Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.

[daddy8ball]

Religion:
At first there was nothing. Bang! God created it!

Science:
At first there was nothing. Bang! Shit just happened.

[RadOncDoc]

LOL. Another cut and paste.

[SF1900]

LOL. Another cut and paste.

it just explains very simply what I want to say, without wasting my time to write it out. does not matter if its a copy and paste. It explains my point and is a justified diagram.

I like how you write "copy and paste" and ignore the facts of the diagram 

[che]

Perhaps, but the big push of atheism is really only in response to theists trying to push their beliefs into every facet of society. To a certain extent, you should be thankful that atheists ward off the theists from instilling their beliefs into society (anti abortion and anti gay marriage)--if not, you might be forced to go to church and believe in god, otherwise they will burn you at the stake for being  a witch     I mean, where does it end? Take away abortion and gay marriage rights. Whats next? Would you really want to live under a theocracy? 

Nah , They all have their own agenda.

[SF1900]

Nah , They all have their own agenda.

Hmmm, perhaps, but it appears the atheist agenda is merely to ward off the theists attempt to instill their beliefs into society. When was the last time an atheist went door to door to try and convert someone to atheist? When was the last time a theist tried to do that? Quite often. It seems like the theists have a much bigger agenda on their hands.

[daddy8ball]

Hmmm, perhaps, but it appears the atheist agenda is merely to ward off the theists attempt to instill their beliefs into society. When was the last time an atheist went door to door to try and convert someone to atheist? When was the last time a theist tried to do that? Quite often. It seems like the theists have a much bigger agenda on their hands.

Because atheists, as a general rule, just aren't vocal. Hell, a quick perusal of this thread bears this out... 

[NarcissisticDeity]

Religion:
At first there was nothing. Bang! God created it!

Science:
At first there was nothing. Bang! Shit just happened.

There existed a singularity before the big bang and after inflation the singularity expanded , in science there always was something technically

With religion , God spoke everything into existence 

[che]

Hmmm, perhaps, but it appears the atheist agenda is merely to ward off the theists attempt to instill their beliefs into society. When was the last time an atheist went door to door to try and convert someone to atheist? When was the last time a theist tried to do that? Quite often. It seems like the theists have a much bigger agenda on their hands.

Just wait , wait  until they get bigger ,raise more money  and organize better  , Do you see a pattern here?

[NarcissisticDeity]

Nah , They all have their own agenda.

The only agenda atheists have is to keep believers from interfering with the rest of our lives , separation of church and state , keep your mandatory prayer out of publicly funded schools ( private prayer is allowed , no one can stop that even in school ) abortion , stem cell research , creationism in schools , gay marriage , etc , etc , etc 

[che]

The only agenda atheists have is to keep believers from interfering with the rest of our lives , separation of church and state , keep your mandatory prayer out of publicly funded schools ( private prayer is allowed , no one can stop that even in school ) abortion , stem cell research , creationism in schools , gay marriage , etc , etc , etc 

Keep believing that ,ND .

[suckmymuscle]

So explain to me: why is evolution "science" but creationism not? Seems to me that they share the common approach of making observations about nature and attempting to provide explanations about how certain observable phenomena came about. Just because one posits a deity in the mix does not mean it can't be right. (Of course, most proponents of evolution claim that a "naturalistic" explanation is required, thus eliminating creationism as an explanation on definition alone...not because it can't provide a reasonable explanation for observed phenomena.)  

  The difference is that the observations made by scientists are based on evidence and logical deductions that must be consistent. A single contradiction inside a theory leads to it being proven wrong. The religious observations are based on wishful thinking and is logically implausible. Science postulates that the Universe was created in a big bang because the Universe has been observed to be expanding in all directions, and if so then it came from a focal point. This is logically deducing. Postulating that a giant man with a white beard created it has no evidence to support it and does not hold up to the logical consistency because, even if there were evidence that the Universe was created by a giant man with a white beard, something must have created the giant man with the white beard which leaves us back at square one without having solved anything.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[johnnynoname]

see, I can get behind the idea of "anti-theism" .

Religion has NOTHING to do with "God"
However, Religion will use "God" as there "Enforcer".  As in, "do this or our God will reign terror on you"

Fact of the matter, God (in whatever form he/she/it takes) is very laissez faire in a everyday person's life

[SF1900]

Just wait , wait  until they get bigger ,raise more money  and organize better  , Do you see a pattern here?

so a few signs compared to the millions of way theists have tried to imbue theism into our every day lives! Not even close man.

[RadOncDoc]

it just explains very simply what I want to say, without wasting my time to write it out. does not matter if its a copy and paste. It explains my point and is a justified diagram.

I like how you write "copy and paste" and ignore the facts of the diagram 

Your diagram is a joke. Creationism approaches the origins of life in the exact same manner as evolution. Namely, it looks at observable phenomena in nature and attempts to explain how they came about. It does this in the exact same way that evolution does. The key in both cases is that you are largely looking at things that ALREADY HAPPENED. You keep saying that creationism isn't "testable." That is correct in some sense, but it in no way invalidates creationism because creationism really deals with what evolutionists call "macroevolution" which we really can't test in real time in the first place. All the so-called "experiments" that evolutionists carry out (and that you seem to demand) are basically studies on "microevolution," a principle that no creation scientist would question in the first place. They would simply call that adaptation...or a change in the frequency of alleles that ALREADY EXIST in the gene pool.

[daddy8ball]

There existed a singularity before the big bang and after inflation the singularity expanded , in science there always was something technically

With religion , God spoke everything into existence 

I see....and why did it inflate?

[che]

so a few signs compared to the millions of way theists have tried to imbue theism into our every day lives! Not even close man.

Just wait ,it's just the beginning some smart atheists  are going to make money with the  atheist sheep.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Your diagram is a joke. Creationism approaches the origins of life in the exact same manner as evolution. Namely, it looks at observable phenomena in nature and attempts to explain how they came about. It does this in the exact same way that evolution does. The key in both cases is that you are largely looking at things that ALREADY HAPPENED. You keep saying that creationism isn't "testable." That is correct in some sense, but it in no way invalidates creationism because creationism really deals with what evolutionists call "macroevolution" which we really can't test in real time in the first place. All the so-called "experiments" that evolutionists carry out (and that you seem to demand) are basically studies on "microevolution," a principle that no creation scientist would question in the first place. They would simply call that adaptation...or a change in the frequency of alleles that ALREADY EXIST in the gene pool.

marco is the result of many mircos and it's been observed

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/

creationisms proof ultimately leads back to an ' intelligent designer ' and that's where it fails and will always fail ( among other places )

[suckmymuscle]

I know, I totally agree that science cant prove everything. The problem is that people will forgo science because they insert God as the answer and leave well enough alone. This holds back scientific progression when you have theists inserting God as the answer into everything.

  This is not even the issue. Science doesen't need to be able to prove everything for we to reject logically implausible hypothesis. But science can prove most observational phenomena. What science cannot prove are things that belong to the realm of abstraction. For instance, mathematics can define the laws that govern physical reality quite accurately, but what explains mathematics at the conceptual level and why it can explain reality? What is the concept of a quantity(the number 1) intrinsically? What is the number zero(nothingness) intrinsically? We can define matter as all property that has mass and identify it's components as particles, but what is mass in itself? What is anything in itself - what Kant called the thing in itself? We cannot know what happened before the Big Bang because it is a question that belongs purely to the realm of abstraction. Time can only exist where there is mass(something) and it cannot exist without it. How can time pass where there is nothing? So for us to answer these questions we need to know how concepts relate to our physical reality. It is more something that belongs to philosophy rather than physics...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[#1 Klaus fan]

Evil faith can wreck a feeble human mind. It's sick.

[NarcissisticDeity]

I see....and why did it inflate?

Who knows? if you say God you're offering up a hypothesis now comes the time to prove it which can't be done , science doesn't have any explanation on what caused inflation or what happened before it , which is why they haven't really touched the subject 

[avxo]

So explain to me: why is evolution "science" but creationism not? Seems to me that they share the common approach of making observations about nature and attempting to provide explanations about how certain observable phenomena came about. Just because one posits a deity in the mix does not mean it can't be right. (Of course, most proponents of evolution claim that a "naturalistic" explanation is required, thus eliminating creationism as an explanation on definition alone...not because it can't provide a reasonable explanation for observed phenomena.)  

The simple answer is this: Creationism claims that complex natural life forms can only be created by a supernatural creator. But, if that is the case, Creationism is outside the realm of science, since science doesn't deal with the supernatural. Therefore, creationism, by definition, isn't a scientific theory.

The same argument holds for the "more scientific" variant of Creationism, called "Intelligent Design":

Intelligent Design claims that complex natural life forms can only be created by something it terms a designing intelligence. OK... so, let's contemplate that for a bit.

If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by our original premise, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. We're left with an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it? Well, maybe we could posit a supernatural creating intelligence. But, if we take that option we instantly take Intelligent Design outside the realm of science, and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories. So, that's no good.

The other option, is to accept that the designing intelligence can arise solely out of natural processes, which clearly contradicts the original premise of Intelligent Design, so that's out the door too.

Dang it. No matter what we do,  Intelligent Design ends up being either self-contradictory or non-scientific. It's out too.

I hope this helps.  

[CigaretteMan]

 This is not even the issue. Science doesen't need to be able to prove everything for we to reject logically implausible hypothesis. But science can prove most observational phenomena. What science cannot prove are things that belong to the realm of abstraction. For instance, mathematics can define the laws that govern physical reality quite accurately, but what explains mathematics at the conceptual level and why it can explain reality? What is the concept of a quantity(the number 1) intrinsically? What is the number zero(nothingness) intrinsically? We can define matter as all property that has mass and identify it's components as particles, but what is mass in itself? What is anything in itself - what Kant called the thing in itself? We cannot know what happened before the Big Bang because it is a question that belongs purely to the realm of abstraction. Time can only exist where there is mass(something) and it cannot exist without it. How can time pass where there is nothing? So for us to answer these questions we need to know how concepts relate to our physical reality. It is more something that belongs to philosophy rather than physics...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  Shit this truly outstanding post..,,you my sir shouldnt be posting on Getibig.......

[daddy8ball]

Who knows? if you say God you're offering up a hypothesis now comes the time to prove it which can't be done , science doesn't have any explanation on what caused inflation or what happened before it , which is why they haven't really touched the subject 

I'm not saying anything either way. Like you say "Who knows".

BUT .. it sounds like you know that God is definitely out. Is that true?

[SF1900]

 This is not even the issue. Science doesen't need to be able to prove everything for we to reject logically implausible hypothesis. But science can prove most observational phenomena. What science cannot prove are things that belong to the realm of abstraction. For instance, mathematics can define the laws that govern physical reality quite accurately, but what explains mathematics at the conceptual level and why it can explain reality? What is the concept of a quantity(the number 1) intrinsically? What is the number zero(nothingness) intrinsically? We can define matter as all property that has mass and identify it's components as particles, but what is mass in itself? What is anything in itself - what Kant called the thing in itself? We cannot know what happened before the Big Bang because it is a question that belongs purely to the realm of abstraction. Time can only exist where there is mass(something) and it cannot exist without it. How can time pass where there is nothing? So for us to answer these questions we need to know how concepts relate to our physical reality. It is more something that belongs to philosophy rather than physics...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NarcissisticDeity]

 The difference is that the observations made by scientists are based on evidence and logical deductions that must be consistent. A single contradiction inside a theory leads to it being proven wrong. The religious observations are based on wishful thinking and is logically implausible. Science postulates that the Universe was created in a big bang because the Universe has been observed to be expanding in all directions, and if so then it came from a focal point. This is logically deducing. Postulating that a giant man with a white beard created it has no evidence to support it and does not hold up to the logical consistency because, even if there were evidence that the Universe was created by a giant man with a white beard, something must have created the giant man with the white beard which leaves us back at square one without having solved anything.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Great point and there is all sorts of converging evidence for the ' big bang ' which has stood the test of time , there is proof of this position and it stands the test of peer review which is brutal , if you don't have your shit together and facts check you will be destroyed along with your theory and scientific credibility.

Who needs proof in religion? all you need is ' faith '