British fear 'American-style' healthcare system

But even according to your logic, your way of thinking you would need evidence to support that assertion and you don't have any.
I always like using radio waves, UV rays, and other forces invisible to us up until the last century. During the 16th century there was absolutely no way to prove any of this existed, no instrumentation to acquire data but these things still existed. I personally don't have the knowledge nor I pressume to know whether there is a personal God who is interested in our lives but I still allow for the possibility not the certainity that there is more to human existence than what we currently know. Present knowledge is finite and we won't know until we know.

 

You're trying excessively hard. I'm not DB, Andrae. Remember that.

And your reasoning doesn't really support your claims. Back in the day, yes, we lacked those tools, but we always had something called the imagination and creativity. This is essential when constructing ideas and tools for future generations to come. We're quizzical creatures and always sought answers. Because of our curiosity and determination to improve ourselves, we often create tools to better the future.

Now, for your personal God comment, this should come as common sense. Here's a quote from Epicurus and it's a classic one:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”​

This particular quote speaks greater volumes relating the concept of a personal God, let alone the concept of God altogether. People tried to refute this, but all it is is circular logic.

 

All I get from that is that maybe our assumptions about God are incorrect not whether he/she/it exists. In Neale Donald Walsch's Conversation With God An Uncommon Dialogue one thing that stuck out to me profoundly was the idea that maybe the purpose of existence as we know it is so that God can experience every facet of existence all at once over an infinite time period. We are all just representations of God experiencing existence, I don't know if it's true or not but it is an interesting concept to me.

I know the atheistic point of view is that life is based on a series of favorable accidents since we don't have measurable proof of the contrary but my problem as a free thinker is accepting that all knowledge that will ever been known is known right now. Just doesn't make sense to me

 

This is something you're not getting at all: "Why God?" You keep stressing the word as though there is credible proof of a higher force and that's the problem you have. You're not thinking outside of that little bubble you continue to inject in this discussion. It seems as though you have a hard time comprehending that God isn't the end all be all answer. It's the mother of all cop outs. There are better ways to rationalize pretty much everything that goes on here without relying on superstitious concept.

Secondly, you've missed the point on Epicurus's comment. People personify God in such strange ways, that they person of God is merely a reflection of a human being conceived in the imagination. It's more of the human ego than anything else.

And lastly, atheists don't assert that things happen by accident. That's a very ignorant and, surprisingly by you, retarded assumption. Atheists generally rather explain what's knowable thus far with knowledge acquired and through scientific proof. As for other things like origin of existence and all else, a simple "I Don't Know" is more of a common answer. However, we're not going to delude ourselves into thinking that there's some spiritual connectivity when spirituality is all the more a conceptual idea.

Why is all this so hard for you to comprehend? It baffles me.

 

Would be easier if I said "higher power" or universe when we both understand God to be the interchangeable term for both but fine from now on I will use Universe since the word God offends you so much.
It's my understand when reading Hitchens or Dawkins or even Darwin that life is the result of a series of favorable accidents and everything after that is just the result of evolution which very well may be the case. I don't see how that's retarded but you're free to form your own opinion.

I understood the Epicurus comment and agreed that the idea of a personal God seems to be false but like I've said before I'm not married to anyone idea, I allow for all plausable arguments.

I also don't think the concept of God is superstitious I think its evolved into an understanding of a connection with all things at least that's the way I perceive. You seem to not allow for anything except rigid proven science and you're more than welcomed to your opinion but the idea that its the only possible answer to all things now and will ever be is hard to accept.
I keep running into a wall with that logic when I think of how could possibly explain DNA or showed that it existed 1000 years ago.
I just keep thinking it's too early in our development to have rigid pressumptions about the universe at large. We're still in the infancy of learning and becoming more consciously aware beings. I just simply propose giving it time.

 

Andrae, you're clearly mistaken time and time over again. At what point did evolutionary biologists suggests that natural selection = accidental occurrences? You haven't read a damn thing on evolution at all. No scientist stated that things occurred accidentally. How dense are you to think otherwise?

Evolution occurs through natural selection and that's the basic foundation in which good genes are favored and the bad ones are eliminated. That's basic understanding of natural selection. You need to put away Chopra and other new age jargon and actually read science books for a change. It'll at least make you sound like you're less of an idiot and you'll be able to understand what Darwin and Dawkins are implying. This will help you understand:

- DNA
- Environment adaptations
- Mutations
- Evolution

And since when was I offended with the god nonsense? All you're regurgitating and stressing is a supernatural construct and trying to implement that into something like the Universe. You're being wishy-washy with your statements and it's killing me dearly.

The only thing you're correct on is that we still lack all the answers necessary relating to the universe. However, I refuse to supplement whatever cognitive ignorance we possess with a superstitious fallacy and this is something you have a hard wrapping your head around. Just because we lack information doesn't mean we have to give up and simply look into supernatural beliefs to fill that void. That's not an honest way to live, even if you hold a philosophical idea. I think we've learned enough as time progressed that there are better answers out there than simply "God did it." That's plain foolishness.

 

Apparently we can't civil so we can just agree to disagree but clear about one thing I am definitely no wishy washy and I don't get where you get that from. I just allow my mind to explore other possibilities. If you choose to be closed minded then be closed minded but no need to be a dick about it.
And when I say the athiest belief that this all happened by accident I was referring to the beginning, I've also stated that they also assert that all life is a building of cells upon other cells in an effort to survive correct?
Not one thing I stated was a superstitious fallacy not one. You obviously have some deep seeded issues with organized religion that colors your ability to be objective, so as another poster said to you.
Good day to you sir.

 

You're still not getting it, hence why you're exhibiting a hard-headed perspective. Atheists do not assert that everything happened by accident. I've already went through that briefly, but you somehow overlooked that bit of information. And secondly, it's utterly silly for you to say it's the atheist belief. Where the hell did you get that idea? Atheists are a wide range of people, who are both spiritual and non-spiritual. So for you to make that claim only makes you more of an idiot you're only embarrassing yourself.

And again, you're also demonstrating how little you really know about science. You're throwing information around as though you have a grounded understanding when you really don't. If you want to implement science in your statements, then at least get it right. Natural selection occurs when genes (not the same as cells...common sense kid) basically is favorable for the survival of that individual creature. How difficult is that for you? I'll have to resort to simple English next time for you in case you decide to respond and fuck up.

And lastly, organized religion is the least of what's this discussion is about as much as the nonsense of people clinging onto new age superstitious bullshit. That doesn't require organized religion. Don't even go there.

 

BBW you're right. You know everything there is to know and science is infallable. No mistakes have ever been made and everything we know is all we'll ever need to know. Happy you whining little bitch.
Now like I said to you before good day.

 

Yeah. You haven't paid close attention. You're too selective in what you want to read. You continuously screwed up your information on the most basic things pertaining to biology and of the like and this is how you respond? Plus, you've missed this...

You've either ignored what's in bold or you just refuse to recognize that reality. Ah well, you're free smothering yourself in that sort of thinking while drinking POM with Chopra. As for me? I'd rather not deluded myself and simply figure out things without driving myself insane with follies like dualism.