'm saying that I believe that God exists, big difference. So, I believe in the theory, and you apparently do not.
 
And btw, where you go wrong is in saying that I'm saying absolutely that God exists. I'm saying that I believe that God exists, big difference. So, I believe in the theory, and you apparently do not.

So you believe in the theory but you're not absolutely sure he exists?:cuckoo:
 
It's just all about YOU, isn't it??? Typical male. :lol: I was more referring to emotional, intangible love, not physical love.

I was referring to the same. And yes, I'm pretty typical.

Anyone can display the characteristics of what we as humans define as love, but that doesn't mean that it's really there. Your girlfriend can go thru the motions in a completely calculated way to mislead you to believe that she loves you. I certainly hope not, for your sake. I guess what I'm saying is that you have to have a certain amount of belief and faith that her love for you exists, there is no phsyical way for you to prove via science or logic that it is really there in her 'heart'. Really, 'heart' was always the wrong term for that I thought, because it's something that's not physical, which is where the concept of the soul comes in.

I see what you mean and to a certain degree I have to agree. It does require some faith on my part to believe that her love for me is true. But, the flip side to that is that is requires absolutely no faith for me to believe my love for her is true. Therefore I know love is real because I can sense it and because scientists have proved that love is chemical and psychological and there is no reason to believe it is more than that. But that doesn't make it any less special, magical, important, or beautiful.

How do you know you exist? Maybe you're just a figure in someone else's dream? :lol:

Cogito ergo sum means: I think therefore I am. Even if I am a figure of someone else's deam, I exist in that person's dream. It is the only thing that anyone can be absolutely 100% certain of. Everything else, as it reads in my sig line, can be, and every once in a while, should be doubted.

Loving your offspring is instinctual tho, like you said, for the preservation of the species. I'm talking about other sacrifices where it isn't offspring.

Like a mate- I mean, spouse or lover or family member? Humans aren't special in that regard either. A dog will attack to protect its owner.

But the very last things you mentioned aren't characteristics of animals tho.

Chimpanzees murder eachother over territory or mates. Bears kill offspring. Some animals will eat their own offspring. Evolution isn't perfect from a human perspective. Which also argues against intelligent design. Animals murder eachother, just without the level of thought that humans do it to eachother. And it is instinctual, which the could be said for human beings.

Animals kill for survival, some could argue for sport, like when a cat kills a mouse. But, there is no emotion with it like there are when humans rape, murder or kill.

Which is a qualitative judgement. And supports my statement that humans are different from animals only in degrees of characteristics.

Animals don't destroy their environment, their existance is the natural order of the environment, ours is not.

Animals do destroy their environment. Deer or elk herds which are over-populated will eat themselves into starvation. Bacteria and fungus will decay that upon which they survive until they end up dying. It is less common to see animals destroy their own environment than humans because the human population is so large and our impact is so out of proportion with our species when compared with animal populations. But animals do destroy their own environments.

Selfishness and being territorial may be attributed to instintual nature, but we have to have some instince or we wouldn't survive nearly as long as we do.

Just about everything human beings do is instinctual. I can only think of a few which aren't: mountaineering, race car driving, bull riding and fighting, creek and river kayaking and rafting... There are a few more. Everything else is rooted in some instinct, and those examples I gave may be rooted in instinct as well, but I don't know enough to make that conclusion.

I think we are vastly different from animals, if we were not then you would see at least one other species a lot closer to human evolution than there is, which is none.

There were, they were called Neandertals and they died off either because we killed them or they couldn't compete with us. And they lived until very recently when considered in a geologic frame of reference. Then there was homo erectus, and the many other humanoid species before homo sapiens sapiens. Its all right there in the fossil record.

There's a reason for that, I don't believe it is coincidence just like I don't believe our planet and how we exist on it is coincidence.

It isn't coincidence. There are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy alone. There are hundreds of thousands of galaxies that we know of. Let's say that around each star there is only one planet, and our solar system is the only one with more than one planet. How many planets does that make? Trillions? Quadrillions? What is the chance that life would develop on one of them? Slim? Very slim? Incredibly, improbably, microscopically slim? Well, with all those planets out there, it only makes sense that life would develop. The chances are almost nill, but there were lots and lots of unimaginably LOTS of chances for it to happen.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top