And yet in the end, there still isn't a chinese teapot orbiting around the sun, no matter how many people believe in it.
Maybe that's why nobody does actually believe in the teapot
its the exact same thing really.
Well not exactly. How many examples can you find of people claiming some kind of spiritual fulfillment from this teapot?
Try typing the "teapot testimony" into google, then try "christian testimony". If there were anything like as many for the teapot, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that there might be something in this whole teapot thing.
If you were born blind, would the burden of proof be on all the people who could see to prove to you that this weird thing called "sight" existed? You could always quote Russell's teapot story to them.
And yet in the end, there still isn't a chinese teapot orbiting around the sun, no matter how many people believe in it.
Maybe that's why nobody does actually believe in the teapot
its the exact same thing really.
Well not exactly. How many examples can you find of people claiming some kind of spiritual fulfillment from this teapot?
Try typing the "teapot testimony" into google, then try "christian testimony". If there were anything like as many for the teapot, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that there might be something in this whole teapot thing.
If you were born blind, would the burden of proof be on all the people who could see to prove to you that this weird thing called "sight" existed? You could always quote Russell's teapot story to them.
The burden of proof would lie with the person making the outrageous claim. In the case of a blind man saying sight doesn't exist, he would carry the burden.
The burden of proof would lie with the person making the outrageous claim. In the case of a blind man saying sight doesn't exist, he would carry the burden.
It might not seem outrageous to the blind man - he can't even imagine what sight might be. Why would it be outrageous?
And yet in the end, there still isn't a chinese teapot orbiting around the sun, no matter how many people believe in it.
Maybe that's why nobody does actually believe in the teapot
its the exact same thing really.
Well not exactly. How many examples can you find of people claiming some kind of spiritual fulfillment from this teapot?
Try typing the "teapot testimony" into google, then try "christian testimony". If there were anything like as many for the teapot, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that there might be something in this whole teapot thing.
If you were born blind, would the burden of proof be on all the people who could see to prove to you that this weird thing called "sight" existed? You could always quote Russell's teapot story to them.
The burden of proof would lie with the person making the outrageous claim. In the case of a blind man saying sight doesn't exist, he would carry the burden.
What if I find that the outrageous claim to be that there is no God?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
And yet in the end, there still isn't a chinese teapot orbiting around the sun, no matter how many people believe in it.
Maybe that's why nobody does actually believe in the teapot
its the exact same thing really.
Well not exactly. How many examples can you find of people claiming some kind of spiritual fulfillment from this teapot?
Try typing the "teapot testimony" into google, then try "christian testimony". If there were anything like as many for the teapot, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that there might be something in this whole teapot thing.
If you were born blind, would the burden of proof be on all the people who could see to prove to you that this weird thing called "sight" existed? You could always quote Russell's teapot story to them.
the spirital fufillment, as in, it makes people feel better in an emotional way, is just another word for imagination, or fantasy. the reason why you won't find "Teapot testimony" is because you missed one important word in Russels article, and thats the word "If". The teapot thing was never taught at schools or churches.
Well not exactly. How many examples can you find of people claiming some kind of spiritual fulfillment from this teapot? Try typing the "teapot testimony" into google, then try "christian testimony". If there were anything like as many for the teapot, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that there might be something in this whole teapot thing. If you were born blind, would the burden of proof be on all the people who could see to prove to you that this weird thing called "sight" existed? You could always quote Russell's teapot story to them.
the spirital fufillment, as in, it makes people feel better in an emotional way, is just another word for imagination, or fantasy. the reason why you won't find "Teapot testimony" is because you missed one important word in Russels article, and thats the word "If". The teapot thing was never taught at schools or churches.
"sight" as in another word for imagination and fantasy?
Well not exactly. How many examples can you find of people claiming some kind of spiritual fulfillment from this teapot? Try typing the "teapot testimony" into google, then try "christian testimony". If there were anything like as many for the teapot, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that there might be something in this whole teapot thing. If you were born blind, would the burden of proof be on all the people who could see to prove to you that this weird thing called "sight" existed? You could always quote Russell's teapot story to them.
the spirital fufillment, as in, it makes people feel better in an emotional way, is just another word for imagination, or fantasy. the reason why you won't find "Teapot testimony" is because you missed one important word in Russels article, and thats the word "If". The teapot thing was never taught at schools or churches.
"sight" as in another word for imagination and fantasy?
Well lets take as an example, somebody feels better because he/she thinks (while from that character perspective, think=know) angels are watching over him/her, or that that person has seen angels once. That could be described as fantasy and imagination.
Well not exactly. How many examples can you find of people claiming some kind of spiritual fulfillment from this teapot? Try typing the "teapot testimony" into google, then try "christian testimony". If there were anything like as many for the teapot, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that there might be something in this whole teapot thing. If you were born blind, would the burden of proof be on all the people who could see to prove to you that this weird thing called "sight" existed? You could always quote Russell's teapot story to them.
the spirital fufillment, as in, it makes people feel better in an emotional way, is just another word for imagination, or fantasy. the reason why you won't find "Teapot testimony" is because you missed one important word in Russels article, and thats the word "If". The teapot thing was never taught at schools or churches.
"sight" as in another word for imagination and fantasy?
Well lets take as an example, somebody feels better because he/she thinks (while from that character perspective, think=know) angels are watching over him/her, or that that person has seen angels once. That could be described as fantasy and imagination.
I think you might be missing my meaning.
To the man born blind, those who talk about being able to see are just imagining it.
Well not exactly. How many examples can you find of people claiming some kind of spiritual fulfillment from this teapot? Try typing the "teapot testimony" into google, then try "christian testimony". If there were anything like as many for the teapot, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that there might be something in this whole teapot thing. If you were born blind, would the burden of proof be on all the people who could see to prove to you that this weird thing called "sight" existed? You could always quote Russell's teapot story to them.
the spirital fufillment, as in, it makes people feel better in an emotional way, is just another word for imagination, or fantasy. the reason why you won't find "Teapot testimony" is because you missed one important word in Russels article, and thats the word "If". The teapot thing was never taught at schools or churches.
"sight" as in another word for imagination and fantasy?
Well lets take as an example, somebody feels better because he/she thinks (while from that character perspective, think=know) angels are watching over him/her, or that that person has seen angels once. That could be described as fantasy and imagination.
I think you might be missing my meaning.
To the man born blind, those who talk about being able to see are just imagining it.
I don't like this blind analogy. His lack of vision can be empirically explained, where God cannot.
Well not exactly. How many examples can you find of people claiming some kind of spiritual fulfillment from this teapot? Try typing the "teapot testimony" into google, then try "christian testimony". If there were anything like as many for the teapot, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that there might be something in this whole teapot thing. If you were born blind, would the burden of proof be on all the people who could see to prove to you that this weird thing called "sight" existed? You could always quote Russell's teapot story to them.
the spirital fufillment, as in, it makes people feel better in an emotional way, is just another word for imagination, or fantasy. the reason why you won't find "Teapot testimony" is because you missed one important word in Russels article, and thats the word "If". The teapot thing was never taught at schools or churches.
"sight" as in another word for imagination and fantasy?
Well lets take as an example, somebody feels better because he/she thinks (while from that character perspective, think=know) angels are watching over him/her, or that that person has seen angels once. That could be described as fantasy and imagination.
I think you might be missing my meaning.
To the man born blind, those who talk about being able to see are just imagining it.
Yes, I indeed misunderstood your post heh.
the problem with that, is that a thing like "sight" is scientific fact. its right there, its proven.
The teapot argument....how juvenile and base can you get?
Comparing a belief that there is a teapot orbiting the Earth to a belief that there is a creator God is so rediculously shallow that I am almost amazed that people on this forum try to use it. Shame on you Richard Dawkins for making atheists think that this is an intelligent argument.
First of all, the existance of all life and matter in the universe does not hinge on there being a teapot in space. There is no logical reason to NEED for there to be a teapot in space. There are several key reasons why a belief in God IS needed for the creation of all matter. This was why Einstein believed that there was some sort of creator God, though he stopped short of adhering to the idea of a personal God. Something cannot come from nothing, unless that something is eternal, in which case there is no such thing as true nothingness...enter God.
If NASA announced that they launched a teapot into space, but didn't supply pictures, would you believe them? You probably would...why? Because NASA told you that they did. You wouldn't need loads of pictures and photographic evidence, you would just take it on faith that they aren't so stupid as to make something like that up. So why then do you find it so illogical that the people who wrote the Bible would write down their experiences with God? If you read the Bible, you will notice that it does not glorify men, if anything, it puts them in a terrible light. So I ask you, why would a group of men write about their experiences with God, and not glorify themselves?
I'll tell you what I think you're probably thinking about writing...yes, the people who wrote the Bible did it over a thousand years ago, and the old testament is even older, so their data is not reliable. Yet you are willing to believe that some scientists can dig up a rock and use an equation to figure out how many billions of years old it is, and that this calculation will be at least somewhat accurate, despite all of the assumptions used in that equation. Weird inconsistancy of faith isn't it?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
The teapot argument....how juvenile and base can you get? Comparing a belief that there is a teapot orbiting the Earth to a belief that there is a creator God is so rediculously shallow that I am almost amazed that people on this forum try to use it. Shame on you Richard Dawkins for making atheists think that this is an intelligent argument. First of all, the existance of all life and matter in the universe does not hinge on there being a teapot in space. There is no logical reason to NEED for there to be a teapot in space. There are several key reasons why a belief in God IS needed for the creation of all matter. This was why Einstein believed that there was some sort of creator God, though he stopped short of adhering to the idea of a personal God. Something cannot come from nothing, unless that something is eternal, in which case there is no such thing as true nothingness...enter God. I think you would actually have to try really hard to come up with an even lamer counter arguement then you just did, seriously. the point was that people believed it, because they were told to believe it, no matter the importance of the subject. add "The teapot created all life on earth" if you must. Something cannot come from nothing is logic, just like its logic that everything has a beginning. saying "Something cannot come from nothing, but I do believe an entity existed for eternal" is having double standards.
If NASA announced that they launched a teapot into space, but didn't supply pictures, would you believe them? You probably would...why? Because NASA told you that they did. You wouldn't need loads of pictures and photographic evidence, you would just take it on faith that they aren't so stupid as to make something like that up. So why then do you find it so illogical that the people who wrote the Bible would write down their experiences with God? If you read the Bible, you will notice that it does not glorify men, if anything, it puts them in a terrible light. So I ask you, why would a group of men write about their experiences with God, and not glorify themselves? Actually I wouldn't believe it, for the simple fact that I don't think it makes sense to shoot off a teapot makes sense, just like the concept of god (or anything else claimed in the bible for that matter) makes any sense. But you see, even IF, then there would still be people investigating the issue, and ultimatly, come out with the truth wether the teapot launched or not.
I'll tell you what I think you're probably thinking about writing...yes, the people who wrote the Bible did it over a thousand years ago, and the old testament is even older, so their data is not reliable. Yet you are willing to believe that some scientists can dig up a rock and use an equation to figure out how many billions of years old it is, and that this calculation will be at least somewhat accurate, despite all of the assumptions used in that equation. Weird inconsistancy of faith isn't it? the key diffrence between that part of science and the bible:
Science: We have a theory that this and this and that happens this and that way, Here is our evidence that supports that theory. if we ever find evidence that changes the theory, we will change it, ultimatly finding out the truth.
Religion: This happened as fact. its true. don't question it, its true. take our word for it, honnest! Sure, you can go ahead and attack scientific theories over and over again like always, but there is not one theory as flawed as religion. and attacking another theory does not justify your own as truth.
I don't think it is logical that everything has a beginning, if you say that something cannot come from nothing. If something cannot come from nothing, then there has to be something that is eternal. Whether that something is God or not is another matter.
Anyway, tell me how you prove to a man born blind that sight is scientific fact and I'll drop the analogy.
I don't think it is logical that everything has a beginning, if you say that something cannot come from nothing. If something cannot come from nothing, then there has to be something that is eternal. Whether that something is God or not is another matter. Anyway, tell me how you prove to a man born blind that sight is scientific fact and I'll drop the analogy.
A man who can see can guide a blind man. How often don't we see people with sight guiding blind people? Not to mention that its easy to recognise modern civilisation is build for people with sight as a blind person, just by walking around on the street, seeing and feeling things like cars, lamppost, and more things like that. A person with sight can say "I see a tree, I see a bird, I see a dog", a blind person can go and check by feeling and hearing those things are there.
The teapot argument....how juvenile and base can you get? Comparing a belief that there is a teapot orbiting the Earth to a belief that there is a creator God is so rediculously shallow that I am almost amazed that people on this forum try to use it. Shame on you Richard Dawkins for making atheists think that this is an intelligent argument. First of all, the existance of all life and matter in the universe does not hinge on there being a teapot in space. There is no logical reason to NEED for there to be a teapot in space. There are several key reasons why a belief in God IS needed for the creation of all matter. This was why Einstein believed that there was some sort of creator God, though he stopped short of adhering to the idea of a personal God. Something cannot come from nothing, unless that something is eternal, in which case there is no such thing as true nothingness...enter God. I think you would actually have to try really hard to come up with an even lamer counter arguement then you just did, seriously. the point was that people believed it, because they were told to believe it, no matter the importance of the subject. add "The teapot created all life on earth" if you must. Something cannot come from nothing is logic, just like its logic that everything has a beginning. saying "Something cannot come from nothing, but I do believe an entity existed for eternal" is having double standards. The teapot argument does not state that the teapot created all life on Earth. Especially not the way your buddy Richard Dawkins uses it. It's simply an argument that states that something that cannot be observed can neither be proven nor disproven, but the onus is on the person who claims it to be there to prove that it is true. My point is that the analogy is absolutely preposterous and ignoring of all other factors regarding the belief in God. Your attempt to insult my intelligence fails, as your counter point is shallow and once again ignoring WHY people believe in God, rather than a teapot.
If NASA announced that they launched a teapot into space, but didn't supply pictures, would you believe them? You probably would...why? Because NASA told you that they did. You wouldn't need loads of pictures and photographic evidence, you would just take it on faith that they aren't so stupid as to make something like that up. So why then do you find it so illogical that the people who wrote the Bible would write down their experiences with God? If you read the Bible, you will notice that it does not glorify men, if anything, it puts them in a terrible light. So I ask you, why would a group of men write about their experiences with God, and not glorify themselves? Actually I wouldn't believe it, for the simple fact that I don't think it makes sense to shoot off a teapot makes sense, just like the concept of god (or anything else claimed in the bible for that matter) makes any sense. But you see, even IF, then there would still be people investigating the issue, and ultimatly, come out with the truth wether the teapot launched or not. Okay, so say they told you that they launched a probe into space, but didn't supply pictures. You would believe them then wouldn't you? And there would be a reason for the probe, just like there is a reason for God to exist, but not a teapot...you pretty much trapped yourself in your own logic (or lack thereof) here. By claiming that there is no need for that teapot to be launched, you prove the point that the teapot argument is completely without base.
I'll tell you what I think you're probably thinking about writing...yes, the people who wrote the Bible did it over a thousand years ago, and the old testament is even older, so their data is not reliable. Yet you are willing to believe that some scientists can dig up a rock and use an equation to figure out how many billions of years old it is, and that this calculation will be at least somewhat accurate, despite all of the assumptions used in that equation. Weird inconsistancy of faith isn't it? the key diffrence between that part of science and the bible:
Science: We have a theory that this and this and that happens this and that way, Here is our evidence that supports that theory. if we ever find evidence that changes the theory, we will change it, ultimatly finding out the truth. I've posted countless times on the science of what I believe, you are one of the people who is intent on ignoring that science...keep ignoring it, it only furthers my stereotype that atheists are the most closed minded people in the world.
Religion: This happened as fact. its true. don't question it, its true. take our word for it, honnest! That's a lovely misrepresentation of what the Bible is, but if that's what you need to tell yourself in order to keep from believing it, that's your perogative. Sure, you can go ahead and attack scientific theories over and over again like always, but there is not one theory as flawed as religion. and attacking another theory does not justify your own as truth. Like always? I attack baseless science that is based upon supposition and shaky evidence. I attack those things because they aren't good science, yet we claim to know so damn much about the universe and our origin based on these things. It's laughable that you would try to pin me down as some science attacking religious nut case...I have always posted not only reasons why current scientific theory is flawed, but also why I believe what I do. I have yet to see you posting a counterpoint that uses science to refute the things that I have posted regarding my beliefs, be my guest, I enjoy intelligent debate on these things, just ask Nasica.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Did anyone watch the film on Discovery Channel about this? I did, and I have to say it was very interesting. Does it conclusively show it is Jesus' tomb, no. Does it provide a large amount of evidence that it is? Yeah. But they can never prove that it is his tomb entirely. It still needs a good amount of research to be done, but its still an interesting story.
On a side note, if they have the mitochondrial DNA of Mary Magdaline (sp?) and the two of them had children, couldnt they find out who Christ's descendants are? That'd be interesting.
But I thought the debate they had after did a good job of highlighting the debate in general. On one hand you have people putting forth compelling evidence and on the other you have people dismissing it for no reason whatsoever (they pretty much picked it apart saying that his film sucked as opposed to putting forth different interpretations of the evidence).
I thought it was funny when they talked about how they found Caiaphas' ossuary. It basically had his name and the ossuary was more ornate than the average ossuary, yet they were able to say "This, most likely, is Caiaphas from the Bible." With Jesus, you have a tomb with 10 people, all of whom are related to him, from the same time period, etc. and no one wants to admit that it COULD be Jesus.
As for how it relates to theology... it DOESNT. Seriously. Why do people freak out about this? Why do you need to believe that Christ's body rose to heaven? Why cant you believe that it was his soul that appeared in the Resurrection and then went to heaven? Thats really all that changes. It doesnt even change his message, anyway, so if you really knew your faith you wouldnt give a damn. If anything, I would think it might be inspiring to be able to go on a pilgrimage and see his bones or whatnot. I dont think any other faith really has something that cool.
I don't think it is logical that everything has a beginning, if you say that something cannot come from nothing. If something cannot come from nothing, then there has to be something that is eternal. Whether that something is God or not is another matter. Anyway, tell me how you prove to a man born blind that sight is scientific fact and I'll drop the analogy.
A man who can see can guide a blind man. How often don't we see people with sight guiding blind people? Not to mention that its easy to recognise modern civilisation is build for people with sight as a blind person, just by walking around on the street, seeing and feeling things like cars, lamppost, and more things like that. A person with sight can say "I see a tree, I see a bird, I see a dog", a blind person can go and check by feeling and hearing those things are there.
That sounds like a great development, but it does go on to say: "One other patient who has tried the new system cannot "see" anything with it. Dobelle said the man was blinded at the age of 5, 60 years ago, and his brain may have "forgotten" how to use its visual cortex.
He added that he does not know whether the system will work for people who were born blind. "
People with sight can guide a blind man. The blind man still has to take much on faith, but over time and with more and more experience a blind man will start to understand the truth about sight if he listens to and trusts his guide. If he has it firmly in his head that sight can't exist because "you can't prove it" then he may just go on believing that vision is only imagination and fantasy - sure, he can feel and touch the dog, but then so could his "dellusional" guide. Up to this point, I'd say it was still a good analogy.
Where it falls down as an anology is that however much the blind man trusts his guide and learns about sight, he still will not ever have sight himself.
I once got into a debate with an intelligent Christian zealot and I asked him the following question:"Don't you think that man's well-being should come before god?"
He paused for a good 6-10 seconds, then replied with "What do you mean?". The point I had been trying to make to him was that human existence should be optimized and if religion were not serving that purpose then why practice it? The very notion was as foreign to him as Sanskrit.
That is one of the biggest things that separates Christianity from Islam: The former adopted a certain degree of secularity to help it's followers cope with technological evolutions, at least to a much greater degree than Islam.
The fact still remains that Christianity is based on another man's written word millennia ago: People did not have any concept of the atom, nor were they able to understand the universe to the degree that we do today due to emerging technologies. If it were not for religion's inductive effect, that is the propagation of religion from parent to offspring, there would be no religion today as there is nothing in empiricism or logic to support it.
Why do I bash religion? I bash it, because it bashes everybody else; America is still behind in some fields of science because of the religious majority's objections and I constantly need to watch my words while out in the public. I don't see any atheists/agnostics/nihilists running amuck and killing people in the name of science.
So, I ask you this: Why not keep your religious beliefs to yourselves, instead of forcing it on our children (in the form of intelligent design nowadays) and persecuting people that do not practice it? Why not consider everybody's well-being instead of only that of your beliefs?
Face the truth: Were it not for those that stepped outside of religion, you wouldn't be sitting now typing on your cozy computer or breathing (were it not for the drugs that saved your life at one time or another).
Religion doesn't have to vanish, it just has to get out of the way of progress.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Wow... this thread is still alive? I once got into a debate with an intelligent Christian zealot and I asked him the following question:"Don't you think that man's well-being should come before god?" He paused for a good 6-10 seconds, then replied with "What do you mean?". The point I had been trying to make to him was that human existence should be optimized and if religion were not serving that purpose then why practice it? The very notion was as foreign to him as Sanskrit. I think a Christian could easily look at that question from another perspective. The question would be "what do you mean by optimize? By what standard are you judging this optimization? Who's idea of well-being are you going by?". Christians will usually be of the belief that the only perspective which gives an overall picture of human well-being is from God so therefore it is a nonsense to say Man's well-being should come before God, because that is exactly what God wants for us anyway. From a Christian point of view, Man's well-being is what it's all about. That is one of the biggest things that separates Christianity from Islam: The former adopted a certain degree of secularity to help it's followers cope with technological evolutions, at least to a much greater degree than Islam. Poor, stupid Christians needed help to cope with technology? The fact still remains that Christianity is based on another man's written word millennia ago: People did not have any concept of the atom, nor were they able to understand the universe to the degree that we do today due to emerging technologies. If it were not for religion's inductive effect, that is the propagation of religion from parent to offspring, there would be no religion today as there is nothing in empiricism or logic to support it. What emerging in technology is either dealing with the "big" questions (meaning of life etc) or giving anything to people on a spiritual or moral level? Science and religion do two different jobs. I just don't get this offspring argument. Christianity, for example, started with a handful of guys. Today's Christians are not all direct decendants of those guys, so on what are you basing this statement? While there is plenty of evidence of various kinds to support Christianity, and nothing particularly illogical about it, the reason it spreads is because it rings true for people and reaches them spiritually. Maybe if people were just believing "Tales", and religion had grown in direct proportion to populous (allowing for some to drop out) you might be right. Why do I bash religion? I bash it, because it bashes everybody else; America is still behind in some fields of science because of the religious majority's objections and I constantly need to watch my words while out in the public. I don't see any atheists/agnostics/nihilists running amuck and killing people in the name of science. Wow, what's happening to America now where if you say the wrong thing some religious person will kill you? Seriously though, if a majority object to something, and it's not infringing on anyone's personal rights, you just have to put up with it in democratic systems. Who's to say their judgement is worse than yours? So, I ask you this: Why not keep your religious beliefs to yourselves, instead of forcing it on our children (in the form of intelligent design nowadays) and persecuting people that do not practice it? Why not consider everybody's well-being instead of only that of your beliefs? Forcing intelligent design to be taught as truth is as bad as forcing teaching evolution as truth, and neither is really appropriate, but both should be taught as common understandings/theories. Do go ahead and bash anyone persecuting people for not practising their beliefs - but don't bash the religion that tells them to love their neighbour and not to pass judgement. Your arguments appear to lie with a certain kind of Christian. Anyone who forces their views on others is just as bad....this is a human trait and not certainly particular to religious people. If you ever feel like a Chrisitan is judging you or persecuting you, just ask them which is the most important commandment and then talk about logs and eyes or casting first stones. Face the truth: Were it not for those that stepped outside of religion, you wouldn't be sitting now typing on your cozy computer or breathing (were it not for the drugs that saved your life at one time or another). Truth? Many scientific advancements have come from religious people. You really do seem to be under some weird impression that religion and science are directly opposed. Religion doesn't have to vanish, it just has to get out of the way of progress. "Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame." - Einstein
The teapot argument....how juvenile and base can you get? Comparing a belief that there is a teapot orbiting the Earth to a belief that there is a creator God is so rediculously shallow that I am almost amazed that people on this forum try to use it. Shame on you Richard Dawkins for making atheists think that this is an intelligent argument. First of all, the existance of all life and matter in the universe does not hinge on there being a teapot in space. There is no logical reason to NEED for there to be a teapot in space. There are several key reasons why a belief in God IS needed for the creation of all matter. This was why Einstein believed that there was some sort of creator God, though he stopped short of adhering to the idea of a personal God. Something cannot come from nothing, unless that something is eternal, in which case there is no such thing as true nothingness...enter God. I think you would actually have to try really hard to come up with an even lamer counter arguement then you just did, seriously. the point was that people believed it, because they were told to believe it, no matter the importance of the subject. add "The teapot created all life on earth" if you must. Something cannot come from nothing is logic, just like its logic that everything has a beginning. saying "Something cannot come from nothing, but I do believe an entity existed for eternal" is having double standards. The teapot argument does not state that the teapot created all life on Earth. Especially not the way your buddy Richard Dawkins uses it. It's simply an argument that states that something that cannot be observed can neither be proven nor disproven, but the onus is on the person who claims it to be there to prove that it is true. My point is that the analogy is absolutely preposterous and ignoring of all other factors regarding the belief in God. Your attempt to insult my intelligence fails, as your counter point is shallow and once again ignoring WHY people believe in God, rather than a teapot. Ah, now it makes sense, you just missed the entire point of the anology! The wholo anology is a counter arguement to the extremely overused "Well prove that he doesn't exist!" arguement. The importance of the subject does NOT MATTER ONE BIT. seriously Dreanor, your lack of logic is just plain scary sometimes. Just because some people think that the teapot is less important then god and thus have more reason to believe in god is not even part of the subject here. The only one who insulted your inteligence here is you, by showing once again your lack of logic. I recommend you first study an anology carefully first, to make sure you understand what the writer actually means before you mouth off like that. the line "add that he can create life and death" was just for the sake of arguement, because you have so much trouble understanding the point of this anology.
If NASA announced that they launched a teapot into space, but didn't supply pictures, would you believe them? You probably would...why? Because NASA told you that they did. You wouldn't need loads of pictures and photographic evidence, you would just take it on faith that they aren't so stupid as to make something like that up. So why then do you find it so illogical that the people who wrote the Bible would write down their experiences with God? If you read the Bible, you will notice that it does not glorify men, if anything, it puts them in a terrible light. So I ask you, why would a group of men write about their experiences with God, and not glorify themselves? Actually I wouldn't believe it, for the simple fact that I don't think it makes sense to shoot off a teapot makes sense, just like the concept of god (or anything else claimed in the bible for that matter) makes any sense. But you see, even IF, then there would still be people investigating the issue, and ultimatly, come out with the truth wether the teapot launched or not. Okay, so say they told you that they launched a probe into space, but didn't supply pictures. You would believe them then wouldn't you? And there would be a reason for the probe, just like there is a reason for God to exist, but not a teapot...you pretty much trapped yourself in your own logic (or lack thereof) here. By claiming that there is no need for that teapot to be launched, you prove the point that the teapot argument is completely without base. You once again show your extreme lack of logic right there. you once again missed the point again. the importance of the subject does NOT matter, the anology about the teapot was the fact that people believe in god because some people justify it by thinking "Well as long as there is no proof he doesn't exist, he does exist!".
I'll tell you what I think you're probably thinking about writing...yes, the people who wrote the Bible did it over a thousand years ago, and the old testament is even older, so their data is not reliable. Yet you are willing to believe that some scientists can dig up a rock and use an equation to figure out how many billions of years old it is, and that this calculation will be at least somewhat accurate, despite all of the assumptions used in that equation. Weird inconsistancy of faith isn't it? the key diffrence between that part of science and the bible:
Science: We have a theory that this and this and that happens this and that way, Here is our evidence that supports that theory. if we ever find evidence that changes the theory, we will change it, ultimatly finding out the truth. I've posted countless times on the science of what I believe, you are one of the people who is intent on ignoring that science...keep ignoring it, it only furthers my stereotype that atheists are the most closed minded people in the world. haha, that made me laugh for a bit, thats hypocricy right there). I have never ignored that science, sorry for you. But if anything, then Atheists are much more open minded then religious people are in general. for this simple fact, Science continues to do research to find out the truth, constantly asking questions, Religion is just it. No change, its fact, and everything that says otherwise is wrong.
Religion: This happened as fact. its true. don't question it, its true. take our word for it, honnest! That's a lovely misrepresentation of what the Bible is, but if that's what you need to tell yourself in order to keep from believing it, that's your perogative. I know perfectly well what the bible is, thank you, But that does not take away that those are claims the bible makes. this is fact by the way. The Bible is more then just a book about "Love and peace".
Sure, you can go ahead and attack scientific theories over and over again like always, but there is not one theory as flawed as religion. and attacking another theory does not justify your own as truth. Like always? I attack baseless science that is based upon supposition and shaky evidence. I attack those things because they aren't good science, yet we claim to know so damn much about the universe and our origin based on these things. It's laughable that you would try to pin me down as some science attacking religious nut case...I have always posted not only reasons why current scientific theory is flawed, but also why I believe what I do. I have yet to see you posting a counterpoint that uses science to refute the things that I have posted regarding my beliefs, be my guest, I enjoy intelligent debate on these things, just ask Nasica. Yes, like always.how many times haven't we seen you ranting about Evolution and the Big Bang theory and how its all flawed. Its easy to point out how flawed many things claimed in the bible are by simply pointing out the lack of evidence and absurd claims.
Just a simple one, do you believe the story of the ark of noah actually happened?
Comments
its the exact same thing really.
Well not exactly. How many examples can you find of people claiming some kind of spiritual fulfillment from this teapot?
Try typing the "teapot testimony" into google, then try "christian testimony". If there were anything like as many for the teapot, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that there might be something in this whole teapot thing.
If you were born blind, would the burden of proof be on all the people who could see to prove to you that this weird thing called "sight" existed? You could always quote Russell's teapot story to them.
its the exact same thing really.
Well not exactly. How many examples can you find of people claiming some kind of spiritual fulfillment from this teapot?
Try typing the "teapot testimony" into google, then try "christian testimony". If there were anything like as many for the teapot, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that there might be something in this whole teapot thing.
If you were born blind, would the burden of proof be on all the people who could see to prove to you that this weird thing called "sight" existed? You could always quote Russell's teapot story to them.
The burden of proof would lie with the person making the outrageous claim. In the case of a blind man saying sight doesn't exist, he would carry the burden.https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
It might not seem outrageous to the blind man - he can't even imagine what sight might be. Why would it be outrageous?
its the exact same thing really.
Well not exactly. How many examples can you find of people claiming some kind of spiritual fulfillment from this teapot?
Try typing the "teapot testimony" into google, then try "christian testimony". If there were anything like as many for the teapot, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that there might be something in this whole teapot thing.
If you were born blind, would the burden of proof be on all the people who could see to prove to you that this weird thing called "sight" existed? You could always quote Russell's teapot story to them.
The burden of proof would lie with the person making the outrageous claim. In the case of a blind man saying sight doesn't exist, he would carry the burden.What if I find that the outrageous claim to be that there is no God?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
its the exact same thing really.
Well not exactly. How many examples can you find of people claiming some kind of spiritual fulfillment from this teapot?
Try typing the "teapot testimony" into google, then try "christian testimony". If there were anything like as many for the teapot, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that there might be something in this whole teapot thing.
If you were born blind, would the burden of proof be on all the people who could see to prove to you that this weird thing called "sight" existed? You could always quote Russell's teapot story to them.
the spirital fufillment, as in, it makes people feel better in an emotional way, is just another word for imagination, or fantasy. the reason why you won't find "Teapot testimony" is because you missed one important word in Russels article, and thats the word "If". The teapot thing was never taught at schools or churches."sight" as in another word for imagination and fantasy?
JESUS WAS A PEDOPHILE!
I CREATED MYSELF!
"<Claus|Dev> i r pk"
SW:TOR|War40K:DMO|GW2
"sight" as in another word for imagination and fantasy?
Well lets take as an example, somebody feels better because he/she thinks (while from that character perspective, think=know) angels are watching over him/her, or that that person has seen angels once. That could be described as fantasy and imagination."sight" as in another word for imagination and fantasy?
Well lets take as an example, somebody feels better because he/she thinks (while from that character perspective, think=know) angels are watching over him/her, or that that person has seen angels once. That could be described as fantasy and imagination.I think you might be missing my meaning.
To the man born blind, those who talk about being able to see are just imagining it.
"sight" as in another word for imagination and fantasy?
Well lets take as an example, somebody feels better because he/she thinks (while from that character perspective, think=know) angels are watching over him/her, or that that person has seen angels once. That could be described as fantasy and imagination.I think you might be missing my meaning.
To the man born blind, those who talk about being able to see are just imagining it.
I don't like this blind analogy. His lack of vision can be empirically explained, where God cannot.https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
"sight" as in another word for imagination and fantasy?
Well lets take as an example, somebody feels better because he/she thinks (while from that character perspective, think=know) angels are watching over him/her, or that that person has seen angels once. That could be described as fantasy and imagination.I think you might be missing my meaning.
To the man born blind, those who talk about being able to see are just imagining it.
Yes, I indeed misunderstood your post heh.the problem with that, is that a thing like "sight" is scientific fact. its right there, its proven.
The teapot argument....how juvenile and base can you get?
Comparing a belief that there is a teapot orbiting the Earth to a belief that there is a creator God is so rediculously shallow that I am almost amazed that people on this forum try to use it. Shame on you Richard Dawkins for making atheists think that this is an intelligent argument.
First of all, the existance of all life and matter in the universe does not hinge on there being a teapot in space. There is no logical reason to NEED for there to be a teapot in space. There are several key reasons why a belief in God IS needed for the creation of all matter. This was why Einstein believed that there was some sort of creator God, though he stopped short of adhering to the idea of a personal God. Something cannot come from nothing, unless that something is eternal, in which case there is no such thing as true nothingness...enter God.
If NASA announced that they launched a teapot into space, but didn't supply pictures, would you believe them? You probably would...why? Because NASA told you that they did. You wouldn't need loads of pictures and photographic evidence, you would just take it on faith that they aren't so stupid as to make something like that up. So why then do you find it so illogical that the people who wrote the Bible would write down their experiences with God? If you read the Bible, you will notice that it does not glorify men, if anything, it puts them in a terrible light. So I ask you, why would a group of men write about their experiences with God, and not glorify themselves?
I'll tell you what I think you're probably thinking about writing...yes, the people who wrote the Bible did it over a thousand years ago, and the old testament is even older, so their data is not reliable. Yet you are willing to believe that some scientists can dig up a rock and use an equation to figure out how many billions of years old it is, and that this calculation will be at least somewhat accurate, despite all of the assumptions used in that equation. Weird inconsistancy of faith isn't it?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I don't think it is logical that everything has a beginning, if you say that something cannot come from nothing. If something cannot come from nothing, then there has to be something that is eternal. Whether that something is God or not is another matter.
Anyway, tell me how you prove to a man born blind that sight is scientific fact and I'll drop the analogy.
and besides.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,33691,00.html
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I'm not even gonna bother looking up where that was, I know he said it
Did anyone watch the film on Discovery Channel about this? I did, and I have to say it was very interesting. Does it conclusively show it is Jesus' tomb, no. Does it provide a large amount of evidence that it is? Yeah. But they can never prove that it is his tomb entirely. It still needs a good amount of research to be done, but its still an interesting story.
On a side note, if they have the mitochondrial DNA of Mary Magdaline (sp?) and the two of them had children, couldnt they find out who Christ's descendants are? That'd be interesting.
But I thought the debate they had after did a good job of highlighting the debate in general. On one hand you have people putting forth compelling evidence and on the other you have people dismissing it for no reason whatsoever (they pretty much picked it apart saying that his film sucked as opposed to putting forth different interpretations of the evidence).
I thought it was funny when they talked about how they found Caiaphas' ossuary. It basically had his name and the ossuary was more ornate than the average ossuary, yet they were able to say "This, most likely, is Caiaphas from the Bible." With Jesus, you have a tomb with 10 people, all of whom are related to him, from the same time period, etc. and no one wants to admit that it COULD be Jesus.
As for how it relates to theology... it DOESNT. Seriously. Why do people freak out about this? Why do you need to believe that Christ's body rose to heaven? Why cant you believe that it was his soul that appeared in the Resurrection and then went to heaven? Thats really all that changes. It doesnt even change his message, anyway, so if you really knew your faith you wouldnt give a damn. If anything, I would think it might be inspiring to be able to go on a pilgrimage and see his bones or whatnot. I dont think any other faith really has something that cool.
A man who can see can guide a blind man. How often don't we see people with sight guiding blind people? Not to mention that its easy to recognise modern civilisation is build for people with sight as a blind person, just by walking around on the street, seeing and feeling things like cars, lamppost, and more things like that. A person with sight can say "I see a tree, I see a bird, I see a dog", a blind person can go and check by feeling and hearing those things are there.
and besides.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,33691,00.html
That sounds like a great development, but it does go on to say: "One other patient who has tried the new system cannot "see" anything with it. Dobelle said the man was blinded at the age of 5, 60 years ago, and his brain may have "forgotten" how to use its visual cortex.
He added that he does not know whether the system will work for people who were born blind. "
People with sight can guide a blind man. The blind man still has to take much on faith, but over time and with more and more experience a blind man will start to understand the truth about sight if he listens to and trusts his guide. If he has it firmly in his head that sight can't exist because "you can't prove it" then he may just go on believing that vision is only imagination and fantasy - sure, he can feel and touch the dog, but then so could his "dellusional" guide. Up to this point, I'd say it was still a good analogy.
Where it falls down as an anology is that however much the blind man trusts his guide and learns about sight, he still will not ever have sight himself.
Wow... this thread is still alive?
I once got into a debate with an intelligent Christian zealot and I asked him the following question:"Don't you think that man's well-being should come before god?"
He paused for a good 6-10 seconds, then replied with "What do you mean?". The point I had been trying to make to him was that human existence should be optimized and if religion were not serving that purpose then why practice it? The very notion was as foreign to him as Sanskrit.
That is one of the biggest things that separates Christianity from Islam: The former adopted a certain degree of secularity to help it's followers cope with technological evolutions, at least to a much greater degree than Islam.
The fact still remains that Christianity is based on another man's written word millennia ago: People did not have any concept of the atom, nor were they able to understand the universe to the degree that we do today due to emerging technologies. If it were not for religion's inductive effect, that is the propagation of religion from parent to offspring, there would be no religion today as there is nothing in empiricism or logic to support it.
Why do I bash religion? I bash it, because it bashes everybody else; America is still behind in some fields of science because of the religious majority's objections and I constantly need to watch my words while out in the public. I don't see any atheists/agnostics/nihilists running amuck and killing people in the name of science.
So, I ask you this: Why not keep your religious beliefs to yourselves, instead of forcing it on our children (in the form of intelligent design nowadays) and persecuting people that do not practice it? Why not consider everybody's well-being instead of only that of your beliefs?
Face the truth: Were it not for those that stepped outside of religion, you wouldn't be sitting now typing on your cozy computer or breathing (were it not for the drugs that saved your life at one time or another).
Religion doesn't have to vanish, it just has to get out of the way of progress.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.