UFC most masculine fighters?

iu
 
Chael_Sonnen said:
Not in this day and age. I don't hold ancients to the same standards, that would be stupid. In this day and age we have access to far more information, and with the advent of the internet any semi-critical thinker should be able to come to conclusions about the lack of evidence relating to a god.

Let me rephrase my statement.

"You are less masculine if you worship a sky daddy". You can still be pretty damn masculine, but a tad less so because of it.
Click to expand...
Not to turn this into a debate but when an atheist like you asks for proof of God one could similarly say where is the proof of NO God? Doesn’t believing you popped into existence out of nothing require tremendous faith?
 
Bumhead said:
Not to turn this into a debate but when an atheist like you asks for proof of God one could similarly say where is the proof of NO God? Doesn’t believing you popped into existence out of nothing require tremendous faith?
Click to expand...
I appreciate the debate bro, no worries. And to be fair I probably started it.
To answer your point, no, it doesn't take faith to believe I popped into existence, simply because we did not in fact, pop into existence.
The big bang is a highly plausible theory, with a lot of evidence to back it up.
We know how evolution works, we have historical evidence for human evolution as well.

I concede we do not know exactly why the big bang happened, however 200 years ago we didn't know that bacteria existed. Every "miracle" previously attributed to god has been found to be explained by science, and such I have no doubt that in time, the wonders of how the big bang started will too be revealed. This is what you would call a "god of the gaps" argument, which means that evidence for god lies in the gaps of our scientific understanding. This is a flawed argument in general, because the gaps have been shrinking and shrinking, and the goalposts of faith have been moved countless times. In my opinion it takes much more faith to believe that our current life (the existence thing) if the work of a deity, than it does to look around and see most of it already explained by science, something you can logic and reason your way through, with physical evidence to back it up, and repeatability.

The problem with the whole "proof of no god" is that the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.
Now, you might say that I am making a claim that there is no god. Well yes, but just like me making a claim that there is a flying bowl of tomato soup whizzing around new york at Mach 1, you would make your claim back that that doesn't exist.

Seeing as I am the one making the claim, and you are simply asking for evidence that it exists, the original burden of proof lies on me, to atleast provide some evidence.

Once I have provided an amount of evidence, enough for there to be a solid foundation, then the burden switches onto both of us to back up our respective viewpoints. Until that point though, until you provide a foundation of evidence (and I mean proper scientific evidence) then you are still the one that needs to provide the evidence.

Sorry for the wall of text, I hope this is somewhat legible.
 
Chael_Sonnen said:
I appreciate the debate bro, no worries. And to be fair I probably started it.
To answer your point, no, it doesn't take faith to believe I popped into existence, simply because we did not in fact, pop into existence.
The big bang is a highly plausible theory, with a lot of evidence to back it up.
We know how evolution works, we have historical evidence for human evolution as well.

I concede we do not know exactly why the big bang happened, however 200 years ago we didn't know that bacteria existed. Every "miracle" previously attributed to god has been found to be explained by science, and such I have no doubt that in time, the wonders of how the big bang started will too be revealed. This is what you would call a "god of the gaps" argument, which means that evidence for god lies in the gaps of our scientific understanding. This is a flawed argument in general, because the gaps have been shrinking and shrinking, and the goalposts of faith have been moved countless times. In my opinion it takes much more faith to believe that our current life (the existence thing) if the work of a deity, than it does to look around and see most of it already explained by science, something you can logic and reason your way through, with physical evidence to back it up, and repeatability.

The problem with the whole "proof of no god" is that the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.
Now, you might say that I am making a claim that there is no god. Well yes, but just like me making a claim that there is a flying bowl of tomato soup whizzing around new york at Mach 1, you would make your claim back that that doesn't exist.

Seeing as I am the one making the claim, and you are simply asking for evidence that it exists, the original burden of proof lies on me, to atleast provide some evidence.

Once I have provided an amount of evidence, enough for there to be a solid foundation, then the burden switches onto both of us to back up our respective viewpoints. Until that point though, until you provide a foundation of evidence (and I mean proper scientific evidence) then you are still the one that needs to provide the evidence.

Sorry for the wall of text, I hope this is somewhat legible.
Click to expand...

Excellent explanation Shale, but I still cannot let you get close to me.
 
link67 said:
mqdefault.jpg


-Beard, check
-Jacked, check
-Shades, check
-Berserker fighting style that pleases the JBL Gods, check
-Fuckin Thor's hammer chest tattoo, check.
Click to expand...

I like that shades was on the list.:D
 
Ironnik94 said:
Haha, geil!

Find man merkt aber wenn der spielt dass der mal mega gut war... der läuft jedes Spiel mittlerweile (oder bis vor 2-3 Jahren) nur 250 meter, aber spielt halt quasi keine Fehlpässe, ahnt Alles perfekt vorraus usw.. achso und die Freistöße sind halt nach wie vor Sahne!<45>
Click to expand...

Ja das mit dem Laufen kommt vom Rauchen.
 
Dan Severn, Don Frye, Josh Barnett, they don't make men like that anymore. Not in this victimhood society. They'd be called racist on social media just on appearance alone.
 
Chael_Sonnen said:
I appreciate the debate bro, no worries. And to be fair I probably started it.
To answer your point, no, it doesn't take faith to believe I popped into existence, simply because we did not in fact, pop into existence.
The big bang is a highly plausible theory, with a lot of evidence to back it up.
We know how evolution works, we have historical evidence for human evolution as well.

I concede we do not know exactly why the big bang happened, however 200 years ago we didn't know that bacteria existed. Every "miracle" previously attributed to god has been found to be explained by science, and such I have no doubt that in time, the wonders of how the big bang started will too be revealed. This is what you would call a "god of the gaps" argument, which means that evidence for god lies in the gaps of our scientific understanding. This is a flawed argument in general, because the gaps have been shrinking and shrinking, and the goalposts of faith have been moved countless times. In my opinion it takes much more faith to believe that our current life (the existence thing) if the work of a deity, than it does to look around and see most of it already explained by science, something you can logic and reason your way through, with physical evidence to back it up, and repeatability.

The problem with the whole "proof of no god" is that the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.
Now, you might say that I am making a claim that there is no god. Well yes, but just like me making a claim that there is a flying bowl of tomato soup whizzing around new york at Mach 1, you would make your claim back that that doesn't exist.

Seeing as I am the one making the claim, and you are simply asking for evidence that it exists, the original burden of proof lies on me, to atleast provide some evidence.

Once I have provided an amount of evidence, enough for there to be a solid foundation, then the burden switches onto both of us to back up our respective viewpoints. Until that point though, until you provide a foundation of evidence (and I mean proper scientific evidence) then you are still the one that needs to provide the evidence.

Sorry for the wall of text, I hope this is somewhat legible.
Click to expand...


No worries. Thanks for the well thought out response.
The problem I have is - how far back do you want to go? Let’s say in time science discovers what caused the Big Bang (I think u likely but let’s go with it) - I yoo believe in the Big Bang but the causation for me is God. The problem you have with trying to explain further back is eventually all things must have an originator ie God. Otherwise I don’t think it makes sense to have infinite universes without any cause; each causing and banging and crunching by themselves.

You have your opinion of creation but I believe the very concept of creation is from God. Else as you said, it would be implausible for example for a bowl of spaghetti to be flying around New York. As implausible as God may seem to you, believing we(the universe) popped into existence out of randomness or anything other than God seems implausible to me.

That, and working in the scientific/medical field has opened my mind to a whole host of straight up awe-inspiring things which have reaffirmed my belief in intelligent design. Things such as the blood clotting cascade and the components of the eye which cannot function without lots of intricate and purposeful components being present all at the same time. This is observable and demonstrable in today’s world. The theory of evolution contradicts this because it’s highly,highly implausible, downright impossible that we developed these amazing things sequentially over time because we wouldn’t be alive. I’m not sure I conveyed it correctly but the phenomenon is alluded to as irreducible complexity.

thanks again for the well thought out response instead of the typical Sherbro response I expected :D In the end we have to have integrity toward ourselves - does it make sense? Can I believe in said explanation? You’ve clearly thought about it in detail
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,099
Messages
55,467,560
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top