I saw this domain for sale, according to the appraisals, its worth over $5000.00 usd. It has just the perfect amount of keywords….

But,

Ordinary1 on August 18, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Made some good points, and he could have gone on for days with similar stuff if he chose to. The atheists will still bow to Charlie though and keep the faith that what is being told to them, despite how ridiculous and completely assumed to fit larger assumptions it is, is the real truth.

As I told Nonfactor earlier, and he ignored… I don’t claim there to be a smoking gun for God’s existence, though it seems obvious to me and the majority of the world (oh yeah, that’s another problem I have… I’m not using “consensus” as an argument, I’m just pointing it out because you sure must be smart to be so much smarter than all those billions of people. So don’t whine that I’m using some flawed argument there, that wasn’t the intent. I’ll even be nice and accept that you could have honestly misunderstood my intent. Interestingly though, it is your side who consistently uses “consensus”, while you call it “evidence”. No, the evolutionist community interprets the data one way, and call it “consensus” because they are mainstream science. You may not like them, but there are plenty of scientists who don’t by the interpretations and the assumptions that lead to them.) /tangent

As I said, there’s no smoking gun proof for “God”, or else there would be no atheists. But the point is, there are evidences. You may not accept them (as I said, so I’m not sure why I’m having to say it again), but there are things (starting with some of what Ordinary1 listed, for example) that can be seen as evidence for God. You can believe that these things “just happened”, which in our opinion takes a hell of a lot more faith… but we see evidence. The point is, the whole “we’re in a simulation” is without evidence. No one is making a case that there is evidence here (and if there were, that would be a big flaw in the system, no?), this guy simply asserts the possibility and has the balls to say it’s a 50/50 chance that it’s true! WTF?!

One more quick thing.. you talk about the Bible being more of a story book than a holy book? Well, that’s partly true… it’s a history (story) book. You may not like it, but it’s almost on a monthly basis now we’re churning out discoveries proving the existence of things written thousands of years ago in the Bible. I can’t even keep up, and I’ve made a conscious effort to stay away from blogs that track dig sites because the discoveries are coming in fast and furious… so much so that the mainstream History Channel has even covered a lot of it lately. You can call it a “story book” and act as if it’s a bunch of fables, but the fact of the matter is, what is written is proven to have been true all the time. You may not buy the flood or the Garden of Eden, etc. and no one is claiming to have proven their existence yet… but much of the rest of the Bible was looked at in the same light until recent discoveries have proven the existence of things in these stories, proving the stories in some cases and making them plausible or likely in other cases.

Even to the point of positing a Matron.

(Or whoever supposedly runs the “Matrix”… which was literally invented by sci-fi author William “Neuromancer” Gibson, although Plato’s “prisoners watching shadows on a cave wall” is an apt Iron Age equivalent, with Harlan Ellison’s “AM” as the intermediary analog version.)

Kant (or was it Schopenhauer?) said: “Solipicism is a castle we can never take, but must pass by and leave as an enemy enclave in our rear.”

(Which sounds more painful than he meant.)

I think Olby is part of this hypothetical enclave.

A kind of semi-conscious hemmorhoid.

Obviously you must win all the debates at your high school.

Nonfactor on August 17, 2007 at 8:16 PM

You obviously got your a$$ kicked by opening your mouth too much.

You readily admit to circular reasoning. I don’t see the point in continuing the argument unless you’re willing to adopt reason and logic and not simply claim you use them.

Nonfactor on August 18, 2007 at 7:55 PM

I think I reasoned pretty well. Still, I have no argument with you. Have a great evening!

Ordinary1 on August 18, 2007 at 6:32 PM

You readily admit to circular reasoning. I don’t see the point in continuing the argument unless you’re willing to adopt reason and logic and not simply claim you use them.

What isn’t rational is why you have to cram your atheism down others’ throats.

Please, direct me to where in my post I’m “craming” my atheism down yours or anybody else’s throat. Just reread my last sentence over and over again until it hits you.

So what if people believe in something that you don’t? Why are you so threatened by that?

I’m not threatened by your beliefs or anyone else’s, what I am threatened by is the dogmatic view religious people seem to share in wanting to ensure their religion is the panultimate to a point where it infultrates my government and affects the rights of people I know and myself. What I’m concerned about (and this may be the most important in the context of this blog) is the lack of rational and logic shown by religious people in their blind acceptance of something just as illogical as The Matrix (which is why I commented on RightWinged’s obvious contradiction). One need only look at Ordinary1′s post at 6:32 to see how logic has been thrown out the window in attempts to accommodate a biased belief.

Why do you always have to proselytize your atheism whenever the subject comes up?

Proselytize? I’m proselytizing? No where in any of my posts on this website have I ever demanded the religious become atheists. I may chastise them for being illogical (note RightWinged’s insistence that there is evidence proving God’s existence yet him not providing any), but I’ve never attempted to “convert” any of them.

It just makes my faith stronger because I have to question your motives and why it is so dmaned important to you to convert people to a soulless, meaningless existence.

If you must find meaning in your life by believing in an illogical God you can’t even prove exists you aren’t worth “converting.” Not believing in God isn’t something somebody tells you about and then you have a life changing experience that corroborates the fact; it’s something you attain through logic, reason, and a sense of independent self worth. If I ever need to start believing in a God to get through the day without feeling like meaningless scum I’ll make sure someone puts me out of my misery. Until then I’ll continue living a God-free, happy, meaningful, fulfilling life until the day I die.

I’m sorry that you’re angry for whatever reason at the world or your parents or whatever

Foxforce91, you really shouldn’t attempt these types of personal attacks in attempts to bolster your argument. They don’t make me look any worse and if anything they make you look like a complete dumbass. And I’ll reiterate my point in hopes that it penetrates that thick skull of yours: I’m not angry, if anything I’m concerned about the lack of logic, rational, and all around reason shown by people like you, Ordinary1, and RightWinged (to name a few).

but frankly I do not care what you have to say about my faith.

Twenty lines of text would say different.

You can comfort yourself by thinking that you have complete understanding of the world and the universe and scholars and theologans are just not as brilliant as Mr. Nonfactor who spends the good part of every day trying to convince himself on some message board that – no folks – he really is smart – honestly!

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t pretend to know the workings of the universe or even the human brain. This straw man is unbecoming of you.

WTF have you done for the world? My family feeds/houses/clothes/raises money to provide for children half way around the world and we have hundreds of contributors who are people of faith

foxforce91 on August 18, 2007 at 7:17 PM

What does this have to do with anything we’re discussing? You don’t know me, you don’t know what I’ve done, and you certainly don’t what it is to do good without the guidance of your God. So don’t come onto an online blog and pretend to be more righteous than someone you don’t know, because when you have to bring up what charities you’ve contributed to to try and gain an edge in a debate, not only do you know you’re a self-righteous punk, but you know you’ve lost the debate.

My life has meaning and you say yours does; I believe you, but at least I don’t need a nonexistent God to give me mine.

Nonfactor on August 18, 2007 at 5:57 PM

What isn’t rational is why you have to cram your atheism down others’ throats. So what if people believe in something that you don’t? Why are you so threatened by that? Why do you always have to proselytize your atheism whenever the subject comes up? I’ve never been lectured to or evangelized by any Christians nearly as much as I’ve been evangelized by atheists and you know what? It just makes my faith stronger because I have to question your motives and why it is so dmaned important to you to convert people to a soulless, meaningless existence. I’m sorry that you’re angry for whatever reason at the world or your parents or whatever ~ but frankly I do not care what you have to say about my faith. You can comfort yourself by thinking that you have complete understanding of the world and the universe and scholars and theologans are just not as brilliant as Mr. Nonfactor who spends the good part of every day trying to convince himself on some message board that – no folks – he really is smart – honestly! You’re the dummies! You believe in God! I guess the more important question is: WTF have you done for the world? My family feeds/houses/clothes/raises money to provide for children half way around the world and we have hundreds of contributors who are people of faith – who have given us enough money to build dorms for 60+ orphans and a womens shelter for starving African women, and they ask for nothing in return – not even a conversion as you probably want to believe so you can assuage your own guilt for doing nothing for the world, except trying to convince as many people that they have no souls and lead meaningless lives. What’s it to you, Nonfactor? Okay. Your life is meaningless. Mine isn’t. If I’m wrong, f-ing sue me.

Nonfactor on August 18, 2007 at 5:57 PM

but for me, it’s pretty obvious that the Universe has a creator…

Consider this:
Job 38:16 – “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?”

When that was written hundreds of years before Christ, nobody knew there were springs at the bottom of the Oceans. God knew.

Job 38:7 – “while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?”

Apparently, the Sun’s Corona is hotter than the center of the Sun. Scientists puzzled over this until they discovered that there are sound waves generated by flares on the surface of the Sun that heat the Sun’s atmosphere! Who knew? Oh yeah…

How do we even know that Sun has a Corona??? Gee, the moon is 400 times smaller than the Sun, but 400 times closer. Since the apparent size is the same (the orbits aren’t perfect circles and perfectly on the same plane, but…) we get total eclipses of the Sun that cause the Corona to be visible! Probably just a coincidence.

Saturn’s rings are braided! I really think God is just messing with us there :-)

I could go on about how the Earth is in just the right spot in the Solar System to sustain life. How the Solar System is in the right spot in the Galaxy to keep us away from serious trouble (not to close to the center, not too far. Not too close to any spiral arms) and that it’s these very conditions that make the Universe explorable by intelligent life. (otherwise, our view would be seriously obstructed by stars and dust in the way)

Do I think God spoke us, and everything, into existence? Yeah, I do, and not without reason(s). Besides (you’re not gonna like this), God said so! And Jesus was there at the beginning! See John 1.

Like I said, we are all free to make our own choice. However, I would argue that mine is not made without thought or reason :-)

Ordinary1 on August 18, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Firstly, the universe is not an orderly thing in the least. We essentially live in a vast empty black vacuum randomly sprinkled with galaxies containing millions or billions of stars, stars that explode forming new stars, stars that explode destroying old stars, and stars that create black holes that demolish thousands of stars in and of themselves. I can understand why some people may feel the need for a being out there looking down on our lives making decisions about when we die and holding the knowledge of good and evil and the meaning of the universe, but simply because the need is there does not make it true.

it’s pretty obvious that the Universe has a creator. To think that all of this order came from a big bang by chance takes more faith than believing in a loving God who spoke it into existence, IMHO.

Ordinary1 on August 18, 2007 at 5:34 PM

It’s not obvious it’s a cop out. You take something as complex as the universe and assign a cheap and easy idea such as a God to explain everything you have questions about. We have gold on this planet because the atom Au was formed in the core of a sun billions of years ago and the residue from that exploded star found it’s way to us. It’s a complex idea that we had no conception of 100 years ago. Would it be easier to explain something as “orderly” as gold as a metal placed upon this earth by a God? Of course. But that doesn’t make it true. You can believe in it, but know that it is not rational.

Nonfactor on August 18, 2007 at 3:53 PM

I took a Philosophy class or two and have actually pondered the Universe while straight. As a big fan of science, I couldn’t help notice how ordered the Universe is. While my teenage years (and 20′s too) were given to too much wine and weed, I was also quite the good student. Intelligent people can disagree (I disagree with myself 10 years ago), but for me, it’s pretty obvious that the Universe has a creator. To think that all of this order came from a big bang by chance takes more faith than believing in a loving God who spoke it into existence, IMHO. Everyone is free to make their own choice, but I assure you, mine didn’t come without a lot of reasoning, and a measure of Faith!

Ordinary1 on August 18, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Philosophy isn’t just something you ponder when smoking or drinking. I guess it is if you’re otherwise uninhibited, but if you’re genuinely interested in the universe and don’t want to be spoon fed your beliefs via religion philosophy is the next best thing. The very fact that people like you try and turn philosophy, metaphysics, and epistemology into “stoner talk” (and here is where I picture you laughing to yourself for using the word stoner) really speaks to your lack of interest in the world. And if it takes THC to think along the lines of Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, and countless others so be it.

From Horton Here’s a Who.. “We are here, we are here, we are here!!”

Time for a byte to eat.

Secondly, yes, believing that we live in a Matrix is akin to believing in God

Nonfactor on August 18, 2007 at 7:23 AM

The difference being that those of us who believe in God do not believe God controls every aspect of our lives, which is by far the most insane thing mentioned on that clip.

The more proper quote is “I DOUBT therefore I am,” meaning that because we have the ability to disbelieve, we are not being controlled.

Besides, the guy’s math is wrong. Just because this technology is out there, it doesn’t mean every single living person would use it. It wouldn’t be a billion to one. Based on the current trends, I just don’t see one sixth of the population playing a computer game.

Olby says “which does explain that metallic taste in your mouth”.

No, it means bleeding gums or maybe you enjoy biting your own tongue?

First of all, there is plenty of evidence for God. You can choose not to recognize it and remain in the minority, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t evidence.

Two fallacies right off the bat; more if we count your introduction.

However it’s interesting that “fables” continue to turn in to fact as discoveries are made every year.

Such as? And did you see the Sumerian tale that was an almost carbon copy of the story of Moses? In fact so many of the stories in the Bible are copied or stolen from stories of the era it’s beginning to look more like a storybook than a holy book. I’m just waiting to find the part the church removed about how God gave fire to humans.

Now, compare that too an idea that offers nothing. It simply states that if we were in a simulation, we wouldn’t know it.

I don’t know why you guys keep making these statements; it doesn’t reflect well on your judgment. You’re basically believing in something solely because it’s written down in a book. In another thread I stated that you guys would believe in FSM if there were a book about him and testimony from eye witnesses, and what’s worse is that someone said that it’d be more plausible.

I COMPLETELY AGREED WITH THAT STATEMENT, AND SAID THAT I THOUGHT OF THE SAME THING AS A KID!!!

Funny, because I’m sure many atheists will tell you the same thing. Just replace the theory with God and there you have it. You reject the theory due to lack of evidence for it. Atheists reject the theory of God due to lack of evidence. I respond to posts while reading them so I don’t know what you’re going to post later on, but I’m sure it’ll sound a lot like a “God of the gaps” type theory.

It is possible that we’re in a computer simulation… but what reason to we have to believe that? Simply because it’s possible? No logical person would assert that.

You’re trying to make me laugh now. I’ve had religious people in threads here on HotAir use the same Solipsist argument later on in the debates. What’s funny about this entire conversation is that your first post was fairly logical in rejecting a certain theory due to lack of evidence, but then to see how much your mind changes when it comes to something you’ve been biased towards for your entire life really makes one think. This “Matrix” theory is Russel’s teapot, as are the theories about “God.”

I know you’re just going to repeat yourself, because you don’t understand (well, you really choose to pretend you don’t so that you can continue your dishonesty).

If you mean repeat myself in asserting that there is no evidence proving your God’s existence then yes, I will keep repeating myself until you’ve given me evidence to contradict me, and seeing as how I don’t think you’re going to blow the lid off the entire thing and prove the existence of God here on HotAir I can already bet that I win this “debate,” but I see blue links coming ahead and I’m sure they’ll prove everything, and yes, I dedicate this amazingly long sentence to me kicking your ass.

I won’t bother you with design because you people are in denial (perhaps you’re just too busy at SETI camp to think about it).

The difference being that they readily admit to playing make believe for fun, whereas the religious are playing make believe and being totally serious about it. This total seriousness comes across as the author of that piece (who seems like a total dick by the way) takes an genuinely fun experience had by people he/she doesn’t even know and basically says “ha, none of it’s real!” to which I’m sure Ms. Grossman would respond “that’s the point.”

But no, me saying that some guy who’s taking an idea from a sci-fi movie, and having Olby eat it up like it’s scientific, and making it NEWS, is compared to believing in God… something an extreme majority of humans do, because it’s simply obvious.

Firstly, this guys was recently in the news before he showed up on Countdown. Secondly, yes, believing that we live in a Matrix is akin to believing in God (or Russel’s teapot if you prefer). And thirdly, simply because millions of Americans believe in something does not make it true; you’ve used this fallacy over and over in your arguments, I’m simply pointing it out now in hopes that I don’t have to read you write it anymore.

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200708.htm#20070809a

I was really hoping that link was to some of the evidence proving God you’d lauded in the beginning of your thread.

But on the topic of this link for you to accept it as truth you also have to accept the idea of isotope dating (something you’ve come out against in the past). That’s the first hurdle, the second one being that evolutionists never claimed evolution to be a straight and simple path. “This effectively removes Homo habilis from consideration as an ancestor” no, it doesn’t; in articles on partisan sites like creationsafaris you have to make sure to note the use of words like “effectively” or when they say things like “yet it is hard to see how this helps…” They won’t lie outright, so what they do is put the question in the readers mind and let them make the assumption (similar to how FoxNews asks questions on the bottom of the screen: ‘Do Democrats want to hurt your children?’). Even in the evolution of horses the species overlap. In evolution everything doesn’t die out at once and get replaced with the new species. It’s assumptions like these by people like you that make this “evolution debate” almost worthless.

The evolutionists would say we evolved until we were intelligent enough and had the technology to create the simulation

No, they wouldn’t. This theory has nothing to do with evolutionists and there is no reason for them to pay it any credence.

Unless you are proposing that this simulation could have just always existed, rather than was created by us?

That’s not what I’m proposing that’s what this theory proposes and what almost every other metaphysical theory has proposed for centuries from Descartes to The Matrix.

In which case, that’s further evidence for God, because if that ain’t intelligent design, I don’t know what is.

RightWinged on August 18, 2007 at 5:12 AM

Wow. So let me get this straight. If our lives are really being controlled by an alien race outside of our universe (seeing as how our universe is simply another creation of these aliens) then that’s evidence for God? Well now I can see where you’re coming from in your “there is evidence for God” spiel.

RightWinged on August 18, 2007 at 5:34 AM

Your point “just because scientists tell us something doesn’t mean we should believe it” I agree with, which is why we look at the evidence for ourselves. The evidence shows us the speed of light after scientists told us what it was, the evidence shows us the age of the Earth, the evidence shows us what we want to know, and I’ll be looking at the evidence about the “hottest years” for myself as well. Now if only religious people could do the same.

But what I just thought of is kind of funny. Until last week, “the science was in” and 1998 was the hottest year on record in the US, and 5 of the hottest 10 were in the last decade. Now, as you know, 5 of the top ten were actually before WWII, and only a couple were somewhat recent at all. But wait, it was “science” right? I mean, scientists told us, so it had to be true!

So to be clear, we can’t even trust what we’re told is “science” when it relates to recent data, gathered over the last hundred or so years… but we are not to question wild claims about what happened billions and millions of years ago, even when there is often wiggle room left in the claims to the tune of hundreds of millions of years. We are to accept as fact that things happened or species went extinct between “X hundred million years ago and Y hundred million years ago”, even though we can’t believe what we’re told happened in the past 10 years!

(and this guy’s theory is essentially an alternate God theory)

Nonfactor on August 18, 2007 at 3:12 AM

Actually, that wouldn’t be the case at all… At best, it wouldn’t change one thing. The evolutionists would say we evolved until we were intelligent enough and had the technology to create the simulation, logical people would think that we simply gained the technology to do it. Nothing about “God” changes there at all. Some would still believe, and some wouldn’t. Unless you are proposing that this simulation could have just always existed, rather than was created by us? In which case, that’s further evidence for God, because if that ain’t intelligent design, I don’t know what is.

I was going to take quotes from the post but I thought it was obvious. If you can’t see the blatant hypocrisy in original the post (being that RightWinged believes in God) I’m not going to be able to convince you. He’s demanding evidence before people should believe in a certain theory. Uh, hello? His entire post is an argument as to why someone shouldn’t believe in God (and this guy’s theory is essentially an alternate God theory) and then I guarantee you that the next time a religion thread pops up RightWinged will act oblivious.

Nonfactor on August 18, 2007 at 3:12 AM

Ah, Nonfactor, dishonest as ever! I know, you can’t help yourself, dishonesty is required of you, as a card carrying liberal.

First of all, there is plenty of evidence for God. You can choose not to recognize it and remain in the minority, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t evidence. That said, I could go with simple things like archeology consistently confirming stories in the Bible. Is this “proof” of God’s existence? No, but I don’t claim that there is a smoking gun… However it’s interesting that “fables” continue to turn in to fact as discoveries are made every year.

Now, compare that too an idea that offers nothing. It simply states that if we were in a simulation, we wouldn’t know it. (This is where your unbridled liberal dishonesty comes in). I COMPLETELY AGREED WITH THAT STATEMENT, AND SAID THAT I THOUGHT OF THE SAME THING AS A KID!!! It is possible that we’re in a computer simulation… but what reason to we have to believe that? Simply because it’s possible? No logical person would assert that. It’s like me claiming I’m an alien or something. There’s nothing behind this, it’s simply a brain teaser. It’s not like it’s being put forth as a possibility, except by this douche who claims it’s 50/50 that we’re in a simulation.

I know you’re just going to repeat yourself, because you don’t understand (well, you really choose to pretend you don’t so that you can continue your dishonesty).

You could call them circumstantial, but there are countless “evidences” for a God, but not any for an idea from a movie that is just funny to think about. There is a belief in God as old as written history. There are miracles. I won’t bother you with design because you people are in denial (perhaps you’re just too busy at SETI camp to think about it). There are NDEs. There is our unique place in the universe (don’t give me speculation).

But no, me saying that some guy who’s taking an idea from a sci-fi movie, and having Olby eat it up like it’s scientific, and making it NEWS, is compared to believing in God… something an extreme majority of humans do, because it’s simply obvious.

That’s the crux of the matter. Is “God” being treated as scientific news? No, a sci-fi plot is!

Oh, and in case anyone is interested another “evidence” for human evolution fell apart the other day:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200708.htm#20070809a

(As always, evolutionists are expected to and encouraged to attack the linked to site, rather than acknowledge that the sources are MSM Darwinist sources all the way around. I know, that’s how you roll.)

Troy Rasmussen on August 17, 2007 at 9:13 PM

I was going to take quotes from the post but I thought it was obvious. If you can’t see the blatant hypocrisy in original the post (being that RightWinged believes in God) I’m not going to be able to convince you. He’s demanding evidence before people should believe in a certain theory. Uh, hello? His entire post is an argument as to why someone shouldn’t believe in God (and this guy’s theory is essentially an alternate God theory) and then I guarantee you that the next time a religion thread pops up RightWinged will act oblivious.

Who the F starts off with this crap on your nightly news?

Avatar72 on August 17, 2007 at 9:03 PM

The number one story on Countdown is the last story, usually reserved for celebrity news or joke segments.