It's so retarded.

This specifically:
Natural selection and similar scientific theories are superior to a "God hypothesis" — the illusion of intelligent design — in explaining the living world and the cosmos.

WHAT THE FU[font=verdana]CK[/font] DOES NATURAL SELECTION HAVE TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF CREATION

of course that could just be some idiot on wikipedia's poor wording.

Intelligent design is not compatible with evolution. Of course he going to think his train of thought is superior. If he didn't why would he believe it.

But Evolution is a faulty and commonly half-hearted theory in the first place. And still doesn't answer where the species that evolved came from in the first place.

I'm a science-leaning question but it doesnt answer everything. Douchebags like Dawkins have to stop being so bent on killing faith for those that have it. Just because he's a miserable cunt-rag doesn't mean he has the right to take anything away from anyone.

Militant Atheism is as annoying as militant Christianity.

[QUOTE=Cocaine;15652044]But Evolution is a faulty and commonly half-hearted theory in the first place. And still doesn't answer where the species that evolved came from in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Thats why its being researched, and yet still is highly supported. Feel free to explain a better theory.
[QUOTE]I'm a science-leaning question but it doesnt answer everything. Douchebags like Dawkins have to stop being so bent on killing faith for those that have it. Just because he's a miserable cunt-rag doesn't mean he has the right to take anything away from anyone.[/QUOTE]

Ad hominem attacks are critical to a well though out argument.

[QUOTE]Ad hominem attacks are critical to a well though out argument.[/QUOTE]
Tell that to every single critical thinking professor and philosopher in the world then.

[QUOTE=Cocaine;15652057]Tell that to every single critical thinking professor and philosopher in the world then.[/QUOTE]

Strawman.

[QUOTE=guitrguy;15652039]Intelligent design is not compatible with evolution. Of course he going to think his train of thought is superior. If he didn't why would he believe it.[/QUOTE]

So what the hell does that have at all to do with the origin of existence?

Having no faith is arguably a sign of lesser intelligence than having faith is.

[QUOTE=i am the robots;15652068]So what the hell does that have at all to do with the origin of existence?[/QUOTE]
Matter in general or life?

[QUOTE=guitrguy;15652061]Strawman.[/QUOTE]

Arguing that a person is faulty rather than their logic is stupid and never, ever, ever crucial to an argument.

And what about Strawman? Odd that you'd mention a diversionary tactic in an attempt to ignore my statement.

You're drawing focus away from the argument in attempt to avoid defending your assertion.

[QUOTE=guitrguy;15652078]You're drawing focus away from the argument in attempt to avoid question.[/QUOTE]

What question was I ignoring?

I said:

[QUOTE]I'm a science-leaning question but it doesnt answer everything. Douchebags like Dawkins have to stop being so bent on killing faith for those that have it. Just because he's a miserable squirrel-rag doesn't mean he has the right to take anything away from anyone.[/QUOTE]

To which you replied:

[QUOTE]Ad hominem attacks are critical to a well though out argument.[/QUOTE]

Which is false and frankly a little silly.

You strayed the argument elsewhere, not me.

[QUOTE=guitrguy;15652074]Matter in general or life?[/QUOTE]

Matter in general and life, lol.

That would be the big bang theory, and its further cyclical models. The author of that passage misspoke.

[url]http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15652083&postcount=24380[/url]

cause of page bump.

The Big Bang does not explain the origin of matter.

Okay then. We all know the big bang, care to elaborate on it in any way that disproves the concept of a creator?
[QUOTE=Permanent Solution;15652090]The Big Bang does not explain the origin of matter.[/QUOTE]
:lol: thank you.

I'm not going to address informal fallacy.

[QUOTE=Permanent Solution;15652090]The Big Bang does not explain the origin of matter.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. That's the one thing that you can never, ever account for. And with that, you can just jump back to it being part of intelligent design; not that I would, Im agnostic, leaning towards neither atheism or theism slants of said thought.

[QUOTE]I'm not going to address informal fallacy.[/QUOTE]
Then why would you bring it up? Ad hominem is immature and used only when the arguer has run out of an actual argument. Unless you're Bill O'Reilly and can cut your opponents mic, it's hardly vital to a solid argument, in fact I'd say it's the opposite.

[QUOTE=guitrguy;15652093]I'm not going to address informal fallacy.[/QUOTE]

lol who avoids what?

[QUOTE=Permanent Solution;15652090]The Big Bang does not explain the origin of matter.[/QUOTE]

But its cyclical off shoots do, being that it re-introduces infinite regress.

[QUOTE=guitrguy;15652103]But its cyclical off shoots do, being that it re-introduces infinite regress.[/QUOTE]

They still dont explain the original. The cycle had to start from something, but where did that something come from? "It was just there" is hardly enough to disprove anything.

[QUOTE]
Then why would you bring it up? Ad hominem is immature and used only when the arguer has run out of an actual argument. Unless you're Bill O'Reilly and can cut your opponents mic, it's hardly vital to a solid argument, in fact I'd say it's the opposite.[/QUOTE]

Good job picking up the sarcasm pointing out what you did.

[QUOTE=Cocaine;15652108]They still dont explain the original. The cycle had to start from something, but where did that something come from? "It was just there" is hardly enough to disprove anything.[/QUOTE]

The critical part is infinite regress, which means there is no point of beginning. You seem to think I believe it as fact, yet I refer to it as theory.

[QUOTE=guitrguy;15652111]Good job picking up the sarcasm pointing out what you did.[/QUOTE]

Sorry there Yoda you'll have to clarify.

[QUOTE=guitrguy;15652103]But its cyclical off shoots do, being that it re-introduces infinite regress.[/QUOTE]
To my knowledge there is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter.

That all aside, there is not way to scientifically disprove god so this is all a silly argument anyways. Whether or not you believe in a god has no bearing on your intelligence. Nor should it have any bearing on how others treat you, though it does unfortunately.

I was pointing out who you were basing that statement in ad hominem rhetoric.

Nice addition to the ad hominens you've used.

[QUOTE=guitrguy;15652121]I was pointing out who you were basing that statement in ad hominem rhetoric.

Nice addition to the ad hominens you've used.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but see calling you Yoda wasnt used in an argument, it was used in a request :)

[QUOTE=Permanent Solution;15652119]To my knowledge there is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter.

That all aside, there is not way to scientifically disprove god so this is all a silly argument anyways. Whether or not you believe in a god has no bearing on your intelligence. Nor should it have any bearing on how others treat you, though it does unfortunately.[/QUOTE]
Infinite regress component.

Tyler has already misconstrued my point. I'm bring up the other side and how it is supported. I know full and well God can neither be prove or disproved. Dawkin's works does get a little heavy handed, but if you are going to convey a religious belief and support it, it naturally gets a little bit heavy. Thats no reason to completly discredit him and his ideas.

[QUOTE=guitrguy;15652136]Infinite regress component.

Tyler has already misconstrued my point. I'm bring up the other side and how it is supported. I know full and well God can neither be prove or disproved. Dawkin's works does get a little heavy handed, but if you are going to convey a religious belief and support it, it naturally gets a little bit heavy. Thats no reason to completly discredit him and his ideas.[/QUOTE]
Infinite regress would, to my understanding, state that you don't need to know why matter exists to study it. But it still doesn't explain why it exists.

I heard a voice through the discord
A deluge of passersby
I saw one gaze frozen in time
Watching me passing by

And I swear I'll know your face in the crowd
And I'll hear your voice so loud
When you're whispering

Hey unfaithful I will teach you
To be stronger, to be stronger
Hey ungraceful I will teach you
To forgive one another.

Here's my kiss to betray (Kiss to betray)
Desperate to brush the lips of grace (Brush the lips of grace)
Do you feel hollow when you think of how I lied?

Oh sweet angel of mercy
With your grace like the morning
Wrap your loving arms around me
Oh sweet angel of mercy
With your grace like the morning
Wrap your loving arms around me

Hey unfaithful I will teach you
To be stronger, to be stronger
Hey ungraceful I will teach you
To forgive one another

Hey unfaithful I will teach you
To be stronger, to be stronger
Hey unloving
I will love you
I will love you
I will love you

And Jesus I'm ready to come home
Jesus, I'm ready to come home(home)
home (home)
I'm ready to come (home)
Hey Unfaithful
Hey Ungraceful
Hey Unloving
I will love you
Hey Unloving (Hey Unloving)
I will love you

[QUOTE=Permanent Solution;15652140]Infinite regress would, to my understanding, state that you don't need to know why matter exists to study it. But it still doesn't explain why it exists.[/QUOTE]
What's the reason to attached why, if you don't believe in a prime mover?

Curiosity to know the origin of existence?

Questioning how leads to understanding of existence. Questioning why is attempting to find meaning.

Okay then. Could I ask an honest question?

Why the hell is there such a stupid [font=verdana]fuc[/font]king crusade to disprove any meaning to life?

Its not to disprove meaning to life. Meaning of life is given to life by the individual living it.

Why is there such a crusade to disprove the existence of God?

Belief |||||| Logic


Two separate things.

Uh... couldn't you also just ask why is there such a crusade to prove his existence? It's not a one way street here.

I agree with that 100% as well.

[QUOTE=Kage;15652233]Belief |||||| Logic


Two separate things.[/QUOTE]

this.