American Christians, do you feel persecuted?

[Mandalore]

If God were to exist, he would have to have been created. Which puts all theists at the same square as Atheists. The difference being that God would necessarily be far more complex to create than the universe, increasing the odds against the creation of God.

[[m'kay]]

If God were to exist, he would have to have been created. Which puts all theists at the same square as Atheists. The difference being that God would necessarily be far more complex to create than the universe, increasing the odds against the creation of God.

Of course, that's assuming that the universe is actually all that complicated. To us? Hell yes it is, there's all sorts of [poo] we don't understand, but look at it this way - we make video games, yeah? The characters in the video games, if they were sentient, would look around trying to find out all the rules of their world, and be astounded at each new discovery. But on our end, the solutions are obvious, and we know that in actuality every explanation they come up with is just some abstract understanding of the underlying code. It's an old argument, but it still applies to thinking like this. In this case, God would be some sort of all-knowing AI that is creating the parameters for the universe itself. Sort of like if we made a really complex 4X game, an AI would have to simulate each civilization from the beginning of time to the starting point of the game proper.

In a certain way, it's a lot like the Menger sponge. If we existed on a two dimensional plane, the Menger sponge would be the largest thing in the world merely by existing. It would be infinite, impossible to destroy, and equally impossible to create by our two dimensional standards. However, in the third dimension, the Menger sponge has absolutely zero volume - it, in fact, does not exist! In the same way, this incredibly complex universe might very well be downright simple to create by a fourth dimensional being. Were we created by something? Honestly, it's the most likely circumstance. But the mystery of what that something is will never, ever be solved. The first dimension will never come into contact with the second, the second with the third, or the third with the fourth. All speculation on that front is meaningless, because any existence on a level that could create us would consider us nothing more than goldfish at the very most.

Well unless he's some creepy [m'kay]. Then we might just be an entire universe that exists for some kind of [m'kay] up 4D porn website. Who knows!

[Col. Hstar]

You see, you assume that adherents to evolutionist philosophy depend on blind chance. This is simply not true; multiple discoveries have been made adding to and helping the Theory of Evolution adapt to accommodate new evidence. Fossil records, study of bacteria mutations (in medicine, etc.), and speculation as to certain species acquired traits. Evolution as it is is not accepted as solid truth, but the scientific community (as a majority) accepts that explanations stemming from Darwinists as to the origins of life are the most accurate posed hitherto.

Then explain the first process. How out of nothing life "eventually" came to be in the universe. Leave the fossil records and bacteria findings behind, where did those come from? Where and how did it all began?

This is my point. You're so desperate to not seem as if you're putting faith in blind chance that you say "no wait we have this scientific finding that gives more evidence it could have happened." But in the end you don't have and answer to the very first question: How did everything start? The truth is no one knows, so no er who or what we believe, everything is based on a leap of faith

[Darth Crater]

Not knowing how the universe began (I agree, we don't; quite possibly we literally cannot) or how life began (we have several competing theories) does not mean we can't know anything about anything. You're moving the goalposts - a theory describing the changes taking place in life on Earth does not and should not address the beginning of life or of the universe. It isn't dogma dependent on an atheist viewpoint - it stands alone based on evidence.

At its most basic, science looks at the universe, describes it, and attempts to predict it. That is the theory of evolution - the most descriptive explanation available for how species develop and change, and the one that best predicts new results.

[Col. Hstar]

You're moving the goalposts - a theory describing the changes taking place in life on Earth does not and should not address the beginning of life or of the universe. It isn't dogma dependent on an atheist viewpoint - it stands alone based on evidence.

At its most basic, science looks at the universe, describes it, and attempts to predict it. That is the theory of evolution - the most descriptive explanation available for how species develop and change, and the one that best predicts new results.

Science does not predict, it confirms. A prediction is a theory until proved by science. You're scoring the goal before taking the shot.
My point is not discussing evolution vs creation. That was the other thread and we all know how that turned out. This thread is about atheists and theists feeling persecuted by each other. When someone calls people who don't believe in evolution ignorant (see outriders post) it's best to point out where both sides really stand, and my point is that both side must show a degree of faith in something. Theists put faith in God that he set everything in motion, Atheist believe that it all just started, and that the answers are out there.

[[m'kay]]

You know, usually when people are completely incompatible at debating, they stop. You two are arguing different points, with different criteria for credibility, and different ways of expressing the ideas you believe. You have done this for the past few goddamned [m'kay] months. Let me be very clear - it's gotten bad enough that, were I a moderator of these forums, I would give damn near everyone who posts in these threads a week long vacation every time they continue these pointless, bullheaded arguments. You are not reaching any conclusions at all. You are wasting everyone's [m'kay] time. When I said in one of the earlier, completely indistinguishable threads about spending my time more effectively by staring at a wall, that wasn't a joke. And no, you don't get to sit there and go with the usual "oh well i'm reaffirming my beliefs by defending them" [poo]. You guys are far, far past the point where that argument possesses even the scantest shred of merit. How long has it been, exactly? Do you guys enjoy [poo] up every single thread? Because it's not as if you lot even manage to keep this kind of stupid, pointless [poo] in these threads, they invariably leak out into other, less terrible threads because someone decides they can get all clever.

What i'm saying is, for the love of god, stop. You guys are getting [m'kay] unbearable with this [poo]. All this is is a battle of semantics, if not a competition to see who has the least valuable time in the [m'kay] world. Please. Stop.

[Mandalore]

Not sure what point you were trying to get across to me Narg with the post before last. I'm in agreement that the universe is probably far more simplistic than it appears. I also believe it is finite.

[[m'kay]]

Not sure what point you were trying to get across to me Narg with the post before last. I'm in agreement that the universe is probably far more simplistic than it appears. I also believe it is finite.

I was just speculating out loud, because it seemed like a better use of my time than screaming incoherently at everyone. Then I did it anyway. [m'kay] everyone I win.

[Outrider]

Science does not predict, it confirms. A prediction is a theory until proved by science. You're scoring the goal before taking the shot.

The Standard Model of particle physics predicted the existence of the Higgs Boson long before it was physically detected. The astronomer Alexis Bouvard predicted the existence and location of the planet Neptune before it was physically observed. Science does predict, and it does it very accurately, too.

This thread is about atheists and theists feeling persecuted by each other.

Not all atheists are scientists, and not all theists are Christians. This means that persecution can and does happen exclusively among atheists and theists and not necessarily from one to the other.

When someone calls people who don't believe in evolution ignorant (see outriders post) it's best to point out where both sides really stand, and my point is that both side must show a degree of faith in something. Theists put faith in God that he set everything in motion, Atheist believe that it all just started, and that the answers are out there.

If you really do understand the processes of evolution (and I highly doubt you do), then you would know that the theory holds up very well to rigorous scientific scrutiny, just like cell theory, atomic theory, and quantum theory. And what do you do say to Christians who accept that evolution is compatible with God? They aren't real Christians? They don't exist? Because it sure does seem that way since you are persistently lumping all Christians (and theists) into the same anti-evolution stance.

[CommanderOtto]

You're moving the goalposts - a theory describing the changes taking place in life on Earth does not and should not address the beginning of life or of the universe. It isn't dogma dependent on an atheist viewpoint - it stands alone based on evidence.

At its most basic, science looks at the universe, describes it, and attempts to predict it. That is the theory of evolution - the most descriptive explanation available for how species develop and change, and the one that best predicts new results.

Science does not predict, it confirms. A prediction is a theory until proved by science. You're scoring the goal before taking the shot.
My point is not discussing evolution vs creation. That was the other thread and we all know how that turned out. This thread is about atheists and theists feeling persecuted by each other. When someone calls people who don't believe in evolution ignorant (see outriders post) it's best to point out where both sides really stand, and my point is that both side must show a degree of faith in something. Theists put faith in God that he set everything in motion, Atheist believe that it all just started, and that the answers are out there.

agreed