# Catalogue of arguments for the existence of God



## kropotkin (Aug 6, 2004)

http://facts4god.faithweb.com/thelist.html



> 59. ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIORITY
> 
> (1) If God does not exist, then I am an inferior being, since I am not "special" in a cosmic sense.
> (2) But I am superior. Because I am a Christian.
> (3) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## flimsier (Aug 6, 2004)

I've had a lot of lessons recently, and am getting baptised in a few weeks.

Funniest part of the lessons has been the books: they don't even attempt to offer a coherant argument.

The priest also said to me, in one of my lessons, 'everyone believes in god in some form. There is not anyone who doesn't'

The books backed that up.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 6, 2004)

> I've had a lot of lessons recently, and am getting baptised in a few weeks.



I'm sorry? Have you become some sort of idiot?

WHY?

I assume for your partner's religion? Isn't that a bit disrespectful of her if so?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 6, 2004)

That is five questions, yes five- count 'em


----------



## gsv (Aug 6, 2004)

1) A fish.
2) Therefore God exists.

That lists's taking the piss! 


GS(v)


----------



## flimsier (Aug 6, 2004)

Yes, no.

I'm marrying her. I can't marry her without being baptised.


----------



## Cloo (Aug 6, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> I'm sorry? Have you become some sort of idiot?
> 
> WHY?
> 
> I assume for your partner's religion? Isn't that a bit disrespectful of her if so?


 Nope - I believe it's cos he's getting married in a Greek Orthodox church due to the persuasion of his lovely wife to be! 

Oh answered it yourself!  Not long now, eh?


----------



## flimsier (Aug 6, 2004)

Very soon.

 


(the  is because of the stress, not because I'm not looking forward to it).


----------



## kea (Aug 6, 2004)

lol - 
CALVINISTIC ARGUMENT

(1) If God exists, then he will let me watch you be tortured forever.
(2) I rather like that idea.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## Andy the Don (Aug 6, 2004)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Yes, no.
> 
> I'm marrying her. I can't marry her without being baptised.



I got married in church but was never asked if I had been baptised (I had).


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 6, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> I'm sorry? Have you become some sort of idiot?
> 
> WHY?
> 
> I assume for your partner's religion? Isn't that a bit disrespectful of her if so?



Why would it make him an idiot? Go fuck yourself you pompous twat. Its so tiresome all this god-bashing. If you dont believe it fine, but why do you constantly have to bash it?


----------



## flimsier (Aug 6, 2004)

I have to prove it - its an Orthodox (as in Eastern Church) wedding.

They are also not legal here - so we have to have a seperate registry office wedding for the law.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 6, 2004)

A lot of these look familiar...

78. ARGUMENT FROM INEVITABILITY

1) I have proof that God exists.
2) I won't bother to tell you what it is because, being atheists, you would be hostile to the conclusion anyway.
3) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## flimsier (Aug 6, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> Why would it make him an idiot? Go fuck yourself you pompous twat. Its so tiresome all this god-bashing. If you dont believe it fine, but why do you constantly have to bash it?


I don't think he meant it offensively.


----------



## kea (Aug 6, 2004)

this one kinda reminds me of certain u75 threads  -

ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)

1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
2) Atheist: of course.
3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'? 
4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'!
7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well?
8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway?
9) I'm glad we all agree.....
....
37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is this going?
....
81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J'' are true. Agreed?
82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS GOING!?
....
177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all obviously valid. Agreed?
178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust]
179) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 6, 2004)

MrMalcontent said


> Why would it make him an idiot? Go fuck yourself you pompous twat. Its so tiresome all this god-bashing. If you dont believe it fine, but why do you constantly have to bash it?



hello there.
Because it is totally false, and falshoods should never be accorded the respect given to things that are true. They should be ridiculed and opposed at every turn until the stupid irrational bollocks is consigned to history.

Is that too "pompous"?


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 6, 2004)

flimsier said:
			
		

> I don't think he meant it offensively.



Oh well, that makes it ok then. Doesnt anybody ever tire of these religion bashing threads? I mean really?


----------



## Dubversion (Aug 6, 2004)

i like this one



> Argument 117:
> 
> 1) If God doesn't exist, i'll have to start taking responsibility for my actions.
> 2) this is scary
> 3) therefore, God exists.


----------



## kea (Aug 6, 2004)

i like this one - 

ARGUMENT FROM TEEN/TWENTYISH CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT

1) God is so totally awesome, dude, and if you would pretend that Creed and POD were good bands, you would realize that.
2) Also, our Youth Group leader Skip once, like, cured a broken leg using only the power of the almighty Lord.
3) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 6, 2004)

223. GOODY2SHOES' ARGUMENT FROM OFFENSIVENESS

1) You keep making statements that offend me. I will only stay if you stop that.
2) [atheist tries to be non-offensive.]
3) You're still offending me.
4) [atheist tries harder not to be offensive.]
5) I'm still offended.
6) [atheist tears her hair out trying to figure out how to be non-offensive.]
7) I think we should stop this conversation. You're too offensive.
8) [atheist says "Fuck it" and posts what she really thinks.]
9) WOW! What a bigot!
10) I have a spiritual victory.
11) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## kea (Aug 6, 2004)

ARGUMENT FROM PREFERRED ANCESTRY

1) I don't want to be related to monkeys.
2) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## Stigmata (Aug 6, 2004)

Kropotkin, you're a bigot. Debate is one thing (I thought that's what a lot of these boards were for), but simply slagging off other people's beliefs in a smug, aren't-they-funny-and-ignorant kind of way is puerile and deeply offensive, even to an open-minded agnostic like myself. It brings to mind those old 19th century safaris that were just as much about laughing at the silly natives as they were about big-game shooting.

Wow, my angriest ever thread. I feel all dirty now.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 6, 2004)

225. GOODY2SHOES' ARGUMENT FROM PRIVATE ARGUMENT

1) You are the most bigoted person I've ever come across.
2) Let's communicate by email.
3) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 6, 2004)

325. ARGUMENT FROM AMERICA

1) God bless America.
2) You're either for us or you're against us.
3) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 6, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> MrMalcontent said
> 
> 
> hello there.
> ...



Hello. Well thats an opinion. Others have different opinoins. If their belief in a god  helps them in their lives then what difference does it make to you? Why belittle something that so many poeple get strength from?

You want to have a go at organised religion, knock yourself out. Just leave those who believe and do no harm to other alone eh?


----------



## flimsier (Aug 6, 2004)

342. ARGUMENT FROM WHAT MAKES SENSE

1) Doesn't it just MAKE MORE SENSE that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good deity created the world out of nothingness, essentially from magic, and then punished us for eating a piece of fruit, and then incarnated himself in human flesh and came down to shed his own blood so he could break his own rules, and then went through hell on a temporary basis and then went back into the sky and promised to come back and take everyone who believed in him to this heaven that no one has ever seen?
2) Well, doesn't it?
3) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2004)

> Kropotkin said:
> 
> 
> hello there.
> Because it is totally false, and falshoods should never be accorded the respect given to things that are true. They should be ridiculed and opposed at every turn until the stupid irrational bollocks is consigned to history.


So are you talking about wanting to live in a totally rationalist world where *NOTHING* that isn't proven or provable is accorded any respect, or do you just wish to employ your dictate to religion?
Think about it.


> Is that too "pompous"?


Nah, a bit aggressively twattish though.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 6, 2004)

Religous people deserve all the abuse we can muster. It's not bigoted, it's a duty.


----------



## flimsier (Aug 6, 2004)

389. ARGUMENT FROM FOOD CHAIN

1) Urban 75 posters are right at the top of the food chain (see other thread on intelligence).
2) God made it this way.
3) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## kea (Aug 6, 2004)

ARGUMENT FROM CHRISTIAN MAN STANDING OUTSIDE THE TATE MODERN AND SHOUTING AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS

1) Prove you have a mother.
2) I don't believe you.
3) If you can't prove you have a mother, I don't have to prove God exists.
4) And I have a man here dressed as Satan who agrees with me.
5) And I have a loud voice.
6) And a cowboy hat.
7) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 6, 2004)

*Further...*

Given Flimsier's stated socialist beliefs, how do you marry the two up? perhaps it  is a thing you learn in the SWP?


----------



## onemonkey (Aug 6, 2004)

i really don't understand that site.. are they taking the piss, did they start out with serious intention of listing stuff and then get deranged, did they put the wacky, weird and basically wrong stuff in to be 'cool', are they unaware of their imbecility? 

oh and I don't understand what you are upset about stigmata? kropotkin gaves us an entertaining link and then questioned flimsier as to why he was signing up to something he(flimsier) didn't believe in


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 6, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Religous people deserve all the abuse we can muster. It's not bigoted, it's a duty.



<sigh> that about sums it up for me for the attitudes about religion on here, in general.  Speaks volumes.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 6, 2004)

Why do you think we should be kind and indulgent? Religion is irrational, illogical, stupid, divisive and just plain wrong...


----------



## jbwxxx (Aug 6, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Religous people deserve all the abuse we can muster. It's not bigoted, it's a duty.



while not being religious at all, and being perfectly happy to say that needing religion is a crutch for the masses, invented to keep the population in check. and that holy wars are two sets of people fighting about who has the best imaginary friend. 

I also think that they are entitled to think what the hell or heaven they like. and people who think that you should abuse someone for thinking differently are muppets....


----------



## flimsier (Aug 6, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Given Flimsier's stated socialist beliefs, how do you marry the two up? perhaps it  is a thing you learn in the SWP?



I've answered this time and time again. 

I've moved to the right since leaving the SWP about years ago: part of that means that getting married is no longer a shibboleth.

It's so important to my partner that it has because very important to me.

So I'm buying into that institution. 

Sorry about that.


----------



## kea (Aug 6, 2004)

THE YOUTH GROUP LEADER'S ARGUMENT

1) God is awesome!
2) Like, totally, dude!
3) Therefore, God, like, exists and stuff.

THE YOUTH GROUP LEADER'S ARGUMENT FROM DIVINE OPPOSITION

1) Satan, like, really sucks.
2) You don't wanna be like Satan, right dude?
3) Therefore, God, like, exists and stuff. Totally.


----------



## T & P (Aug 6, 2004)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> 325. ARGUMENT FROM AMERICA
> 
> 1) God bless America.
> 2) You're either for us or you're against us.
> 3) Therefore, God exists.



 We have a winner!  



I'd like to add:

459. ARGUMENT FROM A WASP HATER
1) Wasps are evil, pointless beings which only purpose in life appears to be to torment humans.
2) Such a pointless, evil pest couldn't possibly be a creation or even accident of Nature
3) Therefore God must have created them


----------



## TopCat (Aug 6, 2004)

I don't critcise your decision to get married flimsier, just your decision to join a faith and get baptised. I refused to do this as it's disrespectful to my own beliefs and further, I would not be prepared to lie IE say I belive in god, reject satan and all his works and so on.

Do you belive in GOD?


----------



## longdog (Aug 6, 2004)

*The Rev Lovejoy argument*

"It's in the bible people!"


----------



## TopCat (Aug 6, 2004)

Quote"Wasps are evil, pointless beings which only purpose in life appears to be to torment humans" 

But wasps are cool and eat all the dead stuff thats lying about.  

Therefore flimsier is wrong and there is no god.


----------



## flimsier (Aug 6, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> I don't critcise your decision to get married flimsier, just your decision to join a faith and get baptised. I refused to do this as it's disrespectful to my own beliefs and further, I would not be prepared to lie IE say I belive in god, reject satan and all his works and so on.
> 
> Do you belive in GOD?



I can't get married unless I get baptised.

No.


----------



## kea (Aug 6, 2004)

the PB Man argument  - 

ARGUMENT FROM WINDY, ANOREXIC RIGHT WING MOUTHPIECES

1) Ann Coulter believes in God -- so much so that she advocated killing the leaders of all Arab countries and forcibly converting the people who live in those countries to Christianity.
2) Coulter's latest book was #1 on the bestseller list for a while -- which, of course, proves that she's right about everything.
3) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## flimsier (Aug 6, 2004)

I'm getting married and to do so I need to get baptised.

I can only get baptised if god exists.

Therefore god exists.

Or something.


----------



## jbwxxx (Aug 6, 2004)

flimsier said:
			
		

> I can't get married unless I get baptised.
> 
> No.



if your C of E you can get married in a church and not be baptised, you just have to live in the parish - good old state and church being linked!


----------



## TopCat (Aug 6, 2004)

*Think again*

If you have kids you will already be primed to allow the church to indoctrinate them from day one. You should also think very carefully about committing yourself to someone who has such different belief systems to you.

I say this as one who is looking at the wreckage of a 17 year marriage...


----------



## flimsier (Aug 6, 2004)

Read the thread: its an Orthodox wedding.


----------



## flimsier (Aug 6, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> If you have kids you will already be primed to allow the church to indoctrinate them from day one. You should also think very carefully about committing yourself to someone who has such different belief systems to you.
> 
> I say this as one who is looking at the wreckage of a 17 year marriage...



You can fuck right off twat


----------



## Stigmata (Aug 6, 2004)

onemonkey said:
			
		

> oh and I don't understand what you are upset about stigmata? kropotkin gaves us an entertaining link and then questioned flimsier as to why he was signing up to something he(flimsier) didn't believe in



Sorry. It's probably the bloody weather. My fuse gets shorter the hotter it gets. Although it gets a bit wearing seeing posters all over these boards slagging off things they can't be bothered to understand. I know I can't persuade other people to see things the way I do, but it doesn't stop me from getting frustrated. And incidentally, the American argument was quite funny, I thought. So there


----------



## kea (Aug 6, 2004)

ARGUMENT FROM GEORGE W. BUSH

1) That god won't hunt.
2) Y'all.
3) Ergo, um, axle of evil, ahh, claridify, umm, supportification, ah, pretzel.
3) Y'all.
4) What he said.
5) Therefore, God existifies.
2) Launch.

ARGUMENT FROM CHOCOLATE ICE CREAM

1) I like chocolate ice cream.
2) I opened my freezer, and behold, there was chocolate ice cream in it.
3) God is so nice with all his little attentions!
4) Therefore, God exist.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 6, 2004)

Is that like Catholicism but with beards and incense?  

I don't mean to upset you flimsier, I know well how love can make it seem easy to compromise our values. 

Whatever happens, good luck with the marriage... 

Kisses!
xxxxxxx


----------



## flimsier (Aug 6, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Is that like Catholicism but with beards and incense?



Stop digging. It's getting worse. 

After informing me that I will be 'primed to indoctrinate' (whatever the fuck you are talking about) you also have said that I should 'think again' about the woman I love.

And you know me? nope.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 6, 2004)

Perhaps you are unaware of the pressure that will be placed upon you if you have children, to have them baptised in the church. I do and faced it down. This would have been impossible to do if I had already been baptised myself.

Oh the fools that trip so lightly into the dark abyss...


----------



## TopCat (Aug 6, 2004)

But whatever, if it makes you happy, do it...


----------



## flimsier (Aug 6, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Perhaps you are unaware of the pressure that will be placed upon you if you have children, to have them baptised in the church. I do and faced it down. This would have been impossible to do if I had already been baptised myself.
> 
> Oh the fools that trip so lightly into the dark abyss...


What, you know my partner now then?


----------



## daveH (Aug 6, 2004)

TopCat ya twat, i went to catholic schools with shit loads of kids where we were 'indoctrinated' for OVER TEN YEARS! 


do you wanna know how many of us are practicing catholics now? 

to my knowledge, none. 

being baptised and brought up in a religion is really no biggy. I know people who were bought up as muslims, jews, christians and hindus and it doesn't seem to have done any of them any harm, with the exception of one gay guy whose ultra catholic parents pushed him over the edge, psycologically speaking.

religion is a spent force in the west, a side show, a distraction. don't waste your energy rallying against it, it aint that important.


----------



## jd (Aug 6, 2004)

Disclaimer: each very much to his own, I say, christian or other religious faiths are not instrinsically bad, my mum and dad have always been christians and while I'm not, I think it's been generally positive in their case.  

Having said that, I can't see myself getting married in church for anyone.  If those things you're saying are important, shouldn't you really believe them?  Making oaths before god would make me a liar before my friends.

I think I feel strongly about this because I went to church for years, for an easy life when I was growing up.  I felt like a weak fool, a liar and a hypocrite, insulting the people who really did believe.


----------



## academia (Aug 6, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> Oh well, that makes it ok then. Doesnt anybody ever tire of these religion bashing threads? I mean really?



I'm sure you'll forgive us.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 9, 2004)

Hello.
Sorry, was away for the weekend and missed the rest of the thread.

Does anyone think that religious opinion and thought should be given respect, and not mocked? If so, why?


[ain't I a provocative scamp]

Oh, and Flimsier, Topcat didn't actually say anything that bad. He is right...it does show a lack of respect on behalf of your partner to require you to convert to her religion (and a massive amount of respect on your behalf- you're a bigger man than I).


----------



## Idaho (Aug 9, 2004)

Religious people have a lower incidence of mental illness, suicide and have a significantly shorter grieving time when bereaved.

Not that I'm religious.

Making so much effort to attack the underpinnings of someone's religion seems about as intelligent and purposeful as going out of your way to slag of someone elses interior decorating.


----------



## Corax (Aug 9, 2004)

God rocks.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 9, 2004)

Idaho said:
			
		

> Religious people have a lower incidence of mental illness, suicide and have a significantly shorter grieving time when bereaved.
> 
> Not that I'm religious.
> 
> Making so much effort to attack the underpinnings of someone's religion seems about as intelligent and purposeful as going out of your way to slag of someone elses interior decorating.



You are just being silly no? I can't recollect anyones taste in interior design causing war, hatred, bigtory and abuse...


----------



## TopCat (Aug 9, 2004)

Oh and I must add that if you have faith in "god" you are mentally ill.


----------



## Corax (Aug 9, 2004)

Tired, offensive bigotry.  Love it, I do.


----------



## Idaho (Aug 9, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> You are just being silly no? I can't recollect anyones taste in interior design causing war, hatred, bigtory and abuse...



So should we ban water, oil, and skin colour because they cause war, bigotry and hatred?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 9, 2004)

Who is trying to ban anything? I just enjoy ripping the piss out of deluded people...


----------



## Corax (Aug 9, 2004)

Ha Ha.


----------



## ICB (Aug 9, 2004)

Bit of a fish in a barrel hunt tho innit TC?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 9, 2004)

yeah it is, I don't go looking for it though, but when they land in your lap...

I recently moved and look forward to the Jehova's visiting for the first (and no doubt only) time. They only ever come once and when I invite them in for a chat about faith they get all troubled and have to go back to the Kingdom   Hall for re-programming...


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 9, 2004)

I used to do that as a teenager. Invite them in, give them tea and biscuits and then chat for hours.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 9, 2004)

The greedy look they get when they get invited in. it's best to wait untill one turns up on his own. Untill this point I tell them I have not made up my mind about GOD...

But having a debate about ephifinay (sp) and faith and mental illness usually does the trick...


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 9, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Who is trying to ban anything? I just enjoy ripping the piss out of deluded people...



Ripping the piss? Your doing a terrible job of it then.

Unless of course you consider that the BNP just "rip the piss" out of black people.


----------



## Sneeze (Aug 9, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Hello.
> Sorry, was away for the weekend and missed the rest of the thread.
> 
> Does anyone think that religious opinion and thought should be given respect, and not mocked? If so, why?




I'm 100% athiest. 

However I am fully aware that faith in God or god(s) has given great comfort to many billions of people whilst at the lowest point in their lives.

Why should that be mocked?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 9, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> Ripping the piss? Your doing a terrible job of it then.
> 
> Unless of course you consider that the BNP just "rip the piss" out of black people.



 I think I do ok. Oh you can piss off with your silly straw man   arguments...


----------



## TopCat (Aug 9, 2004)

Sneeze said:
			
		

> I'm 100% athiest.
> 
> However I am fully aware that faith in God or god(s) has given great comfort to many billions of people whilst at the lowest point in their lives.
> 
> Why should that be mocked?



Smack gives many comfort, I tend to be scathing about that too...

Whereas religous people have caused many many others to reach the lowest point of their lives.


----------



## ICB (Aug 9, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> Ripping the piss? Your doing a terrible job of it then.
> 
> Unless of course you consider that the BNP just "rip the piss" out of black people.



Were anyone daft enough to take such a ridiculous comparison seriously they'd have every right to be far more offended by it than anything TC had to say in this thread.  

Bernie Williams knew what he was on when he said "we should be more intolerant of those who are intolerant of intolerance".


----------



## slaar (Aug 9, 2004)

I like this one:

371. ARGUMENT FROM EAR SHAPE

1) A drunken twentyish guy pontificates about ear shape and evolutionary processes.
2) His girlfriend rebuts his assertion and proclaims intelligent design.
3) She's cute, so he's not going to argue with her.
4) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## Corax (Aug 9, 2004)

People seem to have a problem seeing the distinction between the christian faith and it's churches.  I don't subscribe to any denomination.  I disagree with the very concept.

I object to being generalised and pigeon-holed by the type of muppets who get off on viciously denigrating people but are running out of PC targets.


----------



## bmd (Aug 9, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> MrMalcontent said
> 
> 
> hello there.
> ...



Faith helps a lot of people get by, drag theirselves through their lives. Not everyone is as lucky as you and me. Why would you want to take that away from them?


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 9, 2004)

ICB said:
			
		

> Were anyone daft enough to take such a ridiculous comparison seriously they'd have every right to be far more offended by it than anything TC had to say in this thread.
> 
> Bernie Williams knew what he was on when he said "we should be more intolerant of those who are intolerant of intolerance".



Of course i was being facetious, this whole thread is facetious. It was an overstatement I agree.


----------



## Sneeze (Aug 9, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Smack gives many comfort, I tend to be scathing about that too...
> 
> Whereas religous people have caused many many others to reach the lowest point of their lives.



Funny you mention smack.

Last October my best mate OD'd on smack. I was in Wales at the time and got a call at 8am saying to get back to London as soon as possible as he wasn't going to last the day. His mum had been called in from the Isle of Man, so they thought it very serious. He'd swallowed sick and burnt away much of his lungs.

I had a four hour drive to get there. We didn't have any music on in the car and neitehr me or my girlfriend spoke much, we were very abosorbed in our thoughts. 

Occasionaly as we drove it would get too much, knowing my best mate is lying there about to die and tears will spill from my eyes. At these moments, in my head I would ask God to spare him, something like, 'Oh God, please don't let him die' you know the usual.

As I said I'm 100% athiest.I fully follow eveyone of your arguments that you may have to rubbish the existence of God and have thought that religious people are fruit-loops and religion is bad for causing wars and feelings of guilt and so on...

But my asking God to save Dave gave me the slightest glimmer of comfort. Why that should be the case I don't know. What I do know is that fuck all else that horrible day even came fucking close.

It set me thinking about my own blinkered view of the subject. Whilst many wars have been fought over religion and many lives made miserable from religious guilt, is it right to label every person of faith as bad/idiotic/moronic/to-be-mocked, just because of the actions of a few? 



Oh and after a week in a coma in intensive care, Dave pulled through.


----------



## ICB (Aug 9, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> Of course i was being facetious, this whole thread is facetious. It was an overstatement I agree.



That's good then.  Just checking like. 



> But my asking God to save Dave gave me the slightest glimmer of comfort. Why that should be the case I don't know.



I've done similar - put it down to the fact that I was fairly successfully brainwashed for the most significant part of my development.  There are nasty skeletons rattling away that'll never get permanently buried.

I'm less scathing about smack than religion, I don't have any religious friends....

Good for Dave


----------



## Poi E (Aug 9, 2004)

ICB said:
			
		

> I've done similar - put it down to the fact that I was fairly successfully brainwashed for the most significant part of my development.  There are nasty skeletons rattling away that'll never get permanently buried.
> 
> I'm less scathing about smack than religion, I don't have any religious friends....
> 
> Good for Dave



Ah, so it's personal issues you have to work out, not theological. Sounds the same as for those who believe. Having no strong opinion one way or the other is the best option, IMO.


----------



## Demosthenes (Aug 9, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Oh and I must add that if you have faith in "god" you are mentally ill.



From a strictly rational point of view, the idea that you exist is a delusion as well.  Ok it keeps you going, and so on, and makes you consider your future, and enhances your survival prospects, but strictly speaking, "You" are/is an illusion generated by your brain to enhance your survival prospects.

So we're all mentally ill.  

I hope that clears that one up.


----------



## blamblam (Aug 9, 2004)

Demosthenes said:
			
		

> From a strictly rational point of view, the idea that you exist is a delusion as well.



Er actually it's not  



> So we're all mentally ill.


Speak for yourself matey - you might not know but some of us have seen your crazy-ass posts on other BBs aswell...

As for religion - it's fucking stupid. Anyone who believes that bollocks deserves a good ridiculing


----------



## Corax (Aug 9, 2004)

icepick said:
			
		

> As for religion - it's fucking stupid. Anyone who believes that bollocks deserves a good ridiculing



Oh. You again.


----------



## Poi E (Aug 9, 2004)

icepick said:
			
		

> Er actually it's not
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself matey - you might not know but some of us have seen your crazy-ass posts on other BBs aswell...
> ...



I take it from your user name that you're of some denomination of the Marxist/Leninist faith. Boy, you guys have got a LOT of faith.


----------



## Demosthenes (Aug 9, 2004)

icepick said:
			
		

> Er actually it's not
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself matey - you might not know but some of us have seen your crazy-ass posts on other BBs aswell...
> ...



100% angry.

Glad you and others have seen my crazy-ass posts.  Tell us some more.

Poi, you couldn't have said anything worse to icepick than that.  Actually he's a doctrinaire anarchist, and as such hates Trotskyists.  He may well take it as a deliberate insult. Trotsky was killed with an icepick, hence the name.  

Anarchism requires even more faith than trot-leninism, though.  These people actually believe that society will spontaneously transform itself into an anarchist Utopia and we'll dismantle the apparatus of the state, without ever voting for anyone to do that for us.


----------



## bosco (Aug 9, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Is that too "pompous"?




yes.


----------



## bosco (Aug 9, 2004)

icepick said:
			
		

> As for religion - it's fucking stupid. Anyone who believes that bollocks deserves a good ridiculing





don't you realise that the people you ridicule are ridiculing you right back?

how about we just leave the ridiculing out of it all together and have a bit of respect for diversity?


----------



## laptop (Aug 9, 2004)

Idaho said:
			
		

> Religious people have a lower incidence of mental illness, suicide and have a significantly shorter grieving time when bereaved.



But also, on purely anecdotal evidence from intensive care nurses, the atheist patients are calm and the religious are scared out of their wits.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 9, 2004)

bosco said:
			
		

> yes.


 suck my balls, religio-apologist

Fucks sake, all this relativist bullshit is the problem! All theories are _not_ of equal value- some aren't true! Asserting that isn't doctrinaire or oppressive, FFS. If some flat-earther starts spouting at me, I will treat his *ideas* with the contempt they deserve. I will never give them any respect at all.


----------



## blamblam (Aug 9, 2004)

bosco said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by icepick
> >
> > As for religion - it's fucking stupid. Anyone who believes that bollocks deserves a good ridiculing
> 
> ...


God botherers taking the piss:
"Oi, that 'atheist' over there doesn't even believe that an omnipotent being created man, and then built a woman out of his rib. And then had kids who they then fucked and got to fuck each other to create the whole human race. And then hid dinosaurs in the ground to catch out the heathens. Oh yeah and death to the homos!"

Man I'm glad no one tried that on me in the school playground - my life would've been over.


----------



## blamblam (Aug 9, 2004)

Poi E said:
			
		

> I take it from your user name that you're of some denomination of the Marxist/Leninist faith. Boy, you guys have got a LOT of faith.


Ha ha 

Man you must be smart. I reckon you're so smart you even got given a special hat to wear in school right!


Demosthenes - keep takin the pills, hopefully you won't get banned from *another* bulletin board eh?


----------



## Corax (Aug 9, 2004)

icepick said:
			
		

> God botherers taking the piss:
> "Oi, that 'atheist' over there doesn't even believe that an omnipotent being created man, and then built a woman out of his rib. And then had kids who they then fucked and got to fuck each other to create the whole human race. And then hid dinosaurs in the ground to catch out the heathens. Oh yeah and death to the homos!"



Yes, because all christians believe that the bible is literal, infallible and uncorrupted.  They also have complete faith in all of their religious leaders throughout history, and see no reason to question any of their actions.  And they all hate gays, obviously.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 9, 2004)

No, some of them pick and choose which things are *actually* the word of god, and which things conflict with prevailing ethical trends and so must be the work of evil corrupting men.


----------



## blamblam (Aug 9, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Yes, because all christians believe that the bible is literal, infallible and uncorrupted.  They also have complete faith in all of their religious leaders throughout history, and see no reason to question any of their actions.  And they all hate gays, obviously.


asphinctersayswhat?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 9, 2004)

you're so 1998. loser (said with fingers held up in "L" shape on forehead)


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 10, 2004)

Is there something in the water at the moment?


Can any fucking thread be done at the moment without it ending up in idiotic and childish mud slinging?


----------



## Idaho (Aug 10, 2004)

beesonthewhatnow said:
			
		

> Is there something in the water at the moment?
> 
> 
> Can any fucking thread be done at the moment without it ending up in idiotic and childish mud slinging?



Notice it is always posters of a certain ilk. Usually P&P dwellers. Marx botherers - you know the sort.


----------



## bosco (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> suck my balls, religio-apologist



i'm agnostic you fool. 






			
				kropotkin said:
			
		

> All theories are _not_ of equal value



to you. a hindu's theories are as valuable to him as yours are to you. respect that.






			
				kropotkin said:
			
		

> some aren't true!



let's see you prove that there negative then, cletus.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Aug 10, 2004)

God isn't dead

But Nietzsche is

So explain that.


----------



## ICB (Aug 10, 2004)

Poi E said:
			
		

> Ah, so it's personal issues you have to work out, not theological. Sounds the same as for those who believe. Having no strong opinion one way or the other is the best option, IMO.



It's personal for all of us, some just choose to deny it that's all.  I was trying to make the point that we are all far more conditioned by our cultural situation than we generally recognise and that even if we do recognise it there's often not much to be done about it.  Theology is for theists, I do thinking.

No strong opinion?  What's the difference between a strong opinion and an opinion?  I have an opinion about this stuff cos I spent a lot of time thinking about it, reading about it and talking about it.  

It's not strong to the extent that I feel the need to proseltyse it to other people or to the extent that I can't understand other people having different points of view but it is to the extent that I think agnosticism is philosophically inconsistent.


----------



## Jorum (Aug 10, 2004)

Religion is by nature non-rational, so arguing for and against it tends to become totally pointless after a while.

Personally I don't believe in a god(s), and I don't actually think I am mentally capable of the act of faith that religion requires.

I onec knew somebody who seemed to have great difficulty understanding how I could not be a Christian. 
My answer was that as a Christian he is implicitly rejecting a dozen other faiths as being non-true. I am simply doing the same but including one more - his.

I can kind of understand Agnosticism - belief in a "higher power" without actually subscribing to a particular creed.
But following a particular religion seems very strange (to me) why follow the Bible rather than the Koran, Vedic scriptures or numerous others.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

Some people on this thread are confusing respecting _the freedom of opinion_ of individuals with respecting _the actual opinions_ those individuals choose to hold. The two are very different things - and to conflate them is to kill off the chances of any meaningful form of dialouge or questioning or intervention in almost every sphere of human society.


----------



## ICB (Aug 10, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Some people on this thread are confusing respecting _the freedom of opinion_ of individuals with respecting _the actual opinions_ those individuals choose to hold. The two are very different things - and to conflate them is to kill off the chances of any meaningful form of dialouge or questioning or intervention in almost every sphere of human society.



Yep, there's a lot of it about.


----------



## Jorum (Aug 10, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Some people on this thread are confusing respecting _the freedom of opinion_ of individuals with respecting _the actual opinions_ those individuals choose to hold.


That's a very good point to make.

I respect someones right to believe in a religion, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the religion itself.

If you say that religious opinions are not to be questioned, then by analogy I wouldn't be able to challenge someones politics, ethics, or advise them on anything whatsoever.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

Jorum said:
			
		

> I respect someones right to believe in a religion, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the religion itself.
> 
> If you say that religious opinions are not to be questioned, then by analogy I wouldn't be able to challenge someones politics, ethics, or advise them on anything whatsoever.



Religious opinions should always be questioned IMO.  There is, however, a difference between questioning, and pre-pubescent hair-pulling.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Religious opinions should always be questioned IMO.  There is, however, a difference between questioning, and pre-pubescent hair-pulling.


 ...and you are the one who gets to decide just what's reasonable are you?


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> ...and you are the one who gets to decide just what's reasonable are you?



No, not in the slightest.  I don't believe that telling other people how to live their lives is really my (or anyone else's) place.  I believe in God, Christ etc, but have no time for the dogma, superstition and corruption that surrounds the churches.  That doesn't make me fascist, anti-gay or nowt else.

All I object to is the double-standards that seem to exist regarding "tolerance" and "respect" both in society and, sadly, on Urban.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> No, not in the slightest.  I don't believe that telling other people how to live their lives is really my (or anyone else's) place.  I believe in God, Christ etc, but have no time for the dogma, superstition and corruption that surrounds the churches.  That doesn't make me fascist, anti-gay or nowt else.
> 
> All I object to is the double-standards that seem to exist regarding "tolerance" and "respect" both in society and, sadly, on Urban.


 ...i refer you to my first post, the one you claim to agree with but in reality don't - and don't seem to understand either.

And please tell us what double standards you are referring to.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

This post?




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> Some people on this thread are confusing respecting _the freedom of opinion_ of individuals with respecting _the actual opinions_ those individuals choose to hold. The two are very different things - and to conflate them is to kill off the chances of any meaningful form of dialouge or questioning or intervention in almost every sphere of human society.



I do agree.

What I'm saying is that by mocking people's beliefs, you (pl, general) disrespect the person.

There's nowt wrong with challenging people's beliefs, but it can be done in a manner which respects the individual, rather than the mob playground'n'pigtails approach I referred to.

Some christians, believe it or not, are occassionally vaguely rational.  They're unlikely to demonstrate it whilst being ridiculed though.  

Double standards?  Well, christianity is not exactly the most persecuted religion in the western world, I know, but I don't see that as any justification for the mainstream acceptance of its mockery.  If any other religion were treated in the same way, there'd be an outcry.  It doesn't really bother me for any religious reason, but hypocrisy always bugs me a bit.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> This post?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you agree with what i argued then you have no option other than to agree that tied in with your absolute right to believe in any religion or form of spirituality you choose is the right of others to reject those same beliefs and the right to express that rejection in any way they see fit (note, i said 'right' not 'duty' - there is no imperative here). For you to then argue that this rejection should only be expressed in forms that you (or the believer) feels is appropriate is actually an attack on your own right to believe what you want - it's inconistent and hypocritical and undermines your own right to freedom of opinion. 

See, if you go into P&P you would hear the exact same argument being made but with Islam in place of christianity - which i think neatly highlights the real content of the above argument (one that it appears is common to all religions) _stop attacking me because i want you to'_. That's it. Nothing more - nothing less. But dressed up in some pseudo-rights jargon.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> If you agree with what i argued then you have no option other than to agree that tied in with your absolute right to believe in any religion or form of spirituality you choose is the right of others to reject those same beliefs and the right to express that rejection in any way they see fit (note, i said 'right' not 'duty' - there is no imperative here). For you to then argue that this rejection should only be expressed in forms that you (or the believer) feels is appropriate is actually an attack on your own right to believe what you want - it's inconistent and hypocritical and undermines your own right to freedom of opinion.
> 
> See, if you go into P&P you would hear the exact same argument being made but with Islam in place of christianity - which i think neatly highlights the real content of the above argument (one that it appears is common to all religions) _stop attacking me because i want you to'_. That's it. Nothing more - nothing less. But dressed up in some pseudo-rights jargon.



Well, yes, I do think that people should be constrained in how they express themselves.

Not out of a legal obligation too.  Not because a bunch of religio-nazis are going to scream at them otherwise.  Not because I say so, or because anyone else does.

Merely out of consideration for people and the effect that your words have upon them.  Merely out of respect for them as a human being.

I'm not talking about anything enforcable, I'm not talking about compelling people to comply with a set of dictats over acceptable forms of expression.  I suppose I'm just hopeful that the majority of people possess an overiding desire for harmony.  Optimistic that people would rather communicate than conflict.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Well, yes, I do think that people should be constrained in how they express themselves.
> 
> Not out of a legal obligation too.  Not because a bunch of religio-nazis are going to scream at them otherwise.  Not because I say so, or because anyone else does.
> 
> ...


 That's precisely why i said 'right' not 'duty'. But sometimes it's hard when the arguments that are coming back at you are as so close to "pre-pubescent hair-pulling.":

"God rocks.
Tired, offensive bigotry. Love it, I do.
I object to being generalised and pigeon-holed by the type of muppets who get off on viciously denigrating people but are running out of PC targets."

et bleedin' cetera.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

And i'm sorry, but when non-religious people do try and "communicate" they're frequently called all the names under the sun - simply for making a criticism that you believe they have a right to hold and express. You should be _defending their right_ to make that criticism not wishing that they didn't.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Well, yes, I do think that people should be constrained in how they express themselves.
> 
> Not out of a legal obligation too.  Not because a bunch of religio-nazis are going to scream at them otherwise.  Not because I say so, or because anyone else does.
> 
> ...


 Let me put it this way.

The degree to which I feel my expressions should be constrained is pretty much inversely correlated to the degree of stupidity of the opinions I am reacting to.

"I think that there might be more to reality and the human experience than simple materialist science"
---> Reaction: "Don't agree, but a reasonable postion to take. This is why I don't agree..."


"I think that there is a supernatural being who created the universe and everything within it, and then hung around interfering in reality when it saw fit, manifested itself on earth, walked on water, flew around a bit, transmutated objects, touch-healed the sick (allowed the holocaust, capitalism and murderous wars to occur) etc etc"

---> Reaction: "You seem to be a delusional weirdo, who is talking obvious crap."


See?


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> If you agree with what i argued then you have no option other than to agree that tied in with your absolute right to believe in any religion or form of spirituality you choose is the right of others to reject those same beliefs and the right to express that rejection in any way they see fit (note, i said 'right' not 'duty' - there is no imperative here). For you to then argue that this rejection should only be expressed in forms that you (or the believer) feels is appropriate is actually an attack on your own right to believe what you want - it's inconistent and hypocritical and undermines your own right to freedom of opinion.



If I'm understanding correctly, your first post claimed a difference between 'respecting the freedom of individuals to hold an opinion' and 'respecting the opinion itself'.

Presumably you agree with the former and disagree with the latter.

You then argue that this means that anyone has the right to disrespect the opinion in any way that they see fit, but presumably not disrespect the individual.

Corax is arguing that anyone who disagrees with an opinion should express their disagreement in a cordial way.

What I don't understand is how this is 'inconistent and hypocritical and undermines [his] own right to freedom of opinion. '


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> See, if you go into P&P you would hear the exact same argument being made but with Islam in place of christianity - which i think neatly highlights the real content of the above argument (one that it appears is common to all religions) _stop attacking me because i want you to'_. That's it. Nothing more - nothing less. But dressed up in some pseudo-rights jargon.



My objection to it is the idea, which exists with religion where it doesnt with politics, that you can lump all "Christians" together, in fact all of any religion. I object to the lazy grouping of all of a religion just because one nutter has justified something outrageous with the bible. I object to the fact that all are tarred with the same brush.

There is plent to criticise in organised religion and the politics which masquerades as religius dictate. But why does there need to be nedless slaggin off of generic Christianity? Most of those so enthusiastiacally joining in the slagging would, very likely, look for a clarification of the title were it something as broad as "socialism" or "Anarchism" but a general slagging of Christanity as a good thing.

If somebody started a thread supporting some heinous religious views then of course weigh in and point out their folly. But what actually happens is that these threads are started by the bored hoping to lure someone in who will defend a persons right to hold Christian views. It not a genuine desire to spark debate or to try and understand what and why poeple believe what they do, its just an attempt for those evangelical aethists to browbeat a few Christians. The tone on the threads is not one condicive to conducting a debate about a persons fundamental beliefs because that is not what they are intended for.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> God rocks.
> Tired, offensive bigotry. Love it, I do.
> I object to being generalised and pigeon-holed by the type of muppets who get off on viciously denigrating people but are running out of PC targets."



Fair play.  I should have responded a bit more constructively initially, but I've been loathe to get involved in any discussions regarding faith on here because I've seen how they usually turn out.  Instead I posted a few value-lite soundbites.  Shouldn't have.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> And i'm sorry, but when non-religious people do try and "communicate" they're frequently called all the names under the sun - simply for making a criticism that you believe they have a right to hold and express. You should be _defending their right_ to make that criticism not wishing that they didn't.



I'll quite happily stand up to anyone who dishes out unprovoked abuse to an atheist for their views.  Believe me, I've been treated incredibly viciously by by fair share of regular church-every-sunday-upstanding-pillar-of-the-community christians.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> "I think that there is a supernatural being who created the universe and everything within it, and then hung around interfering in reality when it saw fit, manifested itself on earth, walked on water, flew around a bit, transmutated objects, touch-healed the sick (allowed the holocaust, capitalism and murderous wars to occur) etc etc"



Has anyone ever said this to you?

or are you taking a blinkered, stereotyped and bigotted view of a huge section of the world's people?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> If I'm understanding correctly, your first post claimed a difference between 'respecting the freedom of individuals to hold an opinion' and 'respecting the opinion itself'.
> 
> Presumably you agree with the former and disagree with the latter.
> 
> ...


 No, he is now that he's clarified his position _in response_ to my posts  - prior to that i'm afraid he seemed (to me at least) to be taking the position that it was impossible to criticise the (religious) beliefs of another. 

The argument i made was absolutely logical - if you demand the absolute right to believe what you like, you undermine that right by attempting to limit the application of that same right to people others than yourself (who might just happen to disagree with you).


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> No, he is now that he's clarified his position _in response_ to my posts  - prior to that i'm afraid he seemed (to me at least) to be taking the position that it was impossible to criticise the (religious) beliefs of another.



No, never, not at all.  Sorry if I wasn't clear.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> The argument i made was absolutely logical - if you demand the absolute right to believe what you like, you undermine that right by attempting to limit the application of that same right to people others than yourself (who might just happen to disagree with you).



Your argumanet is logical if you are talking  about the right to _ express _ an opinion but surely there is a difference between the right to hold an opinion and the right to express it?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> Has anyone ever said this to you?
> 
> or are you taking a blinkered, stereotyped and bigotted view of a huge section of the world's people?


 I'm sorry?

Aren't we talking about "God"?
That concept has certain attributes associated with it- namely 
supernaturality (it doesn't exist physically around us), 
omniscience (it knows all, and moreover exists outside time- it can't know more today than yesterday)
omnipotence (it can do anything)
personification of good


I am perfectly aware that some people who agree with the above discard bits of judeo-christian doctrine they find unpaletable. Should we just stick to these for the rest of the discussion?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> Your argumanet is logical if you are talking  about the right to _ express _ an opinion but surely there is a difference between the right to hold an opinion and the right to express it?


 And what about the right to express it to your children as if it was true?


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> And what about the right to express it to your children as if it was true?



Very personal I suppose.  But IMO, wrong.  Express them as your beliefs, that's what they are.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> Your argumanet is logical if you are talking  about the right to _ express _ an opinion but surely there is a difference between the right to hold an opinion and the right to express it?


 In what sense? In what sense can you be said to be holding a right to a belief if you're constrained from expressing it. That's really a bit of a false pseudo-distinction.

And, yes, _i am_ talking about the right to express an opionion (_and_  also to hold that opinion) - i think that's fairly clear from what i've said.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> I'm sorry?
> 
> Aren't we talking about "God"?
> That concept has certain attributes associated with it- namely
> ...



We are talking about god, yes.

I'm not sure that the attributes that you state are universally accepted, in fact I'm sure that  they are not, but they do seem a little more reasonable than your previous "definition"

I don't think that you are in any posityion to define the beliefs of billions of people of a wide variety of culture and belief.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> We are talking about god, yes.
> 
> I'm not sure that the attributes that you state are universally accepted, in fact I'm sure that  they are not, but they do seem a little more reasonable than your previous "definition"
> 
> I don't think that you are in any posityion to define the beliefs of billions of people of a wide variety of culture and belief.


 He *wasn't* defining them - he was giving an example of a belief that he would respond to with a put-down and not take very seriously - he gave a prior example of one he would respond to more reasonably. Did you actually read the post properly?


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> And what about the right to express it to your children as if it was true?



What Corax said.

But I wonder if you would do the same for your children. i.e. express atheism as simply your belief.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> In what sense? In what sense can you be said to be holding a right to a belief if you're constrained from expressing it. That's really a bit of a false pseudo-distinction.
> 
> And, yes, _i am_ talking about the right to express an opionion (_and_  also to hold that opinion) - i think that's fairly clear from what i've said.



fair enough.

can i take it that you believe in anyones right to express any opinion to anybody?


----------



## Numbers (Aug 10, 2004)

remember Krapotkin is a believer in 




			
				Krapotkin said:
			
		

> In fact, none of them arrogant, homophobic, rude africans. AT ALL.
> Only pure white angels.
> 
> Oh yes.



Would you listent to a person with this attitude.  I wouldn't..


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> What Corax said.
> 
> But I wonder if you would do the same for your children. i.e. express atheism as simply your belief.


 There you go again, with relativisms.
They are *not* equivalent.

The default position is atheism- think of Occam's Razor. My kids will be told what I think and why, and given any opportunity they want to develop their own ideas.

But if they are stupid ideas, I ain't keeping that opinion to myself.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> He *wasn't* defining them - he was giving an example of a belief that he would respond to with a put-down and not take very seriously - he gave a prior example of one he would respond to more reasonably. Did you actually read the post properly?



right 

that's obvious from his justification 

it was just a random, possible belief that was definately not a cheap stereotype of christianity

[/sarcasm off]


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

1798 said:
			
		

> remember Krapotkin is a believer in
> 
> 
> 
> Would you listent to a person with this attitude.  I wouldn't..


 You know when you search for a person's posts, and then don't read what they were talking about, or any context whatsoever?

You do know about that, don't you?

idiot.
Nice try though.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> fair enough.
> 
> can i take it that you believe in anyones right to express any opinion to anybody?


 I don't actually believe in 'rights' as such - i was arguing from an original position that some seem to hold on here that they have an absolute right to freedom of religious belief - and unfolding the logic of that postion and respones when religion itself under attack.

(Congrats on being the first to get to the BNP/racist thing though!)


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> right
> 
> that's obvious from his justification
> 
> ...


 Oh come off it!

They are pretty fucking core beleifs for a christian:
1/ there is a creator god
2/ God manifested himself on earth (hence the term CHRIST-ian)
3/ Christ performed miracles


what you are pissed off about is that I treat those propositions with the respect they deserve.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> right
> 
> that's obvious from his justification
> 
> ...


 Right, i'm not bothering with you if you're seriously incapable of reading and understanding the points made in posts - even after having them explained to you.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> There you go again, with relativisms.
> They are *not* equivalent.
> 
> The default position is atheism- think of Occam's Razor. My kids will be told what I think and why, and given any opportunity they want to develop their own ideas.
> ...



atheism is not the default position ... but I suppose that's another argument.

Your kids will be allowed to develop their own ideas ... so long as you don't think they're stupid?

So in other words, they'll be allowed to have the same beliefs as you, otherwise they will be ridiculed?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

I expect them to show me the same respect.

I.e. if someone is talking shit, call them on it. That to me is respecting them, not humouring them.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I don't actually believe in 'rights' as such - i was arguing from an original position that some seem to hold on here that they have an absolute right to freedom of religious belief - and unfolding the logic of that postion and respones when religion itself under attack.



I really shouldn't be arguing with you then!



> (Congrats on being the first to get to the BNP/racist thing though!)



that obvious huh?


----------



## Numbers (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> if someone is talking shit, call them on it.



ahem..


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Right, i'm not bothering with you if you're seriously incapable of reading and understanding the points made in posts - even after having them explained to you.



Look at Ks post above yours. It's clear what he mean't.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> atheism is not the default position ... but I suppose that's another argument.
> 
> Your kids will be allowed to develop their own ideas ... so long as you don't think they're stupid?
> 
> So in other words, they'll be allowed to have the same beliefs as you, otherwise they will be ridiculed?


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor


> Occam's Razor is nowadays usually stated as follows:
> 
> "Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."
> When that is ambiguous, Isaac Newton's version may be better:
> ...



Remember when Laplace was explaining his cosmological model to Napoleon? Afterwards Napoleon asked him where God worked in the model.
Laplace replied "I had no need for that hypothesis". 
Atheism is the default position to take.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> You know when you search for a person's posts, and then don't read what they were talking about, or any context whatsoever?
> 
> You do know about that, don't you?
> 
> ...



Umm....

He's definitely not an idiot....

So I reckon little mischievious stirring might have been occurin'...


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> I don't think that you are in any posityion to define the beliefs of billions of people of a wide variety of culture and belief.




266. ARGUMENT FROM CHURCH

1) Lots of people go to church
2) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Oh come off it!
> 
> They are pretty fucking core beleifs for a christian:
> 1/ there is a creator god
> ...



A Christian is just a follower of Christ.

I'm not pissed off about you 'disrespecting' the viewpoint you stated. Just the implication there and here that that is what all christians believe.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> Look at Ks post above yours. It's clear what he mean't.


 Yep, and you are still missing it. The post above was in response to your claims of him coming up with a cheap christian stereotype, when he was actually employing three core bliefs of christianity - no matter how much you deny it - after a number of explanations. As he said, it's his response to these core claims that are winding you up.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

Why does everyone seem to have this unshaking belief in Occam's Razor?

Um.. despite appearances, I'm not trying to be funny.  


Edit to expand:  Since the dawn of the quantum age, it is obsolete outside of macro physics IMHO.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> Look at Ks post above yours. It's clear what he mean't.


 Come off it Dra.
I was pointing out that I would repsons differently based on how ludicrous the opinion I was repsonding to. Then I gave two examples.

Then you said that my second example, an example of ONE theist position, was a steotype of christianity.

I then responded by saying that it wasn't really that stereotyped, as all the points within it are core to Christian belief.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> A Christian is just a follower of Christ.
> 
> I'm not pissed off about you 'disrespecting' the viewpoint you stated. Just the implication there and here that that is what all christians believe.


 They're pretty bloody core beliefs for (most) christians though aren't they? A " follower of Christ" has to take these on board don't they - or they aren't a follower of christ really are they.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
> 
> 
> Remember when Laplace was explaining his cosmological model to Napoleon? Afterwards Napoleon asked him where God worked in the model.
> ...



Could argue about this all day.

Is atheism really the simplest explanation? I don't think it is. It's surely easier to explain what we know about the universe with a creator theory than with:

some as yet undiscovered reason for the big bang,
the big bang theory,
some as yet undiscovered reason for life and 
the theory of evolution


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

> > Originally Posted by kropotkin
> > Oh come off it!
> >
> > They are pretty fucking core beleifs for a christian:
> ...



Right, so you are telling me that the three positions stated above are *not* core beliefs of Christianity?


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> 266. ARGUMENT FROM CHURCH
> 
> 1) Lots of people go to church
> 2) Therefore, God exists.




Bollocks. That's not my point at all.

Millions of peoples individual beliefs cannot be easily pigeon-holed.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

I don't tell my children that atheism is right as it were. I do point out that in my view all religous people have either been indoctrinated as a child or are a bit barmy.

I also have pointed out that there are over 500 worshiped gods in the world and most people are non belivers in 499 of them. I simply don't belive any of it because it's ilogical, irational and stupid.   

My childrens school does not present any religon as fact. This is most important to me. They are taught about lots of religons and compare and contrast the rituals and behaviours carried out. The latter has caused them to view religous people a bit like clowns, they laugh and laugh at them....


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> The latter has caused them to view religous people a bit like clowns, they laugh and laugh at them....



Do you view this as condonable behaviour?


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Right, so you are telling me that the three positions stated above are *not* core beliefs of Christianity?



I could take issue with point 2.



> I think that there is a supernatural being who created the universe and everything within it, and then hung around interfering in reality when it saw fit, manifested itself on earth, walked on water, flew around a bit, transmutated objects, touch-healed the sick (allowed the holocaust, capitalism and murderous wars to occur) etc etc"



and most of this.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Oh come off it!
> 
> They are pretty fucking core beleifs for a christian:
> 1/ there is a creator god
> ...



I'd be perfectly happy to have a discussion based upon those kropotkin, but I really should be filling in application forms...


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

This is what I mean!

If I see someone hopping down the street having painted their head orange, I will probably laugh. If I see hundreds of Jews swaying backwards and forwards in fronmt of the wailing wall, muttering rubbis, dressed in an amusing way- i will laugh FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.

When I see Shi'ite (is it, can't remember) Muslims flaggelating themselves in a procession- I laugh.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> I don't tell my children that atheism is right as it were. I do point out that in my view all religous people have either been indoctrinated as a child or are a bit barmy.




You don't tell them that atheism is right.

Rather, you tell them that religion is wrong.

hmmmm ....

So would you say that your kids are more or less indoctrinated with your views?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

Maybe we shoud hold it off then! 

Apart from thelittle bits of intentionally incendiary comment, I hope you are seeing that I am not attacking YOU. I have a lot of respect for you. Opinions are a different matter. I think that aLL opinions should be held up to the light. Nothing is or should be beyond comment.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> When I see Shi'ite (is it, can't remember) Muslims flaggelating themselves in a procession- I laugh.



Do you though?  I mean really? Would you go to a muslim country and openly mock muslims for practising their religion?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> You don't tell them that atheism is right.
> 
> Rather, you tell them that religion is wrong.
> 
> ...


 You seemt to be drawing equivalency again between theism and atheism.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

I do, from the safety of my home.
When I feel that I am safe in expressing my opinion, I will.

Once I got into a discussion in a factory in India with some Brahmin guys about caste. I didn't give that religious opinion any respect whatsoever. They seemed to think that because I wasn't Indian I couldn't criticise it.

The were wrong.


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> This is what I mean!
> 
> If I see someone hopping down the street having painted their head orange, I will probably laugh. If I see hundreds of Jews swaying backwards and forwards in fronmt of the wailing wall, muttering rubbis, dressed in an amusing way- i will laugh FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.



These two things are comparable? A person, with an orange head, hopping down a street on one leg is comparable to Jews gathering at the wailing wall? You dont feel the comparison is suprious?


----------



## Numbers (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> This is what I mean!
> 
> If I see someone hopping down the street having painted their head orange, I will probably laugh. If I see hundreds of Jews swaying backwards and forwards in fronmt of the wailing wall, muttering rubbis, dressed in an amusing way- i will laugh FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.
> 
> When I see Shi'ite (is it, can't remember) Muslims flaggelating themselves in a procession- I laugh.



you sir, are an eejit. IMO.  Or is it just gallows humour??


No-one has yet mentioned the role of psychoactive drugs in the creation of religions, I believe they played a major part.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

Kropotkin said:
			
		

> This is what I mean!
> 
> If I see someone hopping down the street having painted their head orange, I will probably laugh.


It's surreal.  Unusual.  Seems to have no purpose.  It doesn't fit.  Classic comic response, fair enough.




			
				Kropotkin said:
			
		

> If I see hundreds of Jews swaying backwards and forwards in fronmt of the wailing wall, muttering rubbis, dressed in an amusing way- i will laugh FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.
> 
> When I see Shi'ite (is it, can't remember) Muslims flaggelating themselves in a procession- I laugh.



But you're an educated person.  You understand that these people hold a set of beliefs, and that their actions, although alien to you, are linked to these beliefs.

It's not the same.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

You are not drawing equivalency between the reasoning of the orange-headed hopper and religious behaviour then.

Don't disrespect him! His reasoning is just as valid as yours!


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Maybe we shoud hold it off then!
> 
> Apart from thelittle bits of intentionally incendiary comment, I hope you are seeing that I am not attacking YOU. I have a lot of respect for you. Opinions are a different matter. I think that aLL opinions should be held up to the light. Nothing is or should be beyond comment.



Aye.  I'll sod off and try to stop being so unemployed now.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Do you view this as condonable behaviour?



Perhaps I shoul clarify this, I wouldexpect my children to be polite and tolerant of any person who returns this basic level of good manners. We take the piss out of religous types behind their backs. Many of them are family after all!


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 10, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> These two things are comparable? A person, with an orange head, hopping down a street on one leg is comparable to Jews gathering at the wailing wall? You dont feel the comparison is suprious?



Hindu holy men routinely cover themselves in orange paint. Why should a non-believer be expected to find Judaism any less ridiculous than Hinduism or any other religion?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

how many other people need to be doing the same as him, for the same reasons, before you will accord him and his reasoning respect then?

And how does Dra's point about the disparate nature of religious beleif _within the same religion_ fit in then?


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> You are not drawing equivalency between the reasoning of the orange-headed hopper and religious behaviour then.
> 
> Don't disrespect him! His reasoning is just as valid as yours!



But you are the one disrespecting him, by laughing at him without any understanding.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> You don't tell them that atheism is right.
> 
> Rather, you tell them that religion is wrong.
> 
> ...



I tell them that I think religous belief is irational and stupid. I don't tell them I am right or you are wong. I encourage them to question everything with no regard to the age or status of the person making the statements.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

Most religions, certainly the ones that have been discussed so far, are universalising philosophies.
They do not claim that what the adherants believe is only true _for them_, they claim to be a description of _all_ reality and peoples. You cannot say, "well, that is true for you, but I find something else to be the case". Religion cannot accept that. 

When I speak to a theist, he cannot acept that reality is scientifically rationalist, as I do. He believes, deep down, that I am wrong.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> You seemt to be drawing equivalency again between theism and atheism.



... in as much as they are two distinct and logical ways of explaining the world we live in.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

"Logical", you say?

How so? Religion is inherantly illogical.
For example. Back in the day, at university, I took a module in "Free will and determinism from a theological and scientific perspective", in the Theology school. My lecturer was a guy with a phd in theology, and a phd in theoretical phyics. 
My essay for the course was on the possibility of human agency with an omniscient God. He read it (he was a Minister) and told me that I am right (there can be no human agency- and no moral responsibility for ones actions- and thus God's punishment is wrong) but that "I am confident that there is an answer".

And that is a barrier one cannot go beyond. A refusal to accept logic- which destroys theism.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

*Respect vs tolerance*

We should pay a bit of attention to the distinction between respect and tolerance.

I don't respect any religon or it's adherants. I think they are all weak, shallow, have closed minds and are daft. Mentally ill if you like.

I tolerate almost everyone who is able to tolerate all others, does not behave like a shit (carrying out genital mutilation and so on) and who refrains from trying to preach to me.

I don't really understand this fad to respect any/all religons and cultures. many religons and cultures are awful in my view. I hope they wither on the vine. SOON!


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Most religions, certainly the ones that have been discussed so far, are universalising philosophies.
> They do not claim that what the adherants believe is only true _for them_, they claim to be a description of _all_ reality and peoples. You cannot say, "well, that is true for you, but I find something else to be the case". Religion cannot accept that.
> 
> When I speak to a theist, he cannot acept that reality is scientifically rationalist, as I do. He believes, deep down, that I am wrong.



I suppose that there is a distinction to be made between institutional religion and personal theism.

I'm a theist ... and a scientific rationalist. I don't see any contradiction.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

I agree with the above. (Topcat's response)


Dra:
Hmm... can't see how myself. Explain?

One question: If there is a soul that exists independently of the body- how does it effect the actions of that material body? Where is the connection in the brain between the spiritual and material realms, and how does this effect the principle of conservation of energy?


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> "Logical", you say?
> 
> How so? Religion is inherantly illogical.
> For example. Back in the day, at university, I took a module in "Free will and determinism from a theological and scientific perspective", in the Theology school. My lecturer was a guy with a phd in theology, and a phd in theoretical phyics.
> ...



I  do say.

When you have an object (the universe) it is logical to assume that it was created and that there is therefore, a creator.

It is not unbreakable logic but it is logic.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> I agree with the above. (Topcat's response)
> 
> 
> Dra:
> ...




something to do with relativistic quantum mechanics.

No one as yet understands the true function of the brain. I think they have approx. 10% figured out.

There is so much that science doesn't know. It'd be foolish to dismiss anything that wasn't immediatly explainable ...


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> I don't respect any religon or it's adherants. I think they are all weak, shallow, have closed minds and are daft. Mentally ill if you like.



I take your point re tolerence, but ...

Your declaration of billions of people (the majority of people in fact) as 'mentally ill' simply because their world view differs from your own is grossly offensive and marks you as a bigot.

I've made this point before but you should check out a few of the people that you are writing off as 'daft'. Many, many great thinkers, scientists, artists, musicians, etc, etc. Not that it makes them right of course, it's just hard to describe them as daft or mentally ill.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> I take your point re tolerence, but ...
> 
> Your declaration of billions of people (the majority of people in fact) as 'mentally ill' simply because their world view differs from your own is grossly offensive and marks you as a bigot.
> 
> I've made this point before but you should check out a few of the people that you are writing off as 'daft'. Many, many great thinkers, scientists, artists, musicians, etc, etc. Not that it makes them right of course, it's just hard to describe them as daft or mentally ill.




Well most people on this earth used to belive it was flat. It isn't. Just because billions thought it was flat did not make it so. They were wrong.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

Neat edit there Dra!!!


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> I take your point re tolerence, but ...
> 
> Your declaration of billions of people (the majority of people in fact) as 'mentally ill' simply because their world view differs from your own is grossly offensive and marks you as a bigot.
> 
> I've made this point before but you should check out a few of the people that you are writing off as 'daft'. Many, many great thinkers, scientists, artists, musicians, etc, etc. Not that it makes them right of course, it's just hard to describe them as daft or mentally ill.



 I find it easy to say they are daft and bonkers!


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> I don't respect any religon or it's adherants. I think they are all weak, shallow, have closed minds and are daft. Mentally ill if you like.



If anything's closed-minded, this is.


I'll finish the application tomorrow...


----------



## Sneeze (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Well most people on this earth used to belive it was flat. It isn't. Just because billions thought it was flat did not make it so. They were wrong.



They wern't mentally ill though and neither are religious people. That is an offensive thing to state. 

You stating that religious people have closed minds is also an offensive generalisation that marks you as foolish in light of your mind being closed to the possibility of the existence of God or gods.

As to the earth not being flat - how do you _know_ that? Do you follow the religion of science?


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Well most people on this earth used to belive it was flat. It isn't. Just because billions thought it was flat did not make it so. They were wrong.



They were wrong but they were not 'mentally ill'


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

"As to the earth not being flat - how do you know that?"


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

Sneeze said:
			
		

> They wern't mentally ill though and neither are religious people. That is an offensive thing to state.
> 
> You stating that religious people have closed minds is also an offensive generalisation that marks you as foolish in light of your mind being closed to the possibility of the existence of God or gods.
> 
> As to the earth not being flat - how do you _know_ that? Do you follow the religion of science?



Religous people are bonkers. The concept of faith requires a leap across the chasm of rational thought. To do this in adulthood is a sign of a weak mind. Most people were indoctrinated by there religous parents and therefore are unlikely to have had that leap of faith. they just don't know any better.

Why should I keep an open mind with regard to everything? I have a closed mind to the moon being made out of cheese, that lizard people run the earth and that people can dowse for oil/water/their mum...

I like to hear/see _evidence_ to support ideas, without any credible evidence for the existance of any god, it is reasonable to hold the view that there are no gods. That faith is misguided and wrong and stupid...  

I take it you are joking about the earth being flat? Oh and if you think science is a religon you are too far gone for help.


----------



## Jorum (Aug 10, 2004)

Sneeze said:
			
		

> Do you follow the religion of science?


Let's not go into all that again 

Science does not know everything. However that does not mean science knows nothing.

Also how do you define science? It's not as if science is a single statement that can be likened to a religion.

As for the Earth, it is not flat. 
The only model that makes any sense with what we see and experience is for it to be round.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> I find it easy to say they are daft and bonkers!



Really?

Einstein, Newton, etc, etc, etc ... were daft and bonkers.

Topcat is perfectly sane and rational.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> Einstein, Newton, etc, etc, etc ... were daft and bonkers.
> 
> Topcat is perfectly sane and rational.



If they had religous fath then yes...  

If you think I am irrational, please state when and why?


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

Sneeze said:
			
		

> Do you follow the religion of science?



Is a fair comparison.  The more I read of the high-level physics stuff (at a 'pop science' level admittedly - Feynman, Bryson, Greene, Twin theory, stuff like that) the more it appears that the most advanced physicists are coming closer and closer to the belief in some sort of overiding universal consciousness at the least*.  A lot of our beautifully rational science has been overturned time and again.  Tectonic plate theory was laughed at not so long ago, not due to any religious stigma (as happened with evolution), but just because it didn't fit with the scientific faith of the time.  Tacheons know which direction their partner particle is spinning _instantaneously_.  If you reverse the spin of one, the other reverses at the same time.  Zero lag, wherever it is.  This means that information is somehow passing between them faster than the speed of light, which isn't possible.  No'one knows how.

IMHO, I don't view scientific theory and religious faith as mutually exclusive or incompatible in the slightest.  If anything, the opposite is true.

*Don't ask me to point out where.  Like I said, this is based on my impressions from my recreational reading.  I didn't take notes.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Religous people are bonkers. The concept of faith requires a leap across the chasm of rational thought. To do this in adulthood is a sign of a weak mind. Most people were indoctrinated by there religous parents and therefore are unlikely to have had that leap of faith. they just don't know any better.
> 
> Why should I keep an open mind with regard to everything? I have a closed mind to the moon being made out of cheese, that lizard people run the earth and that people can dowse for oil/water/their mum...
> 
> I like to hear/see _evidence_ to support ideas, without any credible evidence for the existance of any god, it is reasonable to hold the view that there are no gods. That faith is misguided and wrong and stupid...



Are you some kind of authority on rational thought. Presumably you have a rational explanation for the big bang and for the first spark of life on earth?

Theism is not a sign of a weak mind at all. It is a perfectly rational response to the observations that we are capable, as a species, of making.

You make one good point though. It is reasonable to hold the view that there are no gods.
However, it is also reasonable to hold the other view, especially when there is NO evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> If they had religous fath then yes...



Um... yes.  Just a bit.  Newton _was_ bonkers actually (IMO   ).  He spent most of his life trying to find a hidden code from god in the bible.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

dra:


> I do say.
> 
> When you have an object (the universe) it is logical to assume that it was created and that there is therefore, a creator.


No it isn't. It is logical to ask it is there, and to say "we don't know". Not to come up with a massively convoluted theory unsupported by anything, and then say "because of that".



> > One question: If there is a soul that exists independently of the body- how does it effect the actions of that material body? Where is the connection in the brain between the spiritual and material realms, and how does this effect the principle of conservation of energy?
> 
> 
> 
> something to do with relativistic quantum mechanics



So not, "I don't know" then? Just faith that what you say IS true, despite current understanding falsifying it (i.e. there can't be a soul, as it would violate thermodynamics).


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> (i.e. there can't be a soul, as it would violate thermodynamics).



   

Please tell me more...


----------



## General Ludd (Aug 10, 2004)

> something to do with relativistic quantum mechanics.


Out of interest like, what you do know of relativistic quantum mechanics? See, I've never seen you post anything on quantum physics threads and I've got a sneaky suspicion that you don't have the foggiest what you're talking about. 


> There is so much that science doesn't know. It'd be foolish to dismiss anything that wasn't immediatly explainable ...


Errr science doesn't claim to know everything. And it also doesn't dismiss anything that isn't immediately explainable: scientists didn't claim the sky wasn't blue until they had explained why.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> If they had religous fath then yes...
> 
> If you think I am irrational, please state when and why?



I think you are irrational because:

-you declare that anyone who is a theist is 'mentally ill'

-this is clearly not true, with plenty of evidence to the contrary

-therefore it is an irrational statement

-you made the statement

-therefore you are irrational!


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> Are you some kind of authority on rational thought. Presumably you have a rational explanation for the big bang and for the first spark of life on earth?
> 
> Theism is not a sign of a weak mind at all. It is a perfectly rational response to the observations that we are capable, as a species, of making.
> 
> ...



There is no credible evidence to support the concept that any god exists. if you think I am wrong and that there is credible evidence post it up!


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> dra:
> 
> No it isn't. It is logical to ask it is there, and to say "we don't know". Not to come up with a massively convoluted theory unsupported by anything, and then say "because of that".



right ... I didn't mean that 'god' is the only solution. Just one of two possibilities. You are right 'we don't know' is the answer. 



> So not, "I don't know" then? Just faith that what you say IS true, despite current understanding falsifying it (i.e. there can't be a soul, as it would violate thermodynamics).



I'm not trying to argue that there is a god. Just that such a view is not illogical.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> I think you are irrational because:
> 
> -you declare that anyone who is a theist is 'mentally ill'
> 
> ...




But to believe in God requires a suspension of disbelief, a willingness to accept the unproven as fact. This is not the act of a rational mind ergo all people who have religous faith are bonkers. 

Therefore I am right, always!


----------



## rorymac (Aug 10, 2004)

Very incorrect actually TC.


----------



## Jorum (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> If you reverse the spin of one, the other reverses at the same time.  Zero lag, wherever it is.  This means that information is somehow passing between them faster than the speed of light, which isn't possible.  No'one knows how.


This is known as the EPR paradox. 
It is possible that there is in fact no paradox - that there is no instantaneous link between them (spooky action at a distance as Einstein put it)
It is possible that the spin of the particles is set from the moment they break contact, and that our concept that we are affecting the spin is wrong.
The EPR paradox depends somewhat on Copenhagen interpretation - which is looking a little shaky at the moment.

To get back on topic- religion often criticises science for changing or being wrong in the past.

In actual fact this is one of it's strengths, the willingness to drop what was believed in the past when it is shown to no longer be valid (or when it can be replaced by something more accurate).
Old theories/models become part of a larger more accurate and more general theory.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

rorymac said:
			
		

> Very incorrect actually TC.



Why Rory?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Is a fair comparison.  The more I read of the high-level physics stuff (at a 'pop science' level admittedly - Feynman, Bryson, Greene, Twin theory, stuff like that) the more it appears that the most advanced physicists are coming closer and closer to the belief in some sort of overiding universal consciousness at the least*.  A lot of our beautifully rational science has been overturned time and again.  Tectonic plate theory was laughed at not so long ago, not due to any religious stigma (as happened with evolution), but just because it didn't fit with the scientific faith of the time.  Tacheons know which direction their partner particle is spinning _instantaneously_.  If you reverse the spin of one, the other reverses at the same time.  Zero lag, wherever it is.  This means that information is somehow passing between them faster than the speed of light, which isn't possible.  No'one knows how.
> 
> IMHO, I don't view scientific theory and religious faith as mutually exclusive or incompatible in the slightest.  If anything, the opposite is true.
> 
> *Don't ask me to point out where.  Like I said, this is based on my impressions from my recreational reading.  I didn't take notes.


 That is because, as you have admited, you don't understand it.

1/ Tachyons are a theoretical particle and have never been observed. Many people don't think they exist anyway.
2/ Quantum entanglement doesn't imply faster-than-light information transfer, it just demonstrates that the wavefunction exists throughout all space
3/ Don't try and claim that high-level physicists are adopting a theist paradigm. They aren't. It just looks desparate.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> But to believe in God requires a suspension of disbelief, a willingness to accept the unproven as fact. This is not the act of a rational mind...



Hmmm...

Tell me then, why _do_ the particles in your body hold together.  At a really really really really fundamental level, y'see, no'one knows (or so I'm told).  Leap of faith, I reckon.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

meanoldman said:
			
		

> Out of interest like, what you do know of relativistic quantum mechanics? See, I've never seen you post anything on quantum physics threads and I've got a sneaky suspicion that you don't have the foggiest what you're talking about.



hmmm well ... I've a Ph.D. in theoretical physics specialising in electron transport in low-dimensional heterostructures.

I don't know a whole heap about relativistic quantum mechanics though ... I was being a little flippant.

but still ... your sneaking suspicion sneaked right up and bashed you on the head.



> Errr science doesn't claim to know everything. And it also doesn't dismiss anything that isn't immediately explainable: scientists didn't claim the sky wasn't blue until they had explained why



I know ... I never claimed otherwise. In fact I said exactly that. 

Quote:
There is so much that science doesn't know. It'd be foolish to dismiss anything that wasn't immediatly explainable ...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> right ... I didn't mean that 'god' is the only solution. Just one of two possibilities. You are right 'we don't know' is the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to argue that there is a god. Just that such a view is not illogical.


 But you said you were a theist earlier - you are going further than saying both options are logical - you're explicitly saying one is correct and one is untrue aren't you?


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> But to believe in God requires a suspension of disbelief, a willingness to accept the unproven as fact. This is not the act of a rational mind ergo all people who have religous faith are bonkers.
> 
> Therefore I am right, always!



But to believe there is no God requires a suspension of disbelief, a willingness to accept the unproven as fact. This is not the act of a rational mind ergo all people who have no religous faith are bonkers.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

You are showing a surising lack of comprehension for someone with a phd in 1-d heterostructures.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> But you said you were a theist earlier - you are going further than saying both options are logical - you're explicitly saying one is correct and one is untrue aren't you?




I believe one to be true. I'm not 100% sure. 

But my argument is as I say.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> You are showing a surising lack of comprehension for someone with a phd in 1-d heterostructures.



2-D triangular wells actually
 


And what lack of comprehension?


----------



## Jorum (Aug 10, 2004)

Religion requires "Faith"  - the ability to believe things without evidence or proof.
However - to say that religious people must therefore be insane or stupid is disingenious, and ignores the hundered of inventors and scientists who were commited Chrisitians.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> That is because, as you have admited, you don't understand it.
> 
> 1/ Tachyons are a theoretical particle and have never been observed. Many people don't think they exist anyway.
> 2/ Quantum entanglement doesn't imply faster-than-light information transfer, it just demonstrates that the wavefunction exists throughout all space
> 3/ Don't try and claim that high-level physicists are adopting a theist paradigm. They aren't. It just looks desparate.



Sodding thread moving too sodding fast.... *puff, wheeze*


1/ & 2/  This was merely an example, I don't want to go down this route really, as I'm not well informed enough to have a constructive discussion.

3/ I'm not trying to claim support from high-level physicists for any deity.  The impression I get though, is that they are veering further and further towards an idea of an overiding pre-set logic to the universe, that has no reason to exist in the first place, or something.  What I said above stands   .

My main point is that Science and Religion are not in opposition to each other in the views of many.


----------



## Sneeze (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Religous people are bonkers. The concept of faith requires a leap across the chasm of rational thought. To do this in adulthood is a sign of a weak mind. Most people were indoctrinated by there religous parents and therefore are unlikely to have had that leap of faith. they just don't know any better.



There you are again with the weak mind stuff. Some of the greatest minds of humankind have also been devoutees of religion. I an atiest, but have a feeling that it is my mind that's weak for not being able or willing to accept the concept of God or gods. It also means I can live my life in a hedonistic manner, with no fear of having to account for my actions, which is nice.



> Why should I keep an open mind with regard to everything? I have a closed mind to the moon being made out of cheese, that lizard people run the earth and that people can dowse for oil/water/their mum...



Ehrm, you can dowse for water. 



> I like to hear/see _evidence_ to support ideas, without any credible evidence for the existance of any god, it is reasonable to hold the view that there are no gods. That faith is misguided and wrong and stupid...



Fair enough. A quick question. What's below the earth's crust? 

A mantle then a core? No evidence, so anyone who thinks that must be misguided, wrong and stupid?




> I take it you are joking about the earth being flat? Oh and if you think science is a religon you are too far gone for help.



I think that the earth is round of course. But I don't know for certain. I've only ever seen 2d pictures of it. I've been round it a few times, but sitting in a plane doesn't prove it to be round, could just as easily be bowl shaped?

And the analogy between science and religion is close; religion traditionally answers questions about the earth and life. Science is replacing that. However we must accept what the scientists tell us as fact. Sure we listen to their evidence and that helps us form beliefs, but you and I ain't never gonna see an atom or have any concept of how what they are or how they work, but we have faith.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

I give up.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> I give up.


----------



## Jorum (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Tell me then, why _do_ the particles in your body hold together.  At a really really really really fundamental level, y'see, no'one knows (or so I'm told).  Leap of faith, I reckon.


The answer science will give you is "we don't know" - Where is the leap of faith in that?

Also how fundamental do you want to go?
On the sub-atomic level quantum mechanics and the standard model gives a number of theories that may be correct.

It is possible that humans will never be able to say "this is the absolute most fundamental way things work" because it's beyond our abilty to truly comprehend at that level.
However we can come up with theories, models and equations that offer more understanding of phenomenon.


----------



## rorymac (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Why Rory?



Because I know at least one religious person who isn't bonkers.
You'd never even know they were religious to be fair. 
I know loads of bonkers people. 
Just wait til Rupert Murdoch tries to get into heaven...<shakes fist>..he's got no fuckin chance.
<lobs brick> 
_!_


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

>


 Because it has strayed into "science vs. religion" which has been done to death.
It was about whether it is wrong to ridicule things that are silly.

I just got back from lunch. While eating, I thought of a good analogy.

*The Dr Jazzz and Conspiracy Theories Analogy* I shall call it.

Dr.J et al. often post up threads giving extrmeely convulted explanations for real-life events. No matter how many contrary pieces of evidence are presented, he will not reject his conspiracy theory, and will continue to beleive in things like unmanned jumbo jets firing missiles into remotely detonated buildings.
I think that his ideas should be ridiculed and exposed for the idiocy they are.

I see NO difference between conspriacy theories like this and religion.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

Jorum said:
			
		

> The answer science will give you is "we don't know" - Where is the leap of faith in that?
> 
> Also how fundamental do you want to go?
> On the sub-atomic level quantum mechanics and the standard model gives a number of theories that may be correct.
> ...



But religion can also say "we don't know how".  It's not a case of believing in the impossible, because if something happens, it clearly is possible.  As you say, it is possible that humans will never be able to say "this is the absolute most fundamental way things work" because it's beyond our abilty to truly comprehend at that level.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> science vs. religion



I've stated my opinion that this is not a necessary conflict, and hoped the discussion might continue from there, but never mind. _*shrug*_

I really ought to do something more materially constructive anyway.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

*materialist!* 

Religion never says "we don't know" though, does it? It gives an unsupported, convoluted explanation for everything. And when proved wrong (earth created in 6 days etc) it's adherants either discard those troublesome bits of doctrine, or stick to them anyway (creatonists etc).

The late Steven Jay Gould also thought that there was not necessarily a conflict between science and religion. I've got the book he wrote on that somewhere at home. I'll have a read.


And in response to your question about why I don't think souls are possible:

You responded with mirth at my statement. Well, it is not so funny actually. Theists posit that personality and essence are contained in a non-material entity called a soul. This is not the same as the scientific description of personality as expressed by neurone activity. Theists have the soul as the specific creation of the god-head, and the body as a temporary vessel before re-absorbtion into the spiritual realm.

Thsi poses some awkward questions. As *all* evidence supports the conservation of energy principle, how would the non-material soul effect the body *at all*? For it to effect it in any way there would be some transferral of energy- but as the soul doesn't exist in the material plane there would have to be an interface in the brain to facilitate this.
So, apart from that being impossible (assuming the laws of thermodynamics are correct), where is this interface? 

Again, the belief in the non-corporeal soul can only be continued if contrary evidence is discarded. Hence: irrational.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

Sneeze said:
			
		

> There you are again with the weak mind stuff. Some of the greatest minds of humankind have also been devoutees of religion. I an atiest, but have a feeling that it is my mind that's weak for not being able or willing to accept the concept of God or gods. It also means I can live my life in a hedonistic manner, with no fear of having to account for my actions, which is nice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So you can dowse for water eh? Perhaps not you but others can? Well if you believe this you are daft. There is no credible evidence that dowsing works at all. If you disagree with this then contact James Randi and prove dowsing works and he will give you a $1000,000!


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

Many people have mental health problems. this does not mean that they cannot hold down jobs, get on well with others, invent stuff, be good parents and so on. But if you have jumped the chasm of irrationality in order to have faith then you are not the most sane person. This does not mean I denigrate you because of this. I have mental health issues myself, though not ones related to a lack of logic or having blind faith.


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> Hindu holy men routinely cover themselves in orange paint. Why should a non-believer be expected to find Judaism any less ridiculous than Hinduism or any other religion?




Now your being specious. The "orange man" was not, in any way, meant to represent a Hindu or Hinduism.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> *materialist!*
> 
> Religion never says "we don't know" though, does it? It gives an unsupported, convoluted explanation for everything. And when proved wrong (earth created in 6 days etc) it's adherants either discard those troublesome bits of doctrine, or stick to them anyway (creatonists etc).


I'd give credit for the dogma to the church rather than the faith.  As in most areas, the establishment is habitually deceitful and generally sucks.

And in response to your question about why I don't think souls are possible:




			
				kropotkin said:
			
		

> You responded with mirth at my statement. Well, it is not so funny actually.


 not intended in a disparaging way, I'm genuinely interested, but the statement you made still sounds python-esque to my ear.   




			
				kropotkin said:
			
		

> Theists posit that personality and essence are contained in a non-material entity called a soul. This is not the same as the scientific description of personality as expressed by neurone activity. Theists have the soul as the specific creation of the god-head, and the body as a temporary vessel before re-absorbtion into the spiritual realm.
> 
> Thsi poses some awkward questions. As *all* evidence supports the conservation of energy principle, how would the non-material soul effect the body *at all*? For it to effect it in any way there would be some transferral of energy- but as the soul doesn't exist in the material plane there would have to be an interface in the brain to facilitate this.
> So, apart from that being impossible (assuming the laws of thermodynamics are correct), where is this interface?



It's an interesting though experiment if you subscribe to the intial beliefs, and I'd agree with the conclusion.

I see free-will and the soul as the same thing, and I see them constructed from synapses.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

So you don't beleive in an afterlife then?


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 10, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> Now your being specious. The "orange man" was not, in any way, meant to represent a Hindu or Hinduism.



Orangemen would have been an *excellent* example of religious believers that invite ridicule...


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> So you don't beleive in an afterlife then?



I'm undecided on that one.  It's not that important to me.


----------



## Jorum (Aug 10, 2004)

> A mantle then a core? No evidence, so anyone who thinks that must be misguided, wrong and stupid?


Equating this with religion is fairly shallow though.

There is no direct evidence for a mantle and core. 
However a model of the earth  in which there is a mantle and a core is consistant with what we know to be possible, and it offers a working explanation of what we see (mid-atlantic rifts, magnetic fields)

So no direct evidence, but then again no observable phenomenon contradicts this model, so as it works it is worth keeping.

Compare with Genesis for example, which contradicts what we see in the world. If you wish to believe genesis you must reject a huge chunk of experimentally demonstrated scientific knowledge.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

Eh?
If you think that free will and the soul are products of synapses, and DON'T beleive in the soul, then you CAN'T beleive in an afterlife, as the personality and free will cease to exist when the synapses stop firing.

How can you be unsure if you don't beleive in the non-corporal soul?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

*Hey Sneeze!*

Come on, tell us more about how dowsing works!


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> Orangemen would have been an *excellent* example of religious believers that invite ridicule...



Yes they would. Point?


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Eh?
> If you think that free will and the soul are products of synapses, and DON'T beleive in the soul, then you CAN'T beleive in an afterlife, as the personality and free will cease to exist when the synapses stop firing.
> 
> How can you be unsure if you don't beleive in the non-corporal soul?



I don't believe that I understand it, nor necessarily that I am capable of doing so.  That doesn't mean it is illogical.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 10, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> Yes they would. Point?



I was stalling for time while I looked up "specious" on dictionary.com....


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

This is rather good natured for this sort of debate!


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

Jorum said:
			
		

> Compare with Genesis for example, which contradicts what we see in the world. If you wish to believe genesis you must reject a huge chunk of experimentally demonstrated scientific knowledge.



OK ... not that I believe Genesis to be true or anything but ...

exactly what does it contradict (that is observable)?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

Fossils?


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> OK ... not that I believe Genesis to be true or anything but ...
> 
> exactly what does it contradict (that is observable)?



Geography?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> I don't believe that I understand it, nor necessarily that I am capable of doing so.  That doesn't mean it is illogical.


 Well:

1/ Propose a non-corporeal soul exists that controls the body
2/ Propose that energy is always conserved

Now, accepting 1, that means that 2 must be wrong (as shown in previous post). But all evidence ever gathered suppots 2, and no evidence supports 1.

Therefore still beleiving 1 is illogical.


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> There is no credible evidence to support the concept that any god exists. if you think I am wrong and that there is credible evidence post it up!



2 points.

1) You cant prove that a god(s) doesnt exist now can you? 

2) Do you only believe things that you have seen proven with your own eyes? You "believe" you breath air, you can't see it, yet you believe it. Have you proved that fact yourself? Actually done the research? Or are you in fact, taking it on trust that you are not being lied to by the scientific community? Unless you do all the experiements yourself and learn every branch of science there is so much we take on trust. So to say that you only believe in rationality and logic is, in fact, spurious because you accept "facts" that are hugely beyond your own understanding and knowledge.


----------



## Sneeze (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> So you can dowse for water eh? Perhaps not you but others can? Well if you believe this you are daft. There is no credible evidence that dowsing works at all. If you disagree with this then contact James Randi and prove dowsing works and he will give you a $1000,000!



Sorry was being facetious b4 lunch. You said people couldn't dowse for water, I said they can. In no way do I think that people will ever find water in this way.

I was at Lackham Agricultural College with a lecturer who looked like the bumkpin off Time Team and he took the class out to show us how it worked. It didn't.


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> I was stalling for time while I looked up "specious" on dictionary.com....



Ah well, fair enough then.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Well:
> 
> 1/ Propose a non-corporeal soul exists that controls the body
> 2/ Propose that energy is always conserved
> ...



Why does the soul have to consist of energy or matter?  Can it not, for instance, be a collective entity made up of a mutitude of our traits, values, etc. ?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

science
falsifiabile models and theories
verifiable experiments
open publishing
peer review

theism
a book.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Fossils?




And what do fossils contradict?


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Geography?



What exactly?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

That the earth was made in seven days and not that long ago either?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

Sneeze said:
			
		

> Sorry was being facetious b4 lunch. You said people couldn't dowse for water, I said they can. In no way do I think that people will ever find water in this way.
> 
> I was at Lackham Agricultural College with a lecturer who looked like the bumkpin off Time Team and he took the class out to show us how it worked. It didn't.




Thanks for this, you have cracked me up!


----------



## Sneeze (Aug 10, 2004)

Jorum said:
			
		

> Equating this with religion is fairly shallow though.



Is that a pun?



> There is no direct evidence for a mantle and core.
> However a model of the earth  in which there is a mantle and a core is consistant with what we know to be possible, and it offers a working explanation of what we see (mid-atlantic rifts, magnetic fields)
> 
> So no direct evidence, but then again no observable phenomenon contradicts this model, so as it works it is worth keeping.
> ...



As I said, I am an athiest. However the texts that make up the Bible worked for a couple of thousand years as a model of the world and universe. We are now told to believe that the earth has a molton mantle and solid core, told it as fact in school text books. It may fit in with what we can observe, but  200 years ago a plague of loucusts fitted in with God having the cream puff.

But TC isn't advocating that people who have faith in unproved science facts are mentally ill, only those with unproved religious beliefs. So I stand by the analogy.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Why does the soul have to consist of energy or matter?  Can it not, for instance, be a collective entity made up of a mutitude of our traits, values, etc. ?


 Eh? Everything in the universe is a manifestation of energy. Mass and energy are interchangable.
But it doesn't matter.
The soul can be made of whatever you want. It doesn't exist on the material plane though (i.e. it doesn't exist in the universe- it exists in some other plane- the spiritual plane), and so it must interact with this universe, and with the matter and eneergy in your head.

It doesn't matter where it is, or what it is made of.
Your brain, I think we'll both agree, does exist, and is made of stuff and things. Atoms. For those atoms to be effected by the soul, as they would have to in order for the "personality" in the soul to move the body about and experience love and ting (flushes, fluttering heart etc) , there would be an exchange of energy in the real universe.

Where would it come from? 
How would the thermodynamic law not be violated?
Where would the interface between the planes be?

No evidence whatsoever, and all evidence about this falsifies the theory. To continue vuying it is illogical. Like Dr Jazz and his remote control detonation of the twin towers.


----------



## Jorum (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> OK ... not that I believe Genesis to be true or anything but ...
> exactly what does it contradict (that is observable)?



Geology, geography, biology and the history of living creatures on Earth.

If Genesis is true then God made a great number of fossils specifically designed 
to trick people into believing that Genesis is wrong


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> That the earth was made in seven days and not that long ago either?



The original genesis had the world being created over 6 periods of time. Days was not mentioned. It got the order of creation pretty much spot on as well.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

Jorum said:
			
		

> Geology, geography, biology and the history of living creatures on Earth.
> 
> If Genesis is true then God made a great number of fossils specifically designed
> to trick people into believing that Genesis is wrong



What part of Genesis is incompatable with the existence of fossils?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> 2 points.
> 
> 1) You cant prove that a god(s) doesnt exist now can you?
> 
> 2) Do you only believe things that you have seen proven with your own eyes? You "believe" you breath air, you can't see it, yet you believe it. Have you proved that fact yourself? Actually done the research? Or are you in fact, taking it on trust that you are not being lied to by the scientific community? Unless you do all the experiements yourself and learn every branch of science there is so much we take on trust. So to say that you only believe in rationality and logic is, in fact, spurious because you accept "facts" that are hugely beyond your own understanding and knowledge.



It really is up to people who advance a theory IE that god exists to prove it. Not the other way around. 

If you believe the moon is made of green knob cheese then prove it! I am not in a position to prove otherwise but I don't at the end of the day believe that it is indeed made of any sort of cheese.

With regard to air that I breathe, this was one of the earliest scientific experiments that I did as a school kid. We seperated the components of air and set light to the hydrogen!


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

Oxygen you mean (70% nitogen, 20% oxygen, everything else- not much)


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Eh? Everything in the universe is a manifestation of energy. Mass and energy are interchangable.
> But it doesn't matter.
> The soul can be made of whatever you want. It doesn't exist on the material plane though (i.e. it doesn't exist in the universe- it exists in some other plane- the spiritual plane), and so it must interact with this universe, and with the matter and eneergy in your head.
> 
> ...



I doubt I'll be able to go much further with this.  I just think that scientific theory is a good working model, but still essentially very primitive and simplistic.  I think we've got a way to go.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> I doubt I'll be able to go much further with this.  I just think that scientific theory is a good working model, but still essentially very primitive and simplistic.  I think we've got a way to go.



I would agree with this, but just because we don't know everything, does not mean we should grasp some stupid unevidenced theory like a drowning man with straws...


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

OK, but do you see that the argument works?

This is where I always get to. The respondent ends with, "well, that is implied by the argument, but I believe that the conclusion is wrong and that there is an answer".


----------



## blamblam (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Oxygen you mean (70% nitogen, 20% oxygen, everything else- not much)


I reckon he meant water, no?

Man this thread is funny!

To the people who seriously use the argument: "you can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore it's logical (and just as valid) to state that he does", do you seriously believe this?

If so am I justified in saying "you can't prove that telepathic hamsters who play golf and fly don't exist, therefore it is logical + rational to state that they do exist"?

Seriously I'd like to know if that's what you think. And if not your entire argument collapses.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

Yeah it was a long time ago and although an error on my part does not disprove anything!

Where were we, oh yes, god does not exist, faith is irrational and religion is often evil.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> OK, but do you see that the argument works?
> 
> This is where I always get to. The respondent ends with, "well, that is implied by the argument, but I believe that the conclusion is wrong and that there is an answer".



Yep.

That's why I don't do evangelical preachy stuff.  God ain't provable.  You can't force someone into a faith.  You might force them to adopt the habits and rituals, even brainwash them into saying the right things.  It ain't it though.

Ho hum.  I guess my final contribution to this discussion is, therefore, that I really have no contribution to make.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

cheers though.
It's been fun
Sorry if I said anything that offended you (i just like being intentionally provocative sometimes).

Take care.


----------



## ICB (Aug 10, 2004)

recommended reading







especially for those wheeling out the "can't prove a negative" and the "creation i  s logical" lines

I can make a very long and ultimately irrefutable argument that black is white but that doesn't mean you should take me seriously.  The more you challenge my argument the more ridiculous I will be forced to make it in order to retain its internal logical coherence.  This behaviour is displayed by people with major delusional psychiatric conditions and religious believers who try to justify their beliefs on rational grounds.  Which is not the same as saying believers are insane.

Religion used to be a prefectly sensible way of explaining the world given our understanding and technology.  However, we improved on it, consequently it is dying.  Inevitably.  Arguing about it won't change that any more than exhaling will hold back the tide.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Yep.
> 
> That's why I don't do evangelical preachy stuff.  God ain't provable.  You can't force someone into a faith.  You might force them to adopt the habits and rituals, even brainwash them into saying the right things.  It ain't it though.
> 
> Ho hum.  I guess my final contribution to this discussion is, therefore, that I really have no contribution to make.



Bless!


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

icepick said:
			
		

> If so am I justified in saying "you can't prove that telepathic hamsters who play golf and fly don't exist, therefore it is logical + rational to state that they do exist"?



Actually yes.  It would just contradict what most people have learned about hamsters, physics, golf and the existence of telepathy.  Thus most people would hold it as highly implausible.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

icepick said:
			
		

> I reckon he meant water, no?
> 
> Man this thread is funny!
> 
> ...



Sheesh ... nice analogy
 

the existence of a 'creator' is a reasonable assumption given the existence of the universe.

If you come across a watch, say, lying on the ground with no sign of how it got there, would it not be rational to assume it had a creator? ... or would such an assumption be irrational since you can't prove it?


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

Cheers Krop, TC, BA et al.

*unsubscribes*


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

I am going to have to do some work today so will leave this thread. I have enjoyed it a lot, I am glad it did not yet descend into abuse and thankyou for your time one and all.

Amen.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

shit, do you just copy these out from books!? 
hint: next use the "it would be illogical to believe that a whirlwind moving through a scrapyard could assemble a car" against evolution.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

99. ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
1) If there is a designer, then God must exist.
2) If I find a watch in a forest, there must be a designer
3) *throws watch into forest*
4) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

Bloody hell, is this a first on urban75?!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Cheers Krop, TC, BA et al.
> 
> *unsubscribes*


 Cheers mate - was an enjoyable one this.


----------



## Jorum (Aug 10, 2004)

> If you come across a watch, say, lying on the ground with no sign of how it got there, would it not be rational to assume it had a creator? ... or would such an assumption be irrational since you can't prove it?


traditionally the next step in this argument is "what use is half an eye?".........


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> shit, do you just copy these out from books!?
> hint: next use the "it would be illogical to believe that a whirlwind moving through a scrapyard could assemble a car" against evolution.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> 99. ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
> 1) If there is a designer, then God must exist.
> 2) If I find a watch in a forest, there must be a designer
> 3) *throws watch into forest*
> 4) Therefore, God exists.



ah for gawds sake ...

I'm not arguing the existence of god ... just the rationality of such a view.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 10, 2004)

56. ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION

(1) God exists.
(2) [atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
(8) [atheist gives up and goes home]
(9) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> shit, do you just copy these out from books!?
> hint: next use the "it would be illogical to believe that a whirlwind moving through a scrapyard could assemble a car" against evolution.



you have no answer I take it?

(as to why this would be illogical)

p.s. I fully believe in evolution


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> With regard to air that I breathe, this was one of the earliest scientific experiments that I did as a school kid. We seperated the components of air and set light to the hydrogen!



But answer the specific question. Do you only believe things that you have seen proven with your own eye, or have proven yourself? Or do you accept the word of scientists about things that you personally, in fact, know nothing, or little, about?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

It isn't rational though, as has been pointed about a fifty times on this thread alone!


----------



## Sneeze (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> shit, do you just copy these out from books!?
> hint: next use the "it would be illogical to believe that a whirlwind moving through a scrapyard could assemble a car" against evolution.



If you've seen my van, you might just be a convert...


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> 56. ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
> 
> (1) God exists.
> (2) [atheist's counterargument]
> ...



You make it sound like you have the definitive arguement against the existence of God. So lets have it. Or are you, once again, being facetious?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

As a micro-electronics phd, you are familiar with quantum vaccum fluctuations?
And the big bang theory suggests that the universe was once a singularity

Does god produce vaccuum fluctuations?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

Might be a good idea for some latecomers to read _the very first post_ on this thread.


----------



## Jorum (Aug 10, 2004)

The argument "the world exists - therefore something must have created it"  is an obvious and rational step - but only on a low level of investigation into the world.

Humanity has since then discovered many many things, one of which is that there are possible ways that the world could come into existence without being designed and created by a god.

These other ways not only explain a number of other facts, but also help to explain why there is no evidence of god other than the fact of existance.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 10, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> You make it sound like you have the definitive arguement against the existence of God. So lets have it. Or are you, once again, being facetious?



Wouldn’t giving a definitive answer defeat the entire exercise?


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> It isn't rational though, as has been pointed about a fifty times on this thread alone!



humour me and explain exactly why, upon observation of a object, assuming a the existence of a creator is irrational.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> As a micro-electronics phd, you are familiar with quantum vaccum fluctuations?
> And the big bang theory suggests that the universe was once a singularity
> 
> Does god produce vaccuum fluctuations?



Maybe


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

Jorum said:
			
		

> The argument "the world exists - therefore something must have created it"  is an obvious and rational step - but only on a low level of investigation into the world.
> 
> Humanity has since then discovered many many things, one of which is that there are possible ways that the world could come into existence without being designed and created by a god.
> 
> These other ways not only explain a number of other facts, but also help to explain why there is no evidence of god other than the fact of existance.



what has humanity discovered that can explain the existence of the universe?


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> Wouldn’t giving a definitive answer defeat the entire exercise?



So you have one?


----------



## Jorum (Aug 10, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> You make it sound like you have the definitive arguement against the existence of God. So lets have it. Or are you, once again, being facetious?


But surely the onus is on believers to prove to us that God does exist?

Otherwise we might as well just argue about whether you can dis-prove that the entire universe was created by me and is a product of my will.

So how do you prove God?

(or disprove that _I_  am the "creator")


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

p.s. Don't test God, for he is righteous


----------



## Jorum (Aug 10, 2004)

I am righteous, that's true.
I will refuse to give physical demonstration of my creatorship, but I will allow people to question and attempt to dis-prove me


----------



## ICB (Aug 10, 2004)

faith != reason, trying to mix them is a non-starter

the argument from design was demolished, permanently, in the 18th C. 

I don't understand how obivously intelligent people with more than a passing interest in this subject can write pages of bold assertions without having done the most basic of homework.  I wouldn't start chatting about the implications of quantum physics without reading a few books first lest I make an even bigger arse of myself than usual.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 10, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> So you have one?



DO I have the definitive, undeniable answer that will completely disprove the existence of God, that will completely convince absolute everybody and usher the world into a an era of atheistic peace and enlightenment?

I wish...


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

Jorum said:
			
		

> I am righteous, that's true.
> I will refuse to give physical demonstration of my creatorship, but I will allow people to question and attempt to dis-prove me



Fuck, you git you have dragged me back with this one...Sits on hands and trys not to post!


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

Jorum said:
			
		

> But surely the onus is on believers to prove to us that God does exist?
> 
> Otherwise we might as well just argue about whether you can dis-prove that the entire universe was created by me and is a product of my will.
> 
> ...



Scientifically? I can't. But I'm not asking you to believe, this thread wasnt started by someone being evangelical, it was started just to start this circular arguement because somebody was bored and fancied luring some religious people in for a good baiting and patronisation. I dont need to prove to you, or anybody, that God exists as whether you believe is immaterial to me. I'm not into telling people how to live thier lives.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 10, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> . But I'm not asking you to believe, this thread wasnt started by someone being evangelical, it was started just to start this circular arguement because somebody was bored and fancied luring some religious people in for a good baiting and patronisation.



They've been astonishingly successful if that's the case - I thought the point was more to take the piss out of the circular arguments themselves.


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> DO I have the definitive, undeniable answer that will completely disprove the existence of God, that will completely convince absolute everybody and usher the world into a an era of atheistic peace and enlightenment?
> 
> I wish...



So, then you were being facetious. Thats all I wanted to know.



> usher the world into a an era of atheistic peace and enlightenment?



Of course, its religion that is causing all the troubles in the world. Once its been destroyed there will be world peace.


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> They've been astonishingly successful if that's the case - I thought the point was more to take the piss out of the circular arguments themselves.



Of course they have. They always are.  It one of the acceptable prejudices left here.

As for taking the piss out of the circular arguements. You havent, not in the slightest. Those arguing against dont come out any better than those arguing for.


----------



## Jorum (Aug 10, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> I'm not into telling people how to live thier lives.


You may be not - but with all respect many religious people are.

The Pope seems quite keen on laying down some laws for one.

A large anti-gay contingent in USA seems quite keen on interfering with other peoples choices.

Not to mention some anti-abortionists and anti stem-cell research.

Quite a few also seem to consider God as being "on their side" which excuses a great number of things.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 10, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> Of course, its religion that is causing all the troubles in the world. Once its been destroyed there will be world peace.




I'm trying to think of a war that's happened between two atheistic nations and haven't come up with one yet...


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 10, 2004)

Just to let you all know that I've read all of this thread!!! 

I'm in a  training course and my teacher hovers ... otherwise I'd have a LOT to say about all this!!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2004)

Jorum said:
			
		

> You may be not - but with all respect many religious people are.
> 
> The Pope seems quite keen on laying down some laws for one.
> 
> ...


 ..and of course he was on both sides in the war.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> I'm trying to think of a war that's happened between two atheistic nations and haven't come up with one yet...



surely you are not trying to suggest athiestic nations are a model of peace and enlightenment?

China,
North Korea,
USSR,
etc.

I can't think of a single one that hasn't a terrible human right record.


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> I'm trying to think of a war that's happened between two atheistic nations and haven't come up with one yet...



I dont know 2 aethistic nations. 

However, what about the skirmishes between China and Russia over a small island in the middle of the river which forms their border? That went on for the best part of 10 years.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Just to let you all know that I've read all of this thread!!!
> 
> I'm in a  training course and my teacher hovers ... otherwise I'd have a LOT to say about all this!!


 That sounds like a warning!


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 10, 2004)

True – I suppose the removal of religious faith wouldn’t end conflict between nations altogether but it’d make most people a lot less willing to get blown to bits in the aid of some abstract cause…


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

Jorum said:
			
		

> You may be not - but with all respect many religious people are.
> 
> The Pope seems quite keen on laying down some laws for one.
> 
> ...



Not one post on this thread had said anything similar. Not one thread has been started, to my knowledge, suggesting such things. 

So your trying me, and everybody else, for the sins of others? So should all Communists be blamed for the horrors of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?


----------



## Sneeze (Aug 10, 2004)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> True – I suppose the removal of religious faith wouldn’t end conflict between nations altogether but it’d make most people a lot less willing to get blown to bits in the aid of some abstract cause…



The current swedge in Iraq isn't religious based and it is the epitomy of abstract causes


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

According to theists, God tries us for the sins he chose we'd make

*As god is perfect he cannot know more today than he knew yesterday.
*Therefore all human action is known before birth
*Man's existence is contingent upon God
*Therefore God creates each of us in full knowledge of how we will act- indeed it can be said that as he creates each and every one of us, he creates us in order to sin
*God then punishes men for sins he chose for them to enact.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 10, 2004)

Sneeze said:
			
		

> The current swdge in Iraq isn't religious based and it is the epitomy of abstract causes



Bush's born-again Christian beliefs have been well documented, Blair’s fervently strong Christianity not so much:

http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=510212003


----------



## jbwxxx (Aug 10, 2004)

Sneeze said:
			
		

> The current swdge in Iraq isn't religious based and it is the epitomy of abstract causes



yep, it is for Oil, but the excuse for Iraq was religion based. They supported Osma etc.. (a religious nutter) so lets kick the shit out of them before they try it again...

oh very lucky, they happen to have oil underneath that sand - lucky us, god bless america....


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> According to theists, God tries us for the sins he chose we'd make
> 
> *As god is perfect he cannot know more today than he knew yesterday.
> *Therefore all human action is known before birth
> ...



*pokes head back in*

This only works in the context of linear time.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> According to theists, God tries us for the sins he chose we'd make
> 
> *As god is perfect he cannot know more today than he knew yesterday.
> *Therefore all human action is known before birth
> ...



This is a powerful argument against the abrahamic religions (and others) ... not theism in general.

It troubles me though, more than any other.


----------



## ICB (Aug 10, 2004)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> Bush's born-again Christian beliefs have been well documented, Blair’s fervently strong Christianity not so much:
> 
> http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=510212003



Cos it plays for votes in the US but the opposite is true in the UK.

Blair is a grade A messianic nut job though and a great case in point of the dangers of belief.  His paternalism, judgementalism and sanctimony is there in almost all public policy and legislation since 97.


----------



## Jorum (Aug 10, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> Not one post on this thread had said anything similar. Not one thread has been started, to my knowledge, suggesting such things.
> 
> So your trying me, and everybody else, for the sins of others? So should all Communists be blamed for the horrors of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?


I've done no such thing. I've not commented on any individuals morality or right to hold a belief.

However, I feel that given the large impact it has on society,religion should be challenged and questioned.

The response to this is often "you can't disprove God" to which I counter that it's more a case of you can't prove him.

Your argument is that "I'm not trying to force you into believing, therefore I don't have to prove anything"

This is perectly true for you and many individuals - but there are also many who do wish to control others choices based on their personal belief.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> *pokes head back in*
> 
> This only works in the context of linear time.


 No, it only works for *us* in linear time.
God exists outside of time, so he creates us in the full knowledge of how we will act.


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

Jorum said:
			
		

> I've done no such thing. I've not commented on any individuals morality or right to hold a belief.
> 
> However, I feel that given the large impact it has on society,religion should be challenged and questioned.
> 
> ...



And I'll stand right behind you, probably agree with much, and may go further on some issues than you. My point is, be specific in your critcism. Be specific as to what and who your targets are.  

If sonebody walks up to you in the street and tried to get you to believe then you have every right to tell them exactly what you think of their opinion. But that hasnt happened here.

If you readthe majority of post defending Christianity here you will see that the common thread is not one of evangalism, nor is it one of superirotiy (which can hardly be said for the other side), nor is it one judging the lifestyle choices of others. They are just trying to say, don't judge me by the standards of the worst. Its saying, yes there are many Christians who lives and beliefs make them hypocrites, but that they dont represent those here.

Nobody is trying to make you believe, or disbelieve anything, all that is being asked is that, when you make a criticism of religious people and religion, that you do so precisly, and not in a lazy "all Christians" type way.

Is that really too much to ask? Is it really to much to ask of one side of a debate that you actually address the position of those debating against, or at the very least try to understand it.


----------



## nosos (Aug 10, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> Nobody is trying to make you believe, or disbelieve anything, all that is being asked is that, when you make a criticism of religious people and religion, that you do so precisly, and not in a lazy "all Christians" type way.



Exactly, I really wish I could the world as simply as some of the people on this thread seem to but the essence of a person goes way beyond their beliefs. There's always so much typically lazy shite on here about this.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

To be honest mate, the vast majority of posts on here haven't been attacking anything that Christians or any other theists have done. They have been attacking the internal logic of the belief-system and some of it's more ludicrous pronouncements.


----------



## ICB (Aug 10, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> This is a powerful argument against the abrahamic religions (and others) ... not theism in general.
> 
> It troubles me though, more than any other.



You can't be trying very hard then.

That's the problem of free will.  Try the problem of evil on for size:

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. 
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. 
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. 
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. 
Evil exists. 
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. 
Therefore, God doesn't exist. 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

Or how about the inverted ontological argument?

The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. 
The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator. 
The greater the disability or handicap of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. 
The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence. 
Therefore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing. 
An existing God, therefore, would not be a being than which a greater cannot be conceived, because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist. 
(Hence) God does not exist. 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/


----------



## ICB (Aug 10, 2004)

nosos said:
			
		

> Exactly, I really wish I could the world as simply as some of the people on this thread seem to but the essence of a person goes way beyond their beliefs. There's always so much typically lazy shite on here about this.



QED


----------



## nosos (Aug 10, 2004)

Touché.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

ponce.


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> To be honest mate, the vast majority of posts on here haven't been attacking anything that Christians or any other theists have done. They have been attacking the internal logic of the belief-system and some of it's more ludicrous pronouncements.



Point me to the ludicrous pronouncements please. I havent seen one made by any Chistian here.

Or do you, in fact, mean the more ludicrous pronouncements of the more ludicrous extremes of belief none of which have been stated by anybody here.

Again I would ask, do you therefore condem all Communists for the actions of Stalin? Would you ask all Anarchists to defend the pronoucements of the more extreme? 

Or do you address the actual opinions of those you are debating with? If so, then point me to the ludicrous pronoucements.


----------



## nosos (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> ponce.



Thatcher-felching donkey-fiddling ponce-fucking lick-spittle.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

everlasting life in the bosom of god
miracles


want me to go on? Practically everything about religion is ludicrous, which is the point of the thread.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

nosos said:
			
		

> Thatcher-felching donkey-fiddling ponce-fucking lick-spittle.


 pseudohomo


----------



## Demosthenes (Aug 10, 2004)

icepick said:
			
		

> Ha ha
> 
> Man you must be smart. I reckon you're so smart you even got given a special hat to wear in school right!
> 
> ...



As far as I know, I've never been banned from a bulletin board.

What are you referring to?

And what pills are you talking about?  I don't take any except the odd half an E from time to time.


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> everlasting life in the bosom of god
> miracles
> 
> 
> want me to go on? Practically everything about religion is ludicrous, which is the point of the thread.



Actually, i dont know why I got sucked in here in the first place. I know better but was hoping that some may see that the blanket condemnation of Christianity and Christians is a touch bigoted and small minded. That you will never find out what peole actually believe because, ultimatly, you are not really interested. Nobody is actually going to begin to try and explain their beliefs on such a thread because the hostility is palpable. All it is is 6th form debate society points scoring and an exercise in supercilliousness from those who dont believe.

I'm a fool for thinking it would/will ever be any different.


----------



## ICB (Aug 10, 2004)

> Or do you address the actual opinions of those you are debating with?



*cough* pot *cough* kettle, etc.



> you will never find out what peole actually believe because, ultimatly, you are not really interested.



*cough* physician *cough* heal, etc.

Nice illustration of sanctimony in action though


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

ICB said:
			
		

> *cough* pot *cough* kettle, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In what way am I being sactamonious? 

I've addressed specific points made by people. I havent been arguing with what I believe to be their arguement, but the actual words they type.


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

> God exists *outside of time*, so he creates us in the full knowledge of how we will act.





> God exists outside of time, so he creates us in the full knowledge of how we *will act*.



You see what I'm getting at here?


----------



## ICB (Aug 10, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> In what way am I being sactamonious?
> 
> I've addressed specific points made by people. I havent been arguing with what I believe to be their arguement, but the actual words they type.



You're being sanctimonious in trying to impose your moral values (about belief) on others and hypocritical in criticising those who you claim to be doing the same thing from a different point of view.

I also suspect that you're not really interested in finding out what other people believe, or don't believe, and why.  If there's an "excercise in supercilliousness" going on it's a two way deal.

You've yet to address any of the points I raised regarding burden of proof, incompatibility of reason and faith, prudence of basic research, etc. which clearly addressed comments made by you and dra1002000, amongst others.  

The overall impression I get is that you claim to want a proper mature discussion about this stuff but then run a mile if one is in the offing that in anyway challenges what you already have as firmly held convictions.  This has only been reinforced by that last post which could be précised as "I'm not going to play because you're all too childish to play by the rules"

Rather than blanket condemnation of Christians/Christianity I see generalised criticisms of religion, particularly the revealed/Abrahamic ones.  I guess Christianity would get more focus here because it's the one most of us were brought up with and are therefore most familiar with.  It's also the one that is still imposed on children and adults without any option to decline, as part of state policy.  It's also the one that's still integrated with the state itself.  It's also the one that drives our leader's most fucked up policies and actions.

I think part of the problem is to do with familiarity and default positions.  Non-believers tend to know their subject matter having grown up with the trappings and doctrines of religion all around them and having been forced to hone their arguments and views very carefully in what is essentially still a very hostile environment.  Conversely believers often remain blissfully unaware of humanist and secularist ideas and there is no onus on them to find out about them.  This has been seen in a lot of these threads where attempts have been made to point people at stuff they could read to learn more about the context of the discussion and their response is typically "I know what I think I don't need some FAQ telling me what someone else thinks".

Anyway, I'm more than happy to explain what I think to anyone who's interested and am in no way concerned about hostility.  Nor should any believers think that I have any kind of personal gripe with them from anything I've said on this thread or the many others like it.  So if you want a proper discussion let's go for it. 

(ed: but it will have to wait til tomorrow!)


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

It's rare I say this but excellent post ICB!


----------



## Corax (Aug 10, 2004)

Seconded.  Unfortunately my gnat-like attention span is pretty much exhausted...   @ self.


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 10, 2004)

ICB said:
			
		

> You're being sanctimonious in trying to impose your moral values (about belief) on others and hypocritical in criticising those who you claim to be doing the same thing from a different point of view.



I'm not trying to impose anything on anybody. What I am asking for is that people be specific in their criticism. 




			
				ICB said:
			
		

> I also suspect that you're not really interested in finding out what other people believe, or don't believe, and why.  If there's an "excercise in supercilliousness" going on it's a two way deal.



I didnt start the thread, or the ones like it with the same intent. Your right, I'm not particularly interested in your position because I'm not trying to impose my views on you. All I came to this thread to do was to counter the idea that "all Christians" believe the same thing, and therefore condemnation of them in a blamket sense is fuetile.

But when I arrived I was ask to defend statements I never made. As for questions you asked of me that I didnt answer, all I can say is that I was never aware of them being asked of me or i would have.




			
				ICB said:
			
		

> You've yet to address any of the points I raised regarding burden of proof, incompatibility of reason and faith, prudence of basic research, etc. which clearly addressed comments made by you and dra1002000, amongst others.



I have no need to prove anything to you, as i'm not trying to convert you. I agree that you cant prove, not disprove, the existence of God and were I to be evangelising to you then the burden of proof would be on me. But I'm not. In the nicest possible way, I really dont care what you believe.




			
				ICB said:
			
		

> The overall impression I get is that you claim to want a proper mature discussion about this stuff but then run a mile if one is in the offing that in anyway challenges what you already have as firmly held convictions.  This has only been reinforced by that last post which could be précised as "I'm not going to play because you're all too childish to play by the rules"



I claim to want a proper discussion, but should a discussion arise I dont see why it has to be done in such a snidey, aggressive manner. As for my convictions, you actually have no idea what they are, I havent expressed any of my beliefs anywhere on this thread. Thats not what its about for me.
As for my last post, its was an honest apprasial of how I felt. These thread are pointless and I know that.




			
				ICB said:
			
		

> I think part of the problem is to do with familiarity and default positions.  Non-believers tend to know their subject matter having grown up with the trappings and doctrines of religion all around them and having been forced to hone their arguments and views very carefully in what is essentially still a very hostile environment.  Conversely believers often remain blissfully unaware of humanist and secularist ideas and there is no onus on them to find out about them.  This has been seen in a lot of these threads where attempts have been made to point people at stuff they could read to learn more about the context of the discussion and their response is typically "I know what I think I don't need some FAQ telling me what someone else thinks".



That may be true to some extent I dont know. I cant answer for others, but my knowledge of religion is pretty good.




			
				ICB said:
			
		

> Anyway, I'm more than happy to explain what I think to anyone who's interested and am in no way concerned about hostility.  Nor should any believers think that I have any kind of personal gripe with them from anything I've said on this thread or the many others like it.  So if you want a proper discussion let's go for it.



Thats excellent. I'm glad your so confident in your opinions. However, I would say that I'm not itching to have a discussion, in this format, on this board, on the topic of my personal beliefs.  I dont believe that it is the place for it, you see I'm dont want to be painted as a zelot, nor do i want to convert anyone but I will be treated as such if i were to try.

What I will say is that, to me, the most impostant line in the Bible is "God is love." In that where ever love exists so does God. Further to that, Love is the one eample where non-believers can partly understand what, imho, Christians feel. By that I mean, that when you are truly in love you put, through choice and not duty, the needs, desires and happiness of another person before your own. That, which ever way you look at it, is faith.  

Maybe one day we will meet in person and I'll be more than happy to debate any aspect of my beliefs. But i wont do it here.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 10, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> You see what I'm getting at here?


 Our lives are like books.
Within the universe, we are bound by time, and the plot unfolds page by page.
God exists outside of time, being timeless and all, and he has read all the books in the world.
The books get into the world via God- our very existence is contingent upon him.
Unfortunately, he chooses to put Barbara Cartland books in as well as those by Nabokov.



Worst
analogy
ever


----------



## TopCat (Aug 10, 2004)

God is love eh? Nahh, it's all bollocks that god bit, love but is something special and to be cherished...


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 10, 2004)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Just to let you all know that I've read all of this thread!!!
> 
> I'm in a training course and my teacher hovers ... otherwise I'd have a LOT to say about all this!!






			
				kropotkin said:
			
		

> That sounds like a warning!



Not to you....   

Back soon ....


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 10, 2004)

*Waste of time???*

Actually, sorry to be lazy, but I've changed my mind about adding anything (much) to this thread. I had a long rationalist 'give me proof and evidence' based set of thoughts lined up, but them I remembered that they would in most of the details, and all of the more general points,  just echo what I and others said in the astrology thread.

In other words, there's a more or less unbridgeable comprehension gap between 
1. Believers in a philosophy/belief system that requires an awful lot of suspension of rationality and logic, and the ignoral of an awful lot of contrary evidence, to subscribe to it ... IMO that applies to both astrology AND all but the most selective forms of Christianity
and 
2. Those who prefer some kind of rational, evidence based proof before they believe in something that is unbelievable, or at least extremely difficult to believe, for an awful lot of intelligent, thoughtful people.

(For reasons why, see ICB's and Jorum's posts especially)

Before dismissing Group 2 as 'intolerant', it might be worth thinking more about the comprehension gap, the reasons why dialogue/mutual understanding between atheists (and even agnostics) on the one hand, and believers on the other, is so difficult.

Some of the jibing between the two (broad) groups on this thread has been immature and annoying for sure. There has though been an awful lot of genuine attempts to understand the opposite position. Please try and remember that distinction, Mr Malcontent, before you're tempted to write off the culture of Urban 75 as intolerent of believers, or before you're tempted to think that there's blanket condemnation of all Christians going on. Not by every non religious person here there isn't -- I have a lot of respect for many Christians individually.

But because I (and many others) find so many aspects of their beliefs so implausible, the two sides are no closer and I don't think they ever will get any closer.


----------



## blamblam (Aug 10, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> Actually, i dont know why I got sucked in here in the first place. I know better but was hoping that some may see that the blanket condemnation of Christianity and Christians is a touch bigoted and small minded. That you will never find out what peole actually believe because, ultimatly, you are not really interested. Nobody is actually going to begin to try and explain their beliefs on such a thread because the hostility is palpable.


Er, but your religious beliefs are based on a whole heap of bollocks someone wrote down hundreds of years ago, with no basis in fact, so TBH I couldn't really be bothered to listen to you explaining your beliefs (FWIW I didn't have an atheist upbringing, so I'm aware of the bull anyway).



> That may be true to some extent I dont know. I cant answer for others, but my knowledge of religion is pretty good.



My knowledge of fairy tales is pretty good. So what? 



> I'm a fool



You said it mate.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 10, 2004)

Oh well, now icepick's here, the gap can at last be bridged!!!


----------



## pilchardman (Aug 10, 2004)

_Another_ 14 pages on this, of all, topics.  And all because some people don't understand what constitutes proof.  You are free to believe in anything you like, but there is simply *no evidence* that there's a God.  

Until there is, don't bore the rest of us, please.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 11, 2004)

ICB said:
			
		

> You can't be trying very hard then.
> 
> That's the problem of free will.  Try the problem of evil on for size:
> 
> ...




You overlook the other obvious answer: evil doesn't exist.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 11, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> Scientifically? I can't. But I'm not asking you to believe, this thread wasnt started by someone being evangelical, it was started just to start this circular arguement because somebody was bored and fancied luring some religious people in for a good baiting and patronisation. I dont need to prove to you, or anybody, that God exists as whether you believe is immaterial to me. I'm not into telling people how to live thier lives.



EXACTLY!

Good grief there's been some shallow posts here (and some deep ones - no names  ). 1st, I'm an atheist. (This is also a position of 'faith' by the way, seeing as 'proof' of the existence or non-existence of god is by its very nature impossible). I don't really give a flying fig what the next guy's beliefs are, as long as they don't force them on other people; I judge by people's actions.

This doesn't stop me ridiculing those beliefs. I am fully aware that I am in a very similar mind-state to a believer. I *know* that I am right, and that everyone else will either catch up eventually, or die. Their loss  Therefore, I think I have a pretty good idea of how someone with an equally deep-held religious belief feels about *me*.

The only sensible thing to do, in the face of all these opposing, deeply-held beliefs, is not to wave fingers in the air and go round in circular arguments, but to just say:



> 'meh. to each his own. fancy a beer? great. got a light? funny old game, eh?'



EDIT : It says a lot for the more vocal propenents of atheism on this thread, that I regularly find theists to be approaching the subject in the calmest manner.


----------



## ICB (Aug 11, 2004)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> You overlook the other obvious answer: evil doesn't exist.



I didn't overlook anything cos I wasn't putting it forward as my argument or one that stands up very well.  However, most people who think god exists also think evil exists.

Crispy - re: "'meh. to each his own. fancy a beer? great. got a light? funny old game, eh?'"
d'you know the joke about relativism?



> First the Buddhist talked of the ways to calm, the mastery of desire, the path of enlightenment, and the panellists all said ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great’. Then the Hindu talked of the cycles of suffering and birth and rebirth, the teachings of Krishna and the way to release, and they all said ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great’. And so on, until the Catholic priest talked of the message of Jesus Christ, the promise of salvation and the way to life eternal, and they all said ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great’. And he thumped the table and shouted: ‘No! It’s not a question of it if works for me! It’s the true word of the living God, and if you don’t believe it you’re all damned to Hell!’
> 
> And they all said: ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great’.



Mr Malc - regardless of how it started it can move beyond what the original intent was, if people want to.



> I'm not particularly interested in your position because I'm not trying to impose my views on you.



That's actually a non sequitur but quite informative nonetheless.



> I have no need to prove anything to you, as i'm not trying to convert you



It's not a question of proof it's a question of hypocrisy, you accused others of not addressing specific points raised as rebuttles.



> I claim to want a proper discussion...



Yes you do, and yet



> These thread are pointless and I know that.



That's not actually consistent is it?  If you didn't want to discuss this what have you been doing here for the last n pages?



> I cant answer for others, but my knowledge of religion is pretty good.



I'm sure it is but I was querying the believers' knowledge of secualrism and humanism, which many seem content to misrepresent and parody without the foggiest notion.



> Thats excellent. I'm glad your so confident in your opinions.



That wasn't snidey by any chance?   I'm not especially, I just said I was happy to discuss them if people wanted to.



> I would say that I'm not itching to have a discussion, in this format, on this board, on the topic of my personal beliefs.



Perhaps it's understandable that folks get a little exasperated at your self-appointed policing role then.



> I'm dont want to be painted as a zelot, nor do i want to convert anyone but I will be treated as such if i were to try.



Naturally, why expect anything else since that's what zealots do?



> when you are truly in love you put, through choice and not duty, the needs, desires and happiness of another person before your own. That, which ever way you look at it, is faith.



There ya go, beliefs will out.  

I rather think I can do all that without faith, do you disagree?


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> God is love eh? Nahh, it's all bollocks that god bit, love but is something special and to be cherished...



How do you mean love is special?

Surely it's just some chemical reaction designed (or rather 'not designed') to propogate the species?

unless ...


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> _Another_ 14 pages on this, of all, topics.  And all because some people don't understand what constitutes proof.  You are free to believe in anything you like, but there is simply *no evidence* that there's a God.



Were you expecting to find 'proof' then?   



> Until there is, don't bore the rest of us, please.



Why bother reading the thread? It's clear what the subject matter is.

muppet.

p.s. yours was the most boring post on here

p.p.s. You are free to believe in anything you like, but there is simply *no evidence* that there's no God.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 11, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> p.p.s. You are free to believe in anything you like, but there is simply *no evidence* that there's no God.


ARGGGGGGGGGGGH! 
Jesus fucking christ how many times do you have to be told - you're the one putting forward a theory, you have to prove it.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> ARGGGGGGGGGGGH!
> Jesus fucking christ how many times do you have to be told - you're the one putting forward a theory, you have to prove it.



Urghhhh!

I'm not putting forward any theory. Seriously ... point out where I have.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 11, 2004)

Rubbish, it's implicit in your statement that theism and atheism are comparable, they're not.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> Rubbish, it's implicit in your statement that theism and atheism are comparable, they're not.



riiight ...

yep ... that is a theory that I'm putting forward.

Your post, in reply to mine claiming there to be no evidence that there is no god, implied that I was putting forward the 'god exists' theory, which I wasn't.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> Rubbish, it's implicit in your statement that theism and atheism are comparable, they're not.



presumably you mean 'equivalent' or some such, not 'comparable'. Of course they are comparable ...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2004)

You're putting forward the theory that atheism and theism are both rational responses to certain things. That means the statement "I'm not putting forward any theory." is wrong doesn't it?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 11, 2004)

Hello dra. You have not come back yet on why you think theism and atheism are equivalent, which I have questioned you on several times on this thread.

You also mentioned that you have problems with Occam's Razor, but didn't outline them. I fail to see how anyone could see equality in the two.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 11, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> presumably you mean 'equivalent' or some such, not 'comparable'. Of course they are comparable ...


Not in terms of rational positions to take.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> You're putting forward the theory that atheism and theism are both rational responses to certain things. That means the statement "I'm not putting forward any theory." is wrong doesn't it?



You're correct. I apologise for any ambiguity. I took it that redsquirrel was claiming I was putting forward the 'god exists' theory. I wasn't. I am putting forward the theory that atheism and theism are rational responses to what we observe in the universe.

sorry.


----------



## ICB (Aug 11, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> You're correct. I apologise for any ambiguity. I took it that redsquirrel was claiming I was putting forward the 'god exists' theory. I wasn't. I am putting forward the theory that atheism and theism are rational responses to what we observe in the universe.
> 
> sorry.



But theists (esp. academic/professional ones) tend to go for fideism rather than any attempt to argue for or prove the existence of god because all the arguments that anyone's ever come up with have been wrecked.

My tutor in philosophy of religion, who was also a rather good logician, took exactly this line and refused to discuss his conversion to catholicism at all.  Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent, and all that.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Hello dra. You have not come back yet on why you think theism and atheism are equivalent, which I have questioned you on several times on this thread.



Hello kropotkin.

In a nutshell:

We find ourselves in an object ... a universe.

The question I ask is how did this universe come to exist?

a) it could have always existed.
b) It could have come into existence at a certain time in the past.

It seems that according to special relativity amongst other theories, option b is the most likely.

So the universe had a beginning. Observation of the world around me leads me to believe that cause and effect are intimatly related. I.e. there must have been some reason or event that caused the universe to come into being.

I, as an object within the universe, am unable to comprehend what this cause could have been.

It could have been a supernatural intelligence (if intelligence is the right word)

It could have always been this way. (i.e. the universe is forever expanding and contracting)

It could have been Jorum.

It could be that the whole big-bang theory is nonsense and there is some other explanation for the Doppler shift of light from other stars/galaxies.

All of these theories are plausible.

Some moreso than others. After a little investigation I'm sure we could establish that it wasn't Jorum. 

However, we cannot establish that it wasn't a supernatuiral intelligence ... or that it was.
Both explanations are plausible. In fact, unless anyone can show me otherwise, I can't see that based on human experience, either explanation is more likely than than the other.

So the 'super-natural being' theory is equally as plausible as the 'expanding-contarcting forever' theory.

And atheism and theism are equally valid theories for the origin of the universe.




> You also mentioned that you have problems with Occam's Razor, but didn't outline them. I fail to see how anyone could see equality in the two.



That wasn't me.


----------



## onemonkey (Aug 11, 2004)

almost there dra1002000, but your proposed creator doesn't explain much cos it is a long way from the God of any religion i know of & I can't see any way from one to another.. 

besides 'super-natural being' explanation is not a theory because it cannot be tested.. the scientists don't claim to explain why the universe started, just how it started (comparing one explanation and another to see which best fits with observations. ) as such they don't confirm or refute God but 'have no need of that hypothesis'  

the actual question of origins is slightly more subtle than we usually suspect.. if you are really interested, there is a superb article by derek parfitt on the topic.. which i have inadvertantly removed from my website.. I will put it back and post the link..


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 11, 2004)

ICB said:
			
		

> I rather think I can do all that without faith, do you disagree?



Not in the slightest. You are right, you can do all of it without faith, never said you couldnt. 

My whole point in this thread, though i did sidetrack myself a couple of time, was just to ask that people are a bit more careful in their slagging. I'm not really interested in a discussion on the existence or otherwise of God(s). What i believe works for me, i dont claim to have the answer, just my answer. If it doesnt work for you then cool, i utterly respect that.


----------



## ICB (Aug 11, 2004)

MrMalcontent said:
			
		

> Not in the slightest. You are right, you can do all of it without faith, never said you couldnt.
> 
> My whole point in this thread, though i did sidetrack myself a couple of time, was just to ask that people are a bit more careful in their slagging. I'm not really interested in a discussion on the existence or otherwise of God(s). What i believe works for me, i dont claim to have the answer, just my answer. If it doesnt work for you then cool, i utterly respect that.



 PM me if you're ever down Bristol/Brecon way and we'll have a pint or three.


----------



## onemonkey (Aug 11, 2004)

my favourite explanation of why the universe is the way it is is Max Tegmark's ultimate ensemble theory

http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

onemonkey said:
			
		

> almost there dra1002000, but your proposed creator doesn't explain much cos it is a long way from the God of any religion i know of & I can't see any way from one to another..
> 
> besides 'super-natural being' explanation is not a theory because it cannot be tested.. the scientists don't claim to explain why the universe started, just how it started (comparing one explanation and another to see which best fits with observations. ) as such they don't confirm or refute God but 'have no need of that hypothesis'
> 
> the actual question of origins is slightly more subtle than we usually suspect.. if you are really interested, there is a superb article by derek parfitt on the topic.. which i have inadvertantly removed from my website.. I will put it back and post the link..



A theory doesn't have to be directly testable does it? I realsie that science cannot explain why the universe started. If it could, (and it wasn't god), then there'd be no discussion here.

I'll be interested to follow your link ...


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 11, 2004)

This catalogue of which you speak. Does it have any pictures of well hung young men in their underpants in it? Those are the best sort of catalogues.  If it has then I am prepared to believe that god does indeed exist.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 11, 2004)

Dra:


> So the universe had a beginning. Observation of the world around me leads me to believe that cause and effect are intimatly related. I.e. there must have been some reason or event that caused the universe to come into being.



Well this is the crux. 
As a physicist, you know as well as I do that applying what seems to us to be common sense in a macroscopic world to the microscopic world is incorrect. Whereas the billiard-ball causal relationship model fits the macroscopic world for the most part, it breaks down and is innapplicable to the quantum world. Causaity itself breaks down on a quantum level.

Thus this crucial section of your argument breaks down, as it's postulate isn't true. 

Assuing your argument about causality was correct, there would be no room for moral responsibility as all our actions would be predetermined by prevfious states of the universe. "God" as we know him could not exist in a universe without personal moral responsibility.


----------



## XerxesVargas (Aug 11, 2004)

ICB said:
			
		

> PM me if you're ever down Bristol/Brecon way and we'll have a pint or three.



Excellent


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Dra:
> 
> 
> Well this is the crux.
> ...



True enough. You can't really talk about a cause for the big bang as, not only does causality break dowm on a quantum scale, but presumably time began in the big-bang and there was, therefore, no 'before' to speak of.

Still, science cannot explain that first instant. The finite mind cannot truly comprehend an infinite concept.

and we are left with a universe with no reasonable idea of how it came to be. Surely a super-natural entity/intelligence/process/thingamajig is as reasonable an explanation as any other?



> Assuing your argument about causality was correct, there would be no room for moral responsibility as all our actions would be predetermined by prevfious states of the universe. "God" as we know him could not exist in a universe without personal moral responsibility.



... unless free will was supernatural? And if their was a god then this wouldn't be too much of a stretch.


----------



## Corax (Aug 11, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> You also mentioned that you have problems with Occam's Razor, but didn't outline them. I fail to see how anyone could see equality in the two.



That was me.  Occam's Razor gets oft quoted as an unquestionable law.  I find this questionable (from a viewpoint of interested ignorance).


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> That was me.  Occam's Razor gets oft quoted as an unquestionable law.  I find this questionable (from a viewpoint of interested ignorance).



Occam's razor:

One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything


But since we cannot explain why the universe is here by any other means ... surely one 'god' is the minimum number of entities required to explain its existence?

(I could, of course, be missing the point entirely)


----------



## Corax (Aug 11, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> Occam's razor:
> 
> One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything



Ta.

It just sounds like simplicity for the sake of it to me, purely because humans like that.  I see no inherent logic.  Complex systems exist.

Possibly this should be a different thread.


----------



## blamblam (Aug 11, 2004)

I think there's something very different between, say, the idea that a sentient being created the universe at some point (but cannot/has not interfere with it in any way), and believing the bible, or any other set of other religious beliefs - mainly involving supernatural occurences in this universe, or the existence of an omnipotent being.

And of course an omnipotent being could never exist - it would be unable to create both an immovable object and an irresistable force, say.

A question for the god-squadders: why did god stop doing miracles? Did he get bored?


----------



## blamblam (Aug 11, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Ta.
> 
> It just sounds like simplicity for the sake of it to me, purely because humans like that.  I see no inherent logic.  Complex systems exist.


Ha ha 

Genius mate!


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

icepick said:
			
		

> I think there's something very different between, say, the idea that a sentient being created the universe at some point (but cannot/has not interfere with it in any way), and believing the bible, or any other set of other religious beliefs - mainly involving supernatural occurences in this universe, or the existence of an omnipotent being.



Sure there is. But ... if there was supernatural being who created the universe who could say what his reasons were. Maybe the whole thing was in order to produce humans who it then intended to 'mess with'! Who knows?? And if it was a supernatural being then surely supernatural occurences would be expected?



> And of course an omnipotent being could never exist - it would be unable to create both an immovable object and an irresistable force, say.



I don't see why not.



> A question for the god-squadders: why did god stop doing miracles? Did he get bored?



Perhaps he didn't stop. Strange/inexplicable things happen all the time. Or perhaps it was only for when Jesus walked the earth.

(not that I class myself as a god-squadder )


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 11, 2004)

Dra:

I don't agree that "God" is a simplistic explanation, becaue the concept requires the acceptance of a shit load of other postulates, for which there is no evidence- a non-material plane outside the universe, a being of infinite power, ability to manipulate singularities etc etc.

You later go on to reject the implications of your own argument- that of a deterministic universe being filled with deterministic objects (people)- and postulate "free will"- something denied by your argument. Infinite layers of complexity start appearing as each layer is logically inconsistent with itself when examined- another layer has to be added.

I'd suggest that the only rational response is to stop adding layers of hypotheticals and un-evidenced postulates and accept your own argument.


----------



## nosos (Aug 11, 2004)

God damn I wish I had internet access at home atm.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 11, 2004)

stay out of this hippie. We don't need all your long words round here.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> I don't agree that "God" is a simplistic explanation, becaue the concept requires the acceptance of a shit load of other postulates, for which there is no evidence- a non-material plane outside the universe, a being of infinite power, ability to manipulate singularities etc etc.



The only postulates you would have to accept are the existence of another non-materialist plane which exists outside of the universe and a being of infinite (in terms of the physical universe) power. In fact these could be one and the same thing.

If the universe came from somewhere, then it came from this non-material plane, which is, I suppose, where god is.




> You later go on to reject the implications of your own argument- that of a deterministic universe being filled with deterministic objects (people)- and postulate "free will"- something denied by your argument. Infinite layers of complexity start appearing as each layer is logically inconsistent with itself when examined- another layer has to be added.
> 
> I'd suggest that the only rational response is to stop adding layers of hypotheticals and un-evidenced postulates and accept your own argument.



the deterministic universe (or just the existence of the universe) implies a creator (maybe). Presumably this creator has a purpose for his ceration. This creator could do anything r.e. souls and free will. Who knows?? 

Oh maaaaaaannnn ... this is all getting to confusing for my puff-addled brain  

Still ... complexity aside ... the god argument does, at the very least, provide an explanation.

I have yet to hear a more convincing one ... and my mind is definately open to such a possibility ... honest!


----------



## Crispy (Aug 11, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Dra:
> 
> I don't agree that "God" is a simplistic explanation, becaue the concept requires the acceptance of a shit load of other postulates, for which there is no evidence- a non-material plane outside the universe, a being of infinite power, ability to manipulate singularities etc etc.



'Absence of proof is not proof of absence' (so shoot me!)

As soon as you start trying to explain the creation of the universe, you run straight into a whole bunch of unknowable unknowns. Therefore, applying the rules and common sense that apply to the universe as we know it today gets us nowhere. If it makes it any easier to swallow, imagine that some vastly powerful alien race created the universe, or that we're actually being simulated in a universe of infinite time. The truth is, we don't know. A 'supernatural' (use the definition of the word) being is as good a reason as any. If you want to create a cultural and psycological system around that possibility to support yourself, fine. Of course, you mention where that can lead:




			
				kropotkin said:
			
		

> ‘No! It’s not a question of it if works for me! It’s the true word of the living God, and if you don’t believe it you’re all damned to Hell!’
> 
> And they all said: ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great’.



Good joke 

But seriously, that's not how I feel at all. 'Live and let live' works fine, as long as both sides play nice. This means that I get on very well with my Xtian housemate, cos we both know we don't care.
However, I can debate (and have done) those who insist on trying to force their beliefs on others, or who blatantly disregard some elements of science.
(My housemate btw, believes in evolution and an electrochemical conciousness)

The only gap in my argument (please feel free to drive a wedge in) is that in order for the human race to progress, I believe we have to leave religion behind. This would require some evangelising on the behalf of the atheists, which I am guilty of not doing. Like Corax said, I'm not trying to convert anyone. I guess you are. Kudos. But look how much muck you stir up.

(all in the spirit of cutnthrust debate btw. nothing personal intended at any point  )


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 11, 2004)

Firstly- that joke bit you quoted was ICB, not me. I ain't that interesting.

Of course "absence of proof isn't proof of absence". But constructing a theory on evidence that isn't there is silly. Just stick to what we know, make coherent and consistent heories and models based on that, and say "I don't know" for the rest.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 11, 2004)

Yeah, but isn't it more fun to think 'what if?' 

Couldn't agree with you more about the scientific method etc. If the god-like aliens come visiting, I won't deny them.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Of course "absence of proof isn't proof of absence". But constructing a theory on evidence that isn't there is silly. Just stick to what we know, make coherent and consistent heories and models based on that, and say "I don't know" for the rest.



That seems entirely reasonable to me.

It seems to agree with my point though: that athiesm and theism are just as valid as each other, since we don't know.

(where atheism is defined as a stringent belief that there is no god)


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 11, 2004)

No, I don't agree with that.
It might help if we abstract what methods we are using for judging theories away from the theist/atheist debate.

Think about the conspiracy theories surrounding the moon landings.
Given the evidence that there is, you could judge that the Americans landed some men on the moon.
Another theory is that they never landed on the moon, and that the sequence we saw on TV was filmed in a studio somewhere.

Are those theories of equal merit? If not, why not?


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> No, I don't agree with that.
> It might help if we abstract what methods we are using for judging theories away from the theist/atheist debate.
> 
> Think about the conspiracy theories surrounding the moon landings.
> ...



No ... because there is considerable evidence to support one view (that man landed on the moon). 

In the absence of any evidence at all, both theories would have equal merit.


----------



## our-streets (Aug 11, 2004)

*just spots this thread*

fuckin' ell!


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 11, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> No ... because there is considerable evidence to support one view (that man landed on the moon).
> 
> In the absence of any evidence at all, both theories would have equal merit.


 Ah. So when you say "God", you just mean a creator? Because if you say that, then I would agree. All theories of what happened prior to the big bang are of equal validitity.

But you have hitherto been arguing "God" in the conventional judeo-christian sense of a creator God who interfere's in reality. And that position is clearly non-evidenced and so clearly less valid.


----------



## blamblam (Aug 11, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> > And of course an omnipotent being could never exist - it would be unable to create both an immovable object and an irresistable force, say.
> 
> 
> I don't see why not.


Er, so you reckon you're a physics graduate, and you can't see how god would be unable to create both an immovable object and an irresistable force?

The two things are mutually exclusive! Like saying God couldn't make a cake so big it couldn't be finished, and then finish that cake.

Omnipotence is impossible.

And as krop pointed out, and I tried to, there is rough equivalence of theories between creator + spontaneity, but not between science and religious god-as-interferer hooey.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Ah. So when you say "God", you just mean a creator? Because if you say that, then I would agree. All theories of what happened prior to the big bang are of equal validitity.



cool   



> But you have hitherto been arguing "God" in the conventional judeo-christian sense of a creator God who interfere's in reality. And that position is clearly non-evidenced and so clearly less valid.



Well this was an extension to my argument. If you have a cerator god then it is not unreasonable to assume it likes to meddle!

Still ... I absolutely take your point.

For me personally, a belief in god comes from my heart rather than my head. 
Things such as love, music, art just don't 'feel' like they could be just chemical reactions that occur for no other reason than chance. 

But that's just me!


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 11, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> For me personally, a belief in god comes from my heart rather than my head.
> Things such as love, music, art just don't 'feel' like they could be just chemical reactions that occur for no other reason than chance.


So your admitting that it is an irrational belief.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

icepick said:
			
		

> Er, so you reckon you're a physics graduate, and you can't see how god would be unable to create both an immovable object and an irresistable force?



I do reckon ... but if the god lived outside the physical universe then who's to say?



> The two things are mutually exclusive! Like saying God couldn't make a cake so big it couldn't be finished, and then finish that cake.



ah ... a nice simple analogy ... after all I could be lying about that physics graduate business couldn't I?  

Again ... outside the physical universe. Just cause we can't comprehend something and alck the maths/physics to understand it, doesn't make it impossible.



> Omnipotence is impossible.
> 
> And as krop pointed out, and I tried to, there is rough equivalence of theories between creator + spontaneity, but not between science and religious god-as-interferer hooey.



Now I really must object ... I never decalred an equivalency between science and religion.
Rather between atheism and theism ... which is a completely different statement.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> So your admitting that it is an irrational belief.




In my own personal god (I know, I know  ) ... yes.

And to have an unshakeable belief in a creator at all is also fairly irrational.

But the same is true of an unshakeable belief that there is no creator at all. 

The crux of my argument was the equivalency of atheism and theism as explanations for the universe.

Admittedly I've been rather sidetracked


----------



## our-streets (Aug 11, 2004)

Kropotkin


> Ah. So when you say "God", you just mean a creator? Because if you say that, then I would agree. All theories of what happened prior to the big bang are of equal validitity.



I thought the big bang was the beginning of time itself? 
So the idea of there being anything prior is nonsensical?


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

our-streets said:
			
		

> Kropotkin
> 
> 
> I thought the big bang was the beginning of time itself?
> So the idea of there being anything prior is nonsensical?



This is true. and as such, talk of causes is nonsensical.

Which makes the entire business incomprehensible as far as I can see.

But the universe must have come from somewhere/something/somehow ... musn't it?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 11, 2004)

no. Why? 
This is the problem with applying macroscopic common sense to quantum events.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> no. Why?
> This is the problem with applying macroscopic common sense to quantum events.



Fair enough.

But can you explain the whole 'why are we here' question?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 11, 2004)

No, but nobody can. And the question is tautological because it presupposes a reason, and a creator.
Akin to
For how long have you been beating your wife?


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> No, but nobody can. And the question is tautological because it presupposes a reason, and a creator.
> Akin to
> For how long have you been beating your wife?



how about 'how did we come to be here?'


----------



## our-streets (Aug 11, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> how about 'how did we come to be here?'



t'was a big quantum fluke.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

our-streets said:
			
		

> t'was a big quantum fluke.



a reasonable explanation ...

but are you sure?

do you have evidence?

is it a more valid explanation than 'god did it'?


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 11, 2004)

Alot of chance. 
But the strong anthropic principle (I think it's this one) explains it by saying that despite the tiny tiny chance, it ain't that weird that we are here, because we wouldn't be able to ask the question if we weren't.

Or.

The chances of life evolving (cosmological evolution, star sequences generating atomic distributions beyong hydrogen, planetary formations, etc etc) in any place are next to nothing...but the chances of life evolving *somewhere* in the universe are considerably higher.

Here we are asking the question, so it happened here.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 11, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Alot of chance.
> But the strong anthropic principle (I think it's this one) explains it by saying that despite the tiny tiny chance, it ain't that weird that we are here, because we wouldn't be able to ask the question if we weren't.
> 
> Or.
> ...



A little like the tiny chance of each of us being born. BUt we were ...

This has been a very interesting discussion kropotkin. I am full of respect for your view (and the way you've expressed it).

I've also managed to avoid doing any work for two days 
 

so I'm gonna hhave to bail.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 11, 2004)

cheers mate.
Me too.

Sorry about the shit-stirring comments here and there. Didn't mean any disrespect by them.
A 17 page thread on such a contentious issue with pretty much no abuse! 

Take care mate


----------



## ICB (Aug 11, 2004)

Didn't it all get terribly grown up in the last few pages though?  Hurrah!  Nice one folks.


----------



## pilchardman (Aug 11, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> You are free to believe in anything you like, but there is simply *no evidence* that there's no God.


This is exactly the sort of thing I'm on about.  It's been explained several times in the thread, but since you addressed this to me, and since I think it is important that the point is fully understood (and clearly currently isn't), I'll try again.

It isn't necessary to have evidence non existence.  It is enough to have _no evidence_ of existence.  With no evidence of existence I assume non existence until such evidence isput before me.

Take faeries.  I don't need to provide evidence they don't exist.  I need only note the absence for their existence.  How would I prove their non existence?  Simultaneously search the entire planet to ensure they don't pop up in the garden of 11 Arcacia Avenue, while I'm searching the loft of number 19?  It isn't a sensible way forward.

Of course you could take the view that "we just don't know" whether there are faeries or not.  But that's a feeble conclusion.  It is entirely reasonable to assume that - given the absence of evidence - they don't exist.

Now, were someone to turn up with faery footprints, or potential evidence of faery activity, I'd look at it to see if I need to reassess my conclusion.  It wouldn't need to be faery DNA to do that, but it would need to be compelling evidence.

That's how it works.  Nobody has provided evidence for the non existance of faeries; we all work on the reasonable assumption that given the lack of evidence for their existence, they don't.

Works the same for anything: Loch Ness Monster, Extra Terrestrial Visitors, Big Foot, God.


(Btw.  Calling me a Muppet;  good debating point).


----------



## blamblam (Aug 11, 2004)

Why do you keep spelling "fairies" wrong?


----------



## pilchardman (Aug 11, 2004)

icepick said:
			
		

> Why do you keep spelling "fairies" wrong?


It could be faeries or fairies.  Either is acceptable.  I prefer the former.  

It's like jail and gaol.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 11, 2004)

He waers frilly ruffs as well, and posts with a quill.


----------



## pilchardman (Aug 11, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> He waers frilly ruffs as well, and posts with a quill.


It's true.  I do.


----------



## blamblam (Aug 11, 2004)

bloody Scotch weirdo


----------



## pilchardman (Aug 11, 2004)

Free speech denier!


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 12, 2004)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> Works the same for anything: Loch Ness Monster, Extra Terrestrial Visitors, Big Foot, God.



How about extra-terrestrial life in general?

ah ignore that ... *trying not to get sucked back in*



> (Btw.  Calling me a Muppet;  good debating point).




You did come onto this thread, after 14 pages, with no particular insight, and berated us for boring you.

You didn't seem like you wanted a debate.

But I apologise for calling you names. Sorry.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 12, 2004)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> It could be faeries or fairies.  Either is acceptable.  I prefer the former.



So do I -- the Peatbog Faeries  are  (and there is definitely proof of _their_ existence ...  )


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 12, 2004)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> It isn't necessary to have evidence of non existence.  It is enough to have _no evidence_ of existence.  With no evidence of existence I assume non existence until such evidence is put before me.
> 
> Take faeries.  I don't need to provide evidence they don't exist.  I need only note the absence for their existence.  How would I prove their non existence?  Simultaneously search the entire planet to ensure they don't pop up in the garden of 11 Arcacia Avenue, while I'm searching the loft of number 19?  It isn't a sensible way forward.
> 
> ...



That's pretty much my position too. Good post ...


----------



## Demosthenes (Aug 12, 2004)

*Occam's Razor.*

I'm not sure about Occam's razor.  

Often it's not obvious which of a bunch of explanations is simpler.  


Is it simpler to explain how the brain is conscious or say that we all are souls?

Is it simpler to say that large objects exert a force of attraction because of a 
mysterious invisible force of attraction or to say that this tranquiliser puts you to sleep because of its sleep-inducing power.  Or to say that there is an attraction between everything in the universe in proportion to its mass because it was all once the same thing.  
Or is it simpler to say that all the matter "loves" all the other matter and so is attracted towards it.  

Is it simpler to explain all reports of abnormal or supernatural events as fakes by a vast worldwide conspiracy devoted to fooling people into thinking something unusual is going on, or to explain it by reference to planetary energy wobbles that cause mass hallucinations, that coincidentally are the same for all the people there. 

 Is it simpler to believe the physicists who say that Bell's theorem shows that everything is connected to everything else by instantaneous information transfer, or to say that Magic is possible?  

In a lot of ways, "God" is about as "simple" an explanation of a whole bunch of stuff as anyone could hope for, certainly in word economy, but then maybe simplicity isn't always the answer.  

Often science describes rather than explains.  I've certainly never heard any scientific explanation of why these mysterious electromagnetic forces within the atom that make life so remarkable exist, nor of why they're powerful enough to destroy cities.  

Going back to simplicity, is it simpler to say that Descartes was right, and that "I think therefore I am" is as certain a piece of reasoning as you can ever do, or is it simpler to say "Ok, there's thinking going on, and the thinking thinks it's me doing it, but actually it might not, be, all I can be certain of is that there's some thinking going on?"

Well I think the first is a simpler explanation, but I'm not sure many brain-scientists would agree.  Non-existence is the default position for scientists.  
But it doesn't sound very simple.


----------



## Corax (Aug 12, 2004)

Demosthenes said:
			
		

> I'm not sure about Occam's razor.
> 
> Often it's not obvious which of a bunch of explanations is simpler.
> 
> ...



Thank you.  You've eloquently reassured me in the belief that Occam's Razor is an obsolete load of tripe.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2004)

But the "proper" version of Occam's razor is actually something like "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". 
So you in the case of God you can either have something called a God or not. So assuming a God exists is multiplying an entity beyond necessity (as it doesn't give any greater explanation about the universe) and so should be discounted.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Thank you.  You've eloquently reassured me in the belief that Occam's Razor is an obsolete load of tripe.


But she/he hasn't put anything like Occam's Razor up.


----------



## fanta (Aug 12, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> MrMalcontent said
> 
> 
> hello there.
> ...



Do you have any proof that God does not exist?

I _can't_ wait to hear this unpompous argument...


----------



## Corax (Aug 12, 2004)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> But she/he hasn't put anything like Occam's Razor up.



Well no'one (including yourself) has stated anything significantly different in principle that I can see.


----------



## fanta (Aug 12, 2004)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Religion is irrational, illogical, stupid, divisive and just plain wrong...



Religions like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism etc actually can provide a sensible framework to live by. They don't often though. 

Why? 

Because it is people are irrational, illogical, stupid, divisive and just plain wrong.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> Do you have any proof that God does not exist?
> 
> I _can't_ wait to hear this unpompous argument...


someones already said it better than me



			
				pilchardman said:
			
		

> It isn't necessary to have evidence of non existence. It is enough to have no evidence of existence. With no evidence of existence I assume non existence until such evidence is put before me.
> 
> Take faeries. I don't need to provide evidence they don't exist. I need only note the absence for their existence. How would I prove their non existence? Simultaneously search the entire planet to ensure they don't pop up in the garden of 11 Arcacia Avenue, while I'm searching the loft of number 19? It isn't a sensible way forward.
> 
> ...


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Well no'one (including yourself) has stated anything significantly different in principle that I can see.


Yes I have. 
The simpler explanation is the explanation which assumes the least number of entities but remains consistent with the data obtained.


----------



## fanta (Aug 12, 2004)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> someones already said it better than me



It might be a bit sing-songy but it is invariably just as weak as all the pro-God arguments.

Does God exist? I doubt it, personally. The truth is I don't really know 100% for sure!

Neither do you.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> Religions like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism etc actually can provide a sensible framework to live by. They don't often though.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because it is people are irrational, illogical, stupid, divisive and just plain wrong.


Are you denying that religon is irrational?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> It might be a bit sing-songy but it is invariably just as weak as all the pro-God arguments.
> 
> Does God exist? I doubt it, personally. The truth is I don't really know 100% for sure!
> 
> Neither do you.


No, but it's more reasonably to assume it doesn't than to invent an imaginary friend who created the universe and all the other bull he/she/they then go on to do.


----------



## fanta (Aug 12, 2004)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> Are you denying that religon is irrational?



No, of course not. Their holy books often contradict themselves. But, so what? Sometimes they can provide an excellent set of values to live by - like the 10 commandments. But, you know how daft people can be...


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 12, 2004)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> someones already said it better than me




ah man ... i can't resist ....

Do you believe (or think) that there is extra-terrestrial life somewhere in the universe?


----------



## fanta (Aug 12, 2004)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> No, but it's more reasonably to assume it doesn't than to invent an imaginary friend who created the universe and all the other bull he/she/they then go on to do.



It is even more reasonable to have an open mind until the thing is definitely proved one way or the other.

Who really knows? Nobody!


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> It is even more reasonable to have an open mind until the thing is definitely proved one way or the other.
> 
> Who really knows? Nobody!


No it isn't if you actually take this view then you also have to have an open mind about invisible giant frogs, ghosts, UFO's, elves, etc etc.
We don't say that these things exist.
The most reasonable situation is to say that as we have no evidence for their existance then they can be discounted as existing _until_ we have some evidence for their existance.


----------



## Corax (Aug 12, 2004)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> Yes I have.
> The simpler explanation is the explanation which assumes the least number of entities but remains consistent with the data obtained.



Why is simpler inherently preferable?  Simpler does not necessarily mean more likely.  Like I've said, complex systems exist, QED.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2004)

But there's no point in creating something extra into a theory if the theory is perfectly able to do without it.


----------



## Corax (Aug 12, 2004)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> But there's no point in creating something extra into a theory if the theory is perfectly able to do without it.



Why not?  A more complex theory can be just as valid.  Just because humans like things to be neat doesn't mean that they are.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Why not?  A more complex theory can be just as valid.  Just because humans like things to be neat doesn't mean that they are.


Because where do you stop, do you add one unecessary thing? Two? A million?
And then every single theory is equally likely (including the ones no ones thought of).


----------



## Corax (Aug 12, 2004)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> Because where do you stop, do you add one unecessary thing? Two? A million?
> And then every single theory is equally likely (including the ones no ones thought of).



That would explain why new theories replace old ones then.


----------



## Demosthenes (Aug 12, 2004)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> But the "proper" version of Occam's razor is actually something like "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".
> So you in the case of God you can either have something called a God or not. So assuming a God exists is multiplying an entity beyond necessity (as it doesn't give any greater explanation about the universe) and so should be discounted.



If I'm walking along and suddenly get hit on the head by a rock, is it simpler to assume that someone threw it at me, or that it was an accident?


----------



## Corax (Aug 12, 2004)

Demosthenes said:
			
		

> If I'm walking along and suddenly get hit on the head by a rock, is it simpler to assume that someone threw it at me, or that it was an accident?



Surely it's simpler to assume that it's a fragment from space, as that would involve the least entities?


----------



## ICB (Aug 12, 2004)

_Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitas_ - Plurality should not be posited without necessity

It's pretty important to philosophy and science but its interpretation is much debated

Very good pages on it here http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~jacob/occams-razor/welcome.html

Demosthenes - not enough data to posit a theory, were you under a loose cliff in a storm or in the middle of a riot?


----------



## Demosthenes (Aug 12, 2004)

That's just it, it doesn't really have any clear meaning, since "necessity" in that context could mean just about anything.  

You could use Occam's razor as a very good justification for absolute solipsism.


----------



## ICB (Aug 12, 2004)

Yeah, but in a context rather than without one it's a useful thing to bear in mind (and far less irritating than K.I.S.S.)


----------



## Demosthenes (Aug 12, 2004)

Well, I guess it is quite a useful method for descriptive science, but not exactly an infallible way of truthful explanation, and hardly relevant at all when it comes to the debate about God.


----------



## pilchardman (Aug 12, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> How about extra-terrestrial life in general?


as a complete aside, I think it is statistically improbable that we are the only inhabited planet out of the mind bogglingly vast number of planets in the universe.

However, no "evidence" I have seen convinces me any have visited us.


----------



## Corax (Aug 12, 2004)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> as a complete aside, I think it is statistically improbable that we are the only inhabited planet out of the mind bogglingly vast number of planets in the universe.
> 
> However, no "evidence" I have seen convinces me any have visited us.



Not even Icke?


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 12, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> It is even more reasonable to have an open mind until the thing is definitely proved one way or the other.






			
				redsquirrel said:
			
		

> No it isn't if you actually take this view then you also have to have an open mind about invisible giant frogs, ghosts, UFO's, elves, etc etc.
> We don't say that these things exist.
> *The most reasonable situation is to say that as we have no evidence for their existance then they can be discounted as existing until we have some evidence for their existance*.



QED for me ... there's nothing closed minded about being sceptical about the unlikely. It's also possible to 'open' your mind to implausible, proof free, highly unlikely  propositions. That doesn't mean your mind can't be changed if the facts change ...


----------



## pilchardman (Aug 13, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Not even Icke?


My appraisal of his case is that it lacks credibility somewhat.


----------



## pilchardman (Aug 13, 2004)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> That doesn't mean your mind can't be changed if the facts change ...


Absolutely.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that there are no pixies.  It isn't something I want to "keep an open mind about".  However, if good evidence to the contrary is presented to me, I'd have to change my mind.

That is the most sensible way to go about life, otherwise we might decide to keep "an open mind" about the notion that the bus to work tomorrow might be turned into a watermelon by the Wicked Witch of Ashby de la Zouch.  Things would quickly become pretty confusing.


----------



## dra1002000 (Aug 13, 2004)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> Another 14 pages on this, of all, topics. And all because some people don't understand what constitutes proof. You are free to believe in anything you like, but there is simply no evidence that there's a God.
> 
> Until there is, don't bore the rest of us, please.






			
				pilchardman said:
			
		

> It isn't necessary to have evidence non existence. It is enough to have no evidence of existence. With no evidence of existence I assume non existence until such evidence isput before me.
> 
> fairies, etc ....
> It is entirely reasonable to assume that - given the absence of evidence - they don't exist.
> ...







			
				pilchardman said:
			
		

> as a complete aside, I think it is statistically improbable that we are the only inhabited planet out of the mind bogglingly vast number of planets in the universe.




How do you reconcile your last statement, that you think it's likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe, with the rest of your statements, which maintain that without evidence, you must assume that extra-terrestrial life does not exist?


----------



## onemonkey (Aug 13, 2004)

*why anything?*

hi again, found Derek Parfitt's high-recommended paper on why there is something rather than nothing.. 

go to  http://phil.onemonkey.org/meaning.php?p=30 and click on the link 'whyanthing.rtf'

Here's the start..


> Why does the Universe exist?   There are two questions here.   First, why is there a Universe at all?   It might have been true that nothing ever existed: no living beings, no stars, no atoms, not even space or time.    When we think about this possibility, it can seem astonishing that anything exists.   Second, why does this Universe exist?   Things might have been, in countless ways, different.   So why is the Universe as it is?



highly pertinent to any arguments from primum mobile


----------



## MysteryGuest (Aug 13, 2004)

^

also quite handy if you feel like making yourself go all funny without the aid of chemical stimulants!


----------



## Corax (Aug 13, 2004)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> It isn't something I want to "keep an open mind about".  However, if good evidence to the contrary is presented to me, I'd have to change my mind.



Isn't that exactly what open-mindedness is?



> Why does the Universe exist? There are two questions here. First, why is there a Universe at all? It might have been true that nothing ever existed: no living beings, no stars, no atoms, not even space or time. When we think about this possibility, it can seem astonishing that anything exists.



Personally, this is the ultimate proof of God _for me_*.  Not the existence of anything per se, but the existence of _existence_.

Maybe I'm just simple minded.



*ie. It is proof in my mind, but I do not expect it to be proof in the minds' of others.


----------



## pilchardman (Aug 13, 2004)

dra1002000 said:
			
		

> How do you reconcile your last statement, that you think it's likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe, with the rest of your statements, which maintain that without evidence, you must assume that extra-terrestrial life does not exist?


There is a difference between evidence and probability.  In my last statement I express a probability.  Probability isn't evidence.  And believing something _is likely_ to exist isn't the same as _knowing it does_ exist.


----------



## pilchardman (Aug 13, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> Isn't that exactly what open-mindedness is?.


Yes, but it isn't how the term was being used by proof-haters, which is why I placed it in inverted commas, and explained the mechanism I regard as having an open mind.

(My definition:  Open mind = a willingness to consider and assess new evidence.  It does not - in my view - mean a willingness to believe anything might be true despite a lack of evidence).


----------



## pilchardman (Aug 13, 2004)

Corax said:
			
		

> this is the ultimate proof of God _for me_*.  Not the existence of anything per se, but the existence of _existence_.


I'm not asking you to change your mind, I just think your jump of logic doesn't constitute a proof. (For you, either).  It may make a great imponderable easier you to accept, but that isn't the same thing.

How do you get from "There is existence" to "Therefore it is an attribute of God"?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 16, 2004)

*Mere details boy...*

Well, 

I like to smoke very strong weed.

Devotional reggae music sounds very good whilst stoned.

Therefore Haile Selassie is God

And bass is Christ...  

Serously though, I often wonder why many of us tolerate and enjoy religous loon music as long as it's good reggae?


----------



## john cooper (Dec 27, 2011)

all my life ive seen spirits not as whispy see through figures but solid , how do i know these are spirits , when they do out of this world things ie walking through walls ect to me this says we are more than just skin and bone thus does god exist absolutely


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 27, 2011)

john cooper said:


> all my life ive seen spirits not as whispy see through figures but solid , how do i know these are spirits , when they do out of this world things ie walking through walls ect to me this says we are more than just skin and bone thus does god exist absolutely


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 27, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>



Any thread that attracts this grinning tosspot can come to no good, you mark my words.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 27, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Serously though, I often wonder why many of us tolerate and enjoy religous loon music as long as it's good reggae?



It has to be quaint and archaic, and (Augustus Pablo) has never been overtly homophobic or even sexist.

I did once return "The Heart of The Congos" as an LP because of the biblical stuff ....

It's something I enjoy sporadically ...

I have at times been rather fond of the music of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, but as a Sufi, his lyrics are probably OK ...


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 27, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


> I did once return "The Heart of The Congos" as an LP because of the biblical stuff ....



You _are _joking_, _right?

Did you never ask yourself why the Old Testament is so vital a force in Jamaican culture?


----------



## Voley (Dec 27, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Serously though, I often wonder why many of us tolerate and enjoy religous loon music as long as it's good reggae?


I've wondered this too. I think its the passion that makes the music so good.  I listen to heaps of religious music; gospel, Johnny Cash, Al Green. I watched a bunch of Buddhist monks chanting once and it was fucking brilliant. I don't think you have to believe to enjoy it. Whether you enjoy it _as much_ is debatable, mind.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 27, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You _are _joking_, _right?
> 
> Did you never ask yourself why the Old Testament is so vital a force in Jamaican culture?



Liberation theology ?

Moses was a black African ....

Still doesn't stop it being bollocks.


----------



## Voley (Dec 27, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


> It has to be quaint and archaic, and (Augustus Pablo) has never been overtly homophobic or even sexist.
> 
> I did once return "The Heart of The Congos" as an LP because of the biblical stuff ....
> 
> ...


Really? 'Heart Of The Congos' is an amazing album. You're missing out, seriously.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 27, 2011)

I of course bought it again and sometimes sing along when I'm cycling - even to the biblical nonsense 

I believe some say (erroneously) that a heterosexual man is only a few drinks from being gay, so perhaps a little herb and a white atheist can become a Rasta


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 27, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


> Liberation theology ?
> 
> Moses was a black African ....
> 
> Still doesn't stop it being bollocks.



It's more the uncanny parallels between the Israelites' experience of slavery and the Africans'.

Anyway, I don't have time to debate on two threads at once, so I'm going to plug this book again.  I just re-read the Intro, which is available for free on Amazon, and it says what I'd say so much better than I can (apart from calling Beesonthetwatnow a smug, stupid and supercillious wanker, which soon loses its appeal):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300164297/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk#reader_0300164297


----------



## Voley (Dec 27, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


> I of course bought it again


Jah be praised.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 27, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Any thread that attracts this grinning tosspot can come to no good, you mark my words.


If you can think of a better response to such an epic bump I'd love to hear it.

Oh, and a seasonal fuck off Dwyer


----------



## Greebo (Dec 27, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> <snip> you mark my words.


*gets out red biro*  Could do better, sweetie.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 27, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If you can think of a better response to such an epic bump I'd love to hear it.



Blimey.  Against my better judgment I just had a quick skim through this thread.  Bloody hell, what a bunch of Wilbur Wiseacres and Freddy Fatheads used to populate these boards.  What a stream of smug, self-satisfied, ignorant drivel.

I mean, the likes of Beesonthetwatnow and Tosserian look almost like sparkling conversationalists in this company.  Well alright I exaggerate, but still... it seems I arrived just in time.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 27, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Blimey. Against my better judgment I just had a quick skim through this thread. Bloody hell, what a bunch of Wilbur Wiseacres and Freddy Fatheads used to populate these boards. What a stream of smug, self-satisfied, ignorant drivel.
> 
> I mean, the likes of Beesonthetwatnow and Tosserian look almost like sparkling conversationalists in this company. Well alright I exaggerate, but still... *it seems I arrived just in time*.



Just like the messiah


----------



## Greebo (Dec 27, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Blimey. Against my better judgment I just had a quick skim through this thread. Bloody hell, what a bunch of Wilbur Wiseacres and Freddy Fatheads used to populate these boards. What a stream of smug, self-satisfied, ignorant drivel.
> 
> I mean, the likes of Beesonthetwatnow and Tosserian look almost like sparkling conversationalists in this company. Well alright I exaggerate, but still... it seems I arrived just in time.


Narcissus thy name is phildwyer.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 27, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> I mean, the likes of Beesonthetwatnow and Tosserian look almost like sparkling conversationalists in this company. Well alright I exaggerate, but still... it seems I arrived just in time.


I'm sure people used to get banned for fucking with usernames....


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 27, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I'm sure people used to get banned for fucking with usernames....



Beesonthetwatnow gets sensitive...


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 27, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I'm sure people used to get banned for fucking with usernames....



Seriously though, Beesonthetwatnow, what would you prefer to be called now?

You wouldn't really try to get me banned now for taking the piss out of your stupid username now, would you now?

Or are you really that much of a twat now?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 27, 2011)

I don't want you banned, I'd rather you just fucked off or had a slight accident with a combine harvester


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 27, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Bees



Is that what you'd like to be called, Bees?

I'll call you "Bees" if you want.  Although I think "Beesonthetwatnow" is better myself.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 27, 2011)

"Hello, my name is Bees.  Beesonthetwatnow.  You can call me Bees.  Or Mr. Onthetwatnow until you get to know me better."


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 27, 2011)

Has Beesonthetwatnow gone to bed now?

I have.  Nighty-night all...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 27, 2011)

Looking good Phil


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 28, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Looking good Phil



Ahem.

Well actually I do feel a bit abashed this morning.  Obviously I had a couple of drinks last night and... well, you know how it is.

So I'd like to apologize, not only to Beesonthetwatnot, but to Mrs. Onthetwatnow, all the little Onthetwatnows, his brothers Waspsonthetwatnow and Hornetsonthetwatnow, and anyone else with a really, really stupid username.


----------



## john cooper (Dec 28, 2011)

guys i can only talk about my life experiences , i get ridicule and scorn if i mention it , but then it is hard to believe so i accept it , i totally believe in god personally i know there are many who dont or dont think they do ? ime glad there is a spirit does what you do in this life matter ? without a doubt it does in my veiw .....


----------



## john cooper (Dec 28, 2011)

guys i can only talk about my life experiences , i get ridicule and scorn if i mention it , but then it is hard to believe so i accept it , i totally believe in god personally i know there are many who dont or dont think they do ? ime glad there is a spirit does what you do in this life matter ? without a doubt it does in my veiw .....


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 28, 2011)

So when you say you believe in "God", is there a particular religious book involved ?


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 28, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


> So when you say you believe in "God", is there a particular religious book involved ?



Not for me. It's more a matter of reason.

And since the only God I recognize is both omnipotent and omnipresent, He is not the sort of thing that one could either believe or disbelieve.  It's a question of one's attitude to life.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 28, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Not for me. It's more a matter of reason.
> 
> And since the only God I recognize is both omnipotent and omnipresent, He is not the sort of thing that one could either believe or disbelieve. It's a question of one's attitude to life.


you've previously made a considerable contribution to this debate, here http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-rational-proof-of-gods-existence.58182/


----------



## john cooper (Dec 29, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


> So when you say you believe in "God", is there a particular religious book involved ?


no its strange i dont believe in church as a house of god and i dont believe in any holy book written by man and yet i know god i will use the name god as a known reference exists he must do as ive seen spirit all my life ...


----------



## dot co dot uk (Dec 29, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> It's a question of one's attitude to life.



Are you Jewish Phil?


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 29, 2011)

dot co dot uk said:


> Are you Jewish Phil?



No.  Why?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 29, 2011)

john cooper said:


> ive seen spirit all my life ...


I saw a spirit or two last night...







*rubs head*


----------



## dot co dot uk (Dec 29, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> No. Why?



Because what I quoted from your post is more of a Jewish idea of God/religion.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 29, 2011)

jesuscrept etc again, banned again


----------



## Greebo (Dec 29, 2011)

dot co dot uk said:


> Because what I quoted from your post is more of a Jewish idea of God/religion.


I dunno, immanence of the divine is also a pagan concept.


----------



## john cooper (Dec 29, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I saw a spirit or two last night...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


as its christmas i do see the funny side of your response


----------



## editor (Dec 29, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> So I'd like to apologize, not only to Beesonthetwatnot, but to Mrs. Onthetwatnow, all the little Onthetwatnows, his brothers Waspsonthetwatnow and Hornetsonthetwatnow, and anyone else with a really, really stupid username.


Keep up the infantile name altering and you'll be getting a late Christmas present in the shape of a juicy ban.


----------



## john cooper (Dec 30, 2011)

be kind to your fellow man , help those in need , and be true to yourself god bless for 2012


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 30, 2011)

why does your absolute belief that you've seen spirits and that spirits exist, lead you to an absolute belief in god?


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 30, 2011)

.. instead of seeking medical help....


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 30, 2011)

I thought of something recently that might be relevant to this thread. It came about as a result of doing some reading about santeria.

To try to put it in a few words, it's that no argument about faith or belief in god etc can be right, because belief doesn't spring from the same place that logical thinking comes from. Gods and spirituality and all that don't pass the logic test. They're not logical.

But the 'logic-making' part of our brains is only a part. One of the tools available. But in the same way that sunlight hitting your face when you lie on a beach with your eyes closed causes a feeling of pleasure, the internalization of belief arrives not via the logic-making tool, but via a different part. And once it's there, the believer can make game attempts at explaining it all rationally, but in her heart of hearts, she knows that it has nothing to do with logic, and that that fact does not diminish the power nor the verity of the belief one iota.

Arguing to a believer that god isn't rational is like arguing to a gardener that a rose doesn't smell nice. They will look at you, and smile.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 30, 2011)

So it's the basic banal faith argument that every old biddy makes. Refreshing.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So it's the basic banal faith argument that every old biddy makes. Refreshing.



Yeah, it is. It's just that now, I finally understand the argument. It only took 50 years.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 30, 2011)

If I found myself seeing or hearing things that I couldn't attribute to something in the real world, I would get myself off to the doc's - I certainly wouldn't drive a car or operate machinery.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 30, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Yeah, it is. It's just that now, I finally understand the argument. It only took 50 years.


It's only an argument for the existence of _a belief_ in a god though.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 30, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


> If I found myself seeing or hearing things that I couldn't attribute to something in the real world, I would get myself off to the doc's - I certainly wouldn't drive a car or operate machinery.



It's not about seeing or hearing things. It's about belief coming to you.

It can never be understood nor justified logically.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's only an argument for the existence of a belief in a god though.



That's true. But if you believe, then God [or whatever it is] exists. For you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 30, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That's true. But if you believe, then God [or whatever it is] exists. For you.


The belief that you believe in a god exists sure.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The belief that you believe in a god exists sure.



Btw, to establish my credentials as an atheistic modernistic materialistic man: I'm not pushing a religion. I'm not a believer.

But as a result of things I saw and read about, and talking with people, something happened that scared me.

Before, when it came to faith/religion, it was like the saying 'you can't get there from here'. There was no way I could see how a rational, reasonably intelligent person, could accept that stuff in good faith.

The difference is that now, I can see where the path is. Not going down it; but just realizing that it is there, scared the shit out of me.


----------



## Dandred (Dec 30, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The difference is that now, I can see where the path is. Not going down it; but just realizing that it is there, scared the shit out of me.



That is called getting old..............close to death...........


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 30, 2011)

Dandred said:


> That is called getting old..............close to death...........



I don't think I'm at the deathbed conversion stage just yet.


----------



## john cooper (Dec 30, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> why does your absolute belief that you've seen spirits and that spirits exist, lead you to an absolute belief in god?


i believe we are body and soul when the body dies the soul which i believe never dies moves on were ime not sure do i believe in god yes you can call him or her god


----------



## john cooper (Dec 30, 2011)

i


gentlegreen said:


> .. instead of seeking medical help....


 have sought medical help ...thats the point ime at


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 30, 2011)

john cooper said:


> i
> 
> have sought medical help ...thats the point ime at



What sort of meds did they put you on for your hallucinations ?


----------



## john cooper (Dec 30, 2011)

i


Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I thought of something recently that might be relevant to this thread. It came about as a result of doing some reading about santeria.
> 
> To try to put it in a few words, it's that no argument about faith or belief in god etc can be right, because belief doesn't spring from the same place that logical thinking comes from. Gods and spirituality and all that don't pass the logic test. They're not logical.
> 
> ...


i find this interesting


----------



## xes (Dec 30, 2011)

This young man passed away on Christmas day. He left everyone a little message.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 3, 2012)

i dont suffer


gentlegreen said:


> What sort of meds did they put you on for your hallucinations ?


i dont suffer from them least i dont think i do


----------



## deke t lefel (Jan 14, 2012)

john cooper said:


> all my life ive seen spirits not as whispy see through figures but solid , how do i know these are spirits , when they do out of this world things ie walking through walls ect to me this says we are more than just skin and bone thus does god exist absolutely


it's one of the fundamental laws of science that energy cannot be created or destroyed (in an isolated system anyway) - there is also a multi-billion experiment going on under the France/Switzerland border to attempt to establish whether there is such a thing as mass/matter

death of the body almost certainly results in the inability to utilise the five common senses of touch, taste, smell, hearing and sight..... so it is quite often questioned whether a _soul_ can continue existence on a conscious level

visions of spirits are possibly the manifestation of a sixth sense (beyond that of sight), if this causes fear then it seems reasonable to use a seventh sense (within that of touch) to find the comfort of a personal _god_


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2012)

Mega 8 year old bump by our new member john cooper. john states he is a staunch royalist on a thread in UK Politcs forum. I was a bit scathing  and then find we have this epic bump.

Good research john?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 15, 2012)

Wouldn't like to comment.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 15, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i dont suffer from them least i dont think i do



If I started seeing wispy things / hearing voices, I would be straight off down the quack.


----------



## deke t lefel (Jan 15, 2012)

TopCat said:


> Mega 8 year old bump by our new member john cooper. john states he is a staunch royalist on a thread in UK Politcs forum. I was a bit scathing  and then find we have this epic bump.
> 
> Good research john?


toryism prays on people's fears to encourage allegiance to god, king and country

the crown is a material representation of a halo brought down to rest on the head.....it's starting to slip and word is that Charles will wear it around his neck, William will give it to Kate to wear as a belt and baby Diana will wear it around her ankles with a symbolic ball and chain attached


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> If I started seeing wispy things / hearing voices, I would be straight off down the quack.


That's very unlikely. If you started seeing wispy things or hearing voices, you would almost certainly try to make some sense of them. You would be unlikely to have much or any insight into the ways in which your visions/voices could be construed by others to be mental illness.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 27, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's very unlikely. If you started seeing wispy things or hearing voices, you would almost certainly try to make some sense of them. You would be unlikely to have much or any insight into the ways in which your visions/voices could be construed by others to be mental illness.


god exists put your trust in him and all things become possible , as we are body and soul , then what we do in life echoes an eternity .


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 27, 2012)

john cooper said:


> god exists put your trust in him and all things become possible , as we are body and soul , then what we do in life echoes an eternity .


Hallelujah ! The scales have fallen from mine eyes - Praise the Lord !!111!1!


----------



## Greebo (Jan 27, 2012)

john cooper said:


> god exists put your trust in him and all things become possible<snip>


Not in this lifetime, and not on this world. With enough persistence (faith at least in the rightness of your cause might keep you going a bit longer than sheer bloodymindedness on its own) many things become slightly more possible. That's all. You can't change the laws of physics.


----------



## john cooper (Jan 27, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> Hallelujah ! The scales have fallen from mine eyes - Praise the Lord !!111!1!


thou shalt not take the lords name in vain .


----------



## john cooper (Jan 27, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Not in this lifetime, and not on this world. With enough persistence (faith at least in the rightness of your cause might keep you going a bit longer than sheer bloodymindedness on its own) many things become slightly more possible. That's all. You can't change the laws of physics.


not the laws of physics but you can enhance your everyday well being .


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 27, 2012)

john cooper said:


> god exists put your trust in him and all things become possible , as we are body and soul , *then what we do in life echoes an eternity* .



Pretty sure that's a line from Gladiator


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2012)

john cooper said:


> not the laws of physics but you can enhance your everyday well being .



I can do that by putting my faith in lemon meringue pie, rather than ol' Yahweh.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 27, 2012)

john cooper said:


> thou shalt not take the lords name in vain .



I think we got short-changed with the KJ Bible - orthodox Jews have over 600 commandments - and let's not forget all the classes of humanity that should be put to death ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments


----------



## Greebo (Jan 27, 2012)

john cooper said:


> thou shalt not take the lords name in vain .


Oy!  That commandment has nothing to do with what GG said, you ignoramus!  AFAIK it was intended to stop people treating a wannabe major deity as a fairy godmother for every trivial request instead of treating Him/Her/It with a bit of respect.



john cooper said:


> not the laws of physics but you can enhance your everyday well being .


My everyday well being is fine thanks, considering.  My self esteem is sickeningly healthy.  But that's not achieved with faith alone, not even in my deities of choice.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 27, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> I think we got short-changed with the KJ Bible - orthodox Jews have over 600 commandments - and let's not forget all the classes of humanity that should be put to death ...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments


Indeed.

John cooper, if you want to use a rule book, use the whole damn thing, don't just pick the bits which conveniently allow you to do what you were going to do anyway.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 3, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Indeed.
> 
> John cooper, if you want to use a rule book, use the whole damn thing, don't just pick the bits which conveniently allow you to do what you were going to do anyway.


 interesting ! ime reading the koran and its surprising how it gels with my ideas on religion .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 3, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> I think we got short-changed with the KJ Bible - orthodox Jews have over 600 commandments - and let's not forget all the classes of humanity that should be put to death ...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments[/quote] but the ten commandments that everyone knows , should be obeyed , if your soul isnt going to go to hell .


----------



## john cooper (Feb 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I can do that by putting my faith in lemon meringue pie, rather than ol' Yahweh.


 i suppose its a matter of taste , ive got my taste for religion at the moment hence my writing on the subject .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i suppose its a matter of taste , ive got my taste for religion at the moment hence my writing on the subject .


 ....And next week you'll have the taste for internet porn, or extreme Welsh nationalism.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> ....And next week you'll have the taste for internet porn, or extreme Welsh nationalism.


 
i think ern could help him ou with that.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> ....And next week you'll have the taste for internet porn, or extreme Welsh nationalism.


 wrong again , at the moment ime talking about the virtues of islam .you seem to have a problem with that ?


----------



## john cooper (Feb 4, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i think ern could help him ou with that.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 4, 2012)




----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 4, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i think ern could help him ou with that.


Unless of course it is Ern. Could this be his new way of trolling the boards?


----------



## Sweet Meiga (Feb 4, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Btw, to establish my credentials as an atheistic modernistic materialistic man: I'm not pushing a religion. I'm not a believer.
> 
> But as a result of things I saw and read about, and talking with people, something happened that scared me.
> 
> ...


I am in a similar situation. I have had some really strange experiences, yet I've decided to stick to materialistic world view (as much as possible). It just feels safer and makes more sense. The fear of 'losing it' may also play a role here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

john cooper said:


> wrong again , at the moment ime talking about the virtues of islam .you seem to have a problem with that ?


 
I don't have any problems with Islam at all, John, and neither do I have a problem with most of the people who follow the Path. If people want to put their faith in supernatural forces, then that's fine by me, as long as they don't expect me to do so to.


----------



## john cooper (Feb 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't have any problems with Islam at all, John, and neither do I have a problem with most of the people who follow the Path. If people want to put their faith in supernatural forces, then that's fine by me, as long as they don't expect me to do so to.


 thats a rational response i can accept that


----------



## john cooper (Feb 29, 2012)

i look at all the good in the world and just know god exists , like the anti racist laws , over seas aid , gay rights , the attack on fat people in an attempt to save the nhs , plastic surgery organ donation and most of all banking yes its great to be alive .


----------



## Greebo (Feb 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i look at all the good in the world and just know god exists<snip>


Including parasites?


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 29, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i look at all the good in the world and just know god exists , like the anti racist laws , over seas aid , gay rights , the attack on fat people in an attempt to save the nhs , plastic surgery organ donation and most of all banking yes its great to be alive .


Curious list there - do you feel the same about all of those things ?

I don't think even the Daily Fail objects to organ donation ...

Without reading the whole thread, were you claiming to be some sort of "Christian" ?

I suspect you might want to go and read your holy book a bit more ...


----------



## john cooper (Mar 2, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> Curious list there - do you feel the same about all of those things ?
> 
> I don't think even the Daily Fail objects to organ donation ...
> 
> ...


  ime a christian and i believe there is a god and an afterlife , and that we are body and spirit , and that what we do and how we behave have consequences .


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime a christian


you'll get better with rest and proper treatment


----------



## john cooper (Mar 2, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you'll get better with rest and proper treatment


 you keep trying to insult me and i dont know why , are you an atheist ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you keep trying to insult me and i dont know why , are you an atheist ?


maybe it's because you're a christian. and yes, i am an atheist.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 3, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i look at all the good in the world and just know god exists , like the anti racist laws , over seas aid , gay rights , the attack on fat people in an attempt to save the nhs , plastic surgery organ donation and most of all banking yes its great to be alive .



You forgot queenie.


Odd post.


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 3, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime a christian and i believe there is a god and an afterlife , and that we are body and spirit , and that what we do and how we behave have consequences .


Like being gay and wanting your partner to have the same rights as any other partner ? Like believing overt racism should be a criminal offence ?
Like donating / receiving an organ ?

Are you an xtian "scientist" ?


----------



## deke t lefel (Mar 4, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime a christian and i believe there is a god and an afterlife , and that we are body and spirit , and that what we do and how we behave have consequences .


you missed out soul

christians believe that humans are created in the image of god and that god is a trinity - god the father, god the son and god the holy spirit

the father representing the soul, the son representing the body and the holy spirit representing, well, the spirit of course


----------



## deke t lefel (Mar 4, 2012)

maybe that should be.... christians believe that man is created in the image of god


----------



## john cooper (Mar 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> maybe it's because you're a christian. and yes, i am an atheist.


 fair enough we all have our views .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 5, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> Like being gay and wanting your partner to have the same rights as any other partner ? Like believing overt racism should be a criminal offence ?
> Like donating / receiving an organ ?
> 
> Are you an xtian "scientist" ?


 i have no problem with gay people my nephew is bi sexual , as for having equal they do , if you mean cannot get married in church , why would they want to seems odd .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 5, 2012)

deke t lefel said:


> you missed out soul
> 
> christians believe that humans are created in the image of god and that god is a trinity - god the father, god the son and god the holy spirit
> 
> the father representing the soul, the son representing the body and the holy spirit representing, well, the spirit of course


 the spirit is the soul , hence we are all connected to each other on a spiritual level.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 5, 2012)

deke t lefel said:


> maybe that should be.... christians believe that man is created in the image of god


 in the image of god , i doubt that myself as god is an omnipresent life force made up of pure energy at least thats my view .


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 5, 2012)

john cooper said:


> fair enough we all have our views .


everyone's got a cross to bear. It's just xians also wear a crown of thorns & people jeer at them too


----------



## john cooper (Mar 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> everyone's got a cross to bear. It's just xians also wear a crown of thorns & people jeer at them too


 xians , not heard that one before please clarify ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2012)

You claim to be one


----------



## Greebo (Mar 6, 2012)

john cooper said:


> xians, not heard that one before please clarify ?


xmas = christmas, so xian or xtian = christian. In use since at least the late 80's and the time of the Dicken report and the spread of satanic ritual abuse myths (SRAM).


----------



## laptop (Mar 6, 2012)

Greebo said:


> In use since at least the late 80s


 
Indeed, probably since the 80s, as against the 180s, 280s... 1880s or 1980s.

Greek Chi for Xristos, certainly used back when it was illegal to be a Xtian.


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 6, 2012)

What did I obliquely hear on French radio last night about the fish thing predating the greek Icthos thingy and some connection with the Jona myth ?

The Xtian cross was of course probably T-shaped ...


----------



## deke t lefel (Mar 7, 2012)

john cooper said:


> in the image of god , i doubt that myself as god is an omnipresent life force made up of pure energy at least thats my view .


in the image of god - christians have a word for that

so humans are body and spirit and god is pure energy pervading all material things?
maybe some sort of big experiment could be set up to find out if there is some sort of omnipresent particle that gives matter its substance - nah, too whacky


----------



## john cooper (Mar 9, 2012)

deke t lefel said:


> in the image of god - christians have a word for that
> 
> so humans are body and spirit and god is pure energy pervading all material things?
> maybe some sort of big experiment could be set up to find out if there is some sort of omnipresent particle that gives matter its substance - nah, too whacky


 well its a strange fact backed by doctors , that there is a loss of weight after death with no apparent reason , excluding fluid loss ect .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 9, 2012)

Greebo said:


> xmas = christmas, so xian or xtian = christian. In use since at least the late 80's and the time of the Dicken report and the spread of satanic ritual abuse myths (SRAM).


 well i learn something everyday .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 9, 2012)

laptop said:


> Indeed, probably since the 80s, as against the 180s, 280s... 1880s or 1980s.
> 
> Greek Chi for Xristos, certainly used back when it was illegal to be a Xtian.


 still cannot grasp what exactly is an xtian? in laymans terms ?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 9, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> What did I obliquely hear on French radio last night about the fish thing predating the greek Icthos thingy and some connection with the Jona myth ?
> 
> The Xtian cross was of course probably T-shaped ...


 is xtian a religeous sect ?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i have no problem with gay people my nephew is bi sexual , as for having equal they do , if you mean cannot get married in church , why would they want to seems odd .


 
So gays can't be christian and have their marriage blessed in the presence of their lord god?


----------



## deke t lefel (Mar 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> well its a strange fact backed by doctors , that there is a loss of weight after death with no apparent reason , excluding fluid loss ect .


21 Grams?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> well its a strange fact backed by doctors , that there is a loss of weight after death with no apparent reason , excluding fluid loss ect .


Backed by one doctor, 90 years ago, with rather sloppy methodology. "Fact" is far too strong a word. "Suggestion" would stretch to fit. "Myth" is a better fit.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> is xtian a religeous sect ?


 
Find me a religion that isn't.
sect, cult .. it's the 21st century, in the UK we don't have lack of free education / information as an excuse.

The Abrahamic cults are particularly unappealing...

As I hinted at before, they even changed the shape of the execution device so Jesus could be said to have dragged it along the street as opposed to just being nailed-up like all the thousands of other victims.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 9, 2012)

john cooper said:


> well its a strange fact backed by doctors , that there is a loss of weight after death with no apparent reason , excluding fluid loss ect .


 
Bwahhhhh ha ha ha.
I think this kind of sums up religion for me, and believing whatever the hell you like, however crazy, incredible or ridiculous without question. But that's faith right?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 10, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> So gays can't be christian and have their marriage blessed in the presence of their lord god? you see its like this , christians believe in the bible i dont personnaly and in the bible to lie with a man being a man is wrong in the bible , so homosexuals wanted a church wedding is going aggainst the christian belief and upseting that community , so why bother , is it that important ?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 10, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Bwahhhhh ha ha ha.
> I think this kind of sums up religion for me, and believing whatever the hell you like, however crazy, incredible or ridiculous without question. But that's faith right?


 i think its bull myself but strange what people latch onto , its a case of you either believe or not , i do believe .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 10, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> Find me a religion that isn't.
> sect, cult .. it's the 21st century, in the UK we don't have lack of free education / information as an excuse.
> 
> The Abrahamic cults are particularly unappealing...
> ...


 religion a cult yes of coarse probably with a hint of brainwashing the vulnerable thrown in .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 10, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Backed by one doctor, 90 years ago, with rather sloppy methodology. "Fact" is far too strong a word. "Suggestion" would stretch to fit. "Myth" is a better fit.
> http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp


 i agree the evidence is a bit thin .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 10, 2012)

deke t lefel said:


> 21 Grams?


di dont think its a precise weight , if you know different fair play .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 10, 2012)




----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 10, 2012)

If he actually said that, he was definitely mentally ill.

I've just thought - what did his mum do with the gold she was given ?


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 10, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> If he actually said that, he was definitely mentally ill.
> 
> I've just thought - what did his mum do with the gold she was given ?


Gold4Thou


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 10, 2012)

Get you quote sorted out #579 you make it look like I said all that bollocks. 

Right. So you think gays are ok but gays are wrong because it says it in the bible. You either think the bible is wrong about that or you don't. 
You are basically saying gays are ok, but a gay christian is an oxymoron so why would they want to get married in a church. Your religion is seems rather bigoted.


----------



## deke t lefel (Mar 10, 2012)

john cooper said:


> di dont think its a precise weight , if you know different fair play .


you must have missed the Hollywood version


----------



## john cooper (Mar 10, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> If he actually said that, he was definitely mentally ill.
> 
> I've just thought - what did his mum do with the gold she was given ?


 ?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 10, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Get you quote sorted out #579 you make it look like I said all that bollocks.
> 
> Right. So you think gays are ok but gays are wrong because it says it in the bible. You either think the bible is wrong about that or you don't.
> You are basically saying gays are ok, but a gay christian is an oxymoron so why would they want to get married in a church. Your religion is seems rather bigoted.


 if you believe church is a house of god and not just bricks and mortar then getting married in church if you are gay is about making a point , what the point is i cannot see ?


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

john cooper said:


> if you believe church is a house of god and not just bricks and mortar then getting married in church if you are gay is about making a point , what the point is i cannot see ?


The point is under what circumstances do you think it is ok for one set of people to declare an action which has no victim to it, as being illegal. In a free world I would say that the tendency is towards freedom...


----------



## john cooper (Mar 10, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> If he actually said that, he was definitely mentally ill.
> 
> I've just thought - what did his mum do with the gold she was given ?





gentlegreen said:


> If he actually said that, he was definitely mentally ill.
> 
> I've just thought - what did his mum do with the gold she was given ?


 thou shalt not take the lords name in vain , i think that means dont take the piss .


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

john cooper said:


> thou shalt not take the lords name in vain , i think that means dont take the piss .


Do you believe in free speech, or is it an optional extra?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> The point is under what circumstances do you think it is ok for one set of people to declare an action which has no victim to it, as being illegal. In a free world I would say that the tendency is towards freedom...


 one set of people do you mean christians ? as for the world being free , if you believe that you are a fool .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Do you believe in free speech, or is it an optional extra?


yes i believe in free speech and i believe in the power of disagreement .


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

john cooper said:


> one set of people do you mean christians ? as for the world being free , if you believe that you are a fool .


I am not saying that of course, I am merely saying that the ideal of freedom of speech is one which most people share even if it doesn't always happen, it is still a shared ideal.

I was asking if it is an ideal you also share?


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes i believe in free speech and i believe in the power of disagreement .


So you are ok with the blasphemy laws not being as important as freedom of speech? Separation of church and state and all that?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I am not saying that of course, I am merely saying that the ideal of freedom of speech is one which most people share even if it doesn't always happen, it is still a shared ideal.
> 
> I was asking if it is an ideal you also share?


 yes ime all for freedom of speech .


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes ime all for freedom of speech .


Even when it is directly counter to the writing in the bible/whatever faith book the individual believes in?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> So you are ok with the blasphemy laws not being as important as freedom of speech? Separation of church and state and all that?


 blasphemy laws should be for a congregation , everyone else should be able to say anything they like about religion .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Even when it is directly counter to the writing in the bible/whatever faith book the individual believes in?


 you see i do not believe in the bible as the word of god anymore than i believe a church is the house of god and yet i believe in god .


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you see i do not believe in the bible as the word of god anymore than i believe a church is the house of god and yet i believe in god .


That's nice, but do you feel that you should be able to force your religious views on others who may not share your faith - say someone gay who wishes to marry their partner? Their commitment is real, who are you to tell them that they cannot call their union marriage while enjoying the same perks of marriage that other marriages do?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> That's nice, but do you feel that you should be able to force your religious views on others who may not share your faith - say someone gay who wishes to marry their partner? Their commitment is real, who are you to tell them that they cannot call their union marriage while enjoying the same perks of marriage that other marriages do?


 ime surprised you think you know my religeous views ? ime not aggainst gay marriages if it makes them happy but why in a church inhabited by hetrosexuals , is it not making a statement , which is ime going to smash your beliefs you christians , i just dont think its worth the upset to many people .


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime surprised you think you know my religeous views ? ime not aggainst gay marriages if it makes them happy but why in a church inhabited by hetrosexuals , is it not making a statement , which is ime going to smash your beliefs you christians , i just dont think its worth the upset to many people .


I did not mean to imply that I knew your position - most religious people are a bit too much Leviticua and not enough Sermon on the Mount.

If you feel that freedom is more important than any individual religion then that's fine, that is the basis for the modern secular state - we don't have one yet in the UK (bishops in the second chamber sadly) but it is an ideal many share.

As for the catalogue of proofs for the existence of God - I am an atheist and I also believe in evolution (even if we don't know the exact details, it is obviously true), but if you wish to practice your faith while not imposing it on others against their will then you will have no problem from me.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

> I am an atheist and I also believe in evolution (even if we don't know the exact details, it is obviously true)


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ime surprised you think you know my religeous views ? ime not aggainst gay marriages if it makes them happy but why in a church inhabited by hetrosexuals , is it not making a statement , which is ime going to smash your beliefs you christians , i just dont think its worth the upset to many people .


John Cooper, would you agree that God (as you understand him) does not ever make mistakes?  And that human beings are created by Him in His Likeness?  If so, homosexuality (with which people are born) is as much a part of God as heterosexuality is.  

IMHO if you choose to tell humans who love others who happen to have the same genitals that they can't be Christians (if they feel called to be so) and can't formalise their love in the same way as any other imperfect but still struggling Christian, I hope that you've never fallen short of spiritual perfection yourself.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

Ah! you were quoting because I was saying exactly what you believe...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Ah! you were quoting because I was saying exactly what you believe...


I was highlighting your _faith_.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I was highlighting your _faith_.


Evolution is a historical fact, and so I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse. I have faith that Henry VIII existed too - I never saw him with my own eyes, so it has to be faith.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Evolution is a historical fact, and so I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Evolution is a historical fact, and so I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


This is an astonishing example. It begins by begging the question. It then proceeds to a mental unwarranted  conclusive 'so'  (this is the worst part of the whole monstrosity) then suggests there's 'worse' reasons than the forgoing as to why it's mental. What are these worse then second hand evidences?


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This is an astonishing example. It begins by begging the question. It then proceeds to a mental unwarranted conclusive 'so' (this is the worst part of the whole monstrosity) then suggests there's 'worse' reasons than the forgoing as to why it's mental. What are these worse then second hand evidences?


I have only been alive since the seventies and so for all historical facts previous to that I have to take the historical evidence that is available. I am convinced by evolution in that the evidence I have seen is amply adequate to persuade me that it is true.

How do you see this as 'monstrous'? Is this another game of yours to avoid giving up some details of your hidden solution to the problems of the UK?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

You might well be convinced. Do you not see how the post you made makes a mockery of the argument that we must rely on sources other than our senses to make sense of the world? How cluelessly it's constructed and how it explicitly relies on the same appeal to faith as religions?

No, you don't.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

Do you think the arguments in your head and someone else just types them with a sort of _fuck it, that'll do_ shrug? They're barely in english.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You might well be convinced. Do you not see how the post you made makes a mockery of the argument that we must rely on sources other than our senses to make sense of the world? How cluelessly it's constructed and how it explicitly relies on the same appeal to faith as religions?
> 
> No, you don't.


I am not arguing against second hand evidence (yet another strawman), I am stating that they are not as good as first hand evidence. I am limited as a person on this planet in that I only have a small amount of first hand evidence at my disposal. I accept second hand evidence, which is how I came to the conclusion I did with evolution.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

> _Do you not see how the post you made makes a mockery of the argument that we must rely on sources other than our senses to make sense of the world? _
> 
> _No, you don't._


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

This truly amazing, never mind the evolution of the eye



> Evolution is a historical fact, and so I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I am not arguing against second hand evidence (yet another strawman), I am stating that they are not as good as first hand evidence. I am limited as a person on this planet in that I only have a small amount of first hand evidence at my disposal. I accept second hand evidence, which is how I came to the conclusion I did with evolution.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This truly amazing, never mind the evolution of the eye


I am convinced by evolution, are you?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I am not arguing against second hand evidence (yet another strawman), I am stating that they are not as good as first hand evidence. I am limited as a person on this planet in that I only have a small amount of first hand evidence at my disposal. I accept second hand evidence, which is how I came to the conclusion I did with evolution.


I didn't say that you argued against the utility of 2nd hand evidence, i sait that you offered no defence of this approach but instead offered a cack handed defence of _faith_. In an attack on faith.

What is wrong with you?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I am convinced by evolution, are you?


What's that got to do with your argument in favour of faith?


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't say that you argued against the utility of 2nd hand evidence, i sait that you offered no defence of this approach but instead offered a cack handed defence of _faith_. In an attack on faith.
> 
> What is wrong with you?


All second hand evidence is going to have an aspect of faith to it, because you are relying on other people's interpretation or report of their first hand evidence as they see it. You have to trust that they did not lie in their report for example - that trust is faith. And I didn't attack 'faith' either, I was arguing for secularism IIRC.

History is a good example of faith, because the further back you go, the more it is the biased interpretation of the victors (see Richard III, who is portrayed very negatively by history, but who could have been a better person than that). I only 'know' that Richard III existed because of the many historical references, but the lack of first hand experience means that it is still second hand, and therefore open to these problems. that is not to say that first hand evidence doesn't also have problems too - but they are fewer.

This is all pretty obvious stuff, and I don't see what your problem is with this position.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What's that got to do with your argument in favour of faith?


I have faith in a number of ideals - so do you (probably) - what's the problem? these principles guide your life, you have faith in them. Maybe you are a nihilist and don't believe in anything, but probably you believe in your family/friends/self at the least - faith is everywhere - you need faith to smile. It is not a dirty word just because the religious decided to attach a dubious story to it along with humanist values.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

I'm not arguing againts second evidence you clown, i'm saying that your defence of it thus



> Evolution is a historical fact, and so I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


 
is ridiculous, circular and mental - as per my post above. There are many legitimate defences of the necessity of 2nd hand evidence. Your defence spits in their face and is in fact a defence of religious faith.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I have faith in a number of ideals - so do you (probably) - what's the problem? these principles guide your life, you have faith in them. Maybe you are a nihilist and don't believe in anything, but probably you believe in your family/friends/self at the least - faith is everywhere - you need faith to smile. It is not a dirty word just because the religious decided to attach a dubious story to it along with humanist values.


You're the one arguing against faith - not me. Or least you though that you were. You set up the faith/science opposition - what's your problem? I think that people beliving in historical facts (god) makes it true. And by this act of belief you have no choice  but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

> Evolution is a historical fact, and so I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


 
So you think this is circular?

Evolution goes back thousands of years - I have seen the fossils myself. Maybe it is a bit of faith to say that they are real and that the dating of them is not a conspiracy, but it makes it onto the fact list for me. Still the time frame for evolution is 3900 mya at least and so I have to acknowledge that my evidence is going to be incomplete by definition.


butchersapron said:


> You're the one arguing against faith - not me. Or least you though that you were.[...]


 
I what? 


butchersapron said:


> Do you think the arguments in your head and someone else just types them with a sort of _fuck it, that'll do_ shrug? They're barely in english.


 
The hat seems to fit for you there...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> So you think this is circular?


 
The argument quoted:



> Evolution is a historical fact, and so I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


 
is circular - that is it's best bit.



> a) Evolution is a historical fact,
> b) and so
> c) I have no choice
> d) but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


 
Look at the construction of that argument and the logical series that it relies on. It's an argument for God. It's most certainly not an argument for scientific method.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The argument quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are a bit confused aren't you. I am just stating that evolution depends on historical evidence. There is no circle there, just a restatement of the same fact - that evolution is about history - it is not the same answer to a different question.

So for example from here:

Bill: "God must exist." 
Jill: "How do you know." 
Bill: "Because the Bible says so." 
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?" 
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

Let's do that again:

Bill: "Evolution is about history" 
Jill: "How do you know." 
Bill: "Because of the fossils" 
Jill: "Why should we believe fossils?" 
Bill: "Because the fossils can be dated by science."

Evolution being about history is a cast iron fact especially in comparison with the 'bible being written by God' bit. The fossils exist too. Neither fact can be reasonably argued with, and yet you are trying to say that I am being circular without actually putting your argument into circular form. I got bored of waiting for you to do it yourself, so I did it for you.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

You argued the first example though. If you'd argued the second (and your dishonesty in pretending that you offered a post that you didn't has been noted) then this post would not exist.



> Evolution is a historical fact, and so I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


 
You started with the conclusion (this is called begging the question gmart):



> a) Evolution is a historical fact


 
then proceeded to look for ways of establishing this:



> b) and so
> c) I have no choice
> d) but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


 
My whole point is that a non-faith based argument should look like your second example. Your argument did not. It was an argument for coming to conclusions based on faith.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You argued the first example though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you claim that I cannot state that evolution is a historical fact without a premise of some sort?

Not true.

Evolution is historical. No premises are needed for the fact, and so I didn't start with a conclusion - I started with a fact, so therefore no circle there.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

> Evolution is a historical fact, and so I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


 
is an expression of faith. It is not an argument for the material reality of evolution based on the fossil record, observed behaviour or other establishing criteria. Note the way that the fact is established - at the _end_ of the chain of evidence.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

Gmart said:


> So you claim


 


> So you feel


 


> Are you suggesting


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 10, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Bwahhhhh ha ha ha.
> I think this kind of sums up religion for me, and believing whatever the hell you like, however crazy, incredible or ridiculous without question. But that's faith right?


 
I am always surprised when people think that religion is based on faith.  It is not, it is based on reason.

A few years ago, I successfully proved the existence of God on a 200 page thread on these boards.  Shall I do it again?


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> <snip>A few years ago, I successfully proved the existence of God on a 200 page thread on these boards. Shall I do it again?


Why not just link to the thread and leave it at that?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 10, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Why not just link to the thread and leave it at that?


 
Oh very well, if you insist.  I think this ought to settle the matter, but if anyone still has any questions they should feel at liberty to ask them.  If I deem the questions sufficiently intelligent I will answer them fully and instantaneously.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-rational-proof-of-gods-existence.58182/


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2012)

Skipped to the end of that thread (by which time Dwyer had been trounced) - oh my aching sides


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 10, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Skipped to the end of that thread (by which time Dwyer had been trounced) - oh my aching sides


 
Sorry, but there is no way you can have given my argument the attention it requires in a mere eight minutes.  Since you specifically requested that I link to the thread, it behooves you to study it with greater diligence.  When you have done so, you are free to return and ask as many questions as you like.   Until then, however, I must ask you to keep your opinions to yourself.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 10, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I am always surprised when people think that religion is based on faith. It is not, it is based on reason.
> 
> A few years ago, I successfully proved the existence of God on a 200 page thread on these boards. Shall I do it again?


 
You waaaaa? Ow my sides. As if. 
So to answer the point that has not been answered here. Can gays be christians?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 10, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> You waaaaa? Ow my sides. As if.


 
Yep.  I recall you getting quite upset about it at the time too.  Didnt you actually manage to get yourself banned by the end of that thread?



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> So to answer the point that has not been answered here. Can gays be christians?


 
You are not answering anything here.  You are asking a question.  And the answer is YES.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 11, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I am always surprised when people think that religion is based on faith. It is not, it is based on reason.
> 
> A few years ago, I successfully proved the existence of God on a 200 page thread on these boards. Shall I do it again?


Interesting re-write of history there. I remember that thread, you didn't by any means get as far as the end of your 'proof', and you ignored all my questions/comments not surprisingly. Just when I thought you might get on with it, it was binned for no reason other than boredom on the part of the mods, it was way over 1000 posts by that time IIRC.

You tried to get posters to follow your proof, but insisted on steps of logic which posters were not prepared to take without a better rationalisation from yourself. You didn't seem keen to provide this rationalisation.

God is a ridiculous concept, a simplistic answer to a complicated world. I suspect you know this and are just toying with people who are less intelligent than yourself. The world is just a straightforward, determinist reality which is unfolding along the lines of physics as inevitably as it was at the big bang. We have the illusion of freewill due to our inability to see the future, which is lucky. 

Do you believe in evolution? That would seem to fly straight in the face of the accepted forms of religion, thus leaving only the pick 'n' choose version left with God so vague as to be meaningless.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> is an expression of faith. It is not an argument for the material reality of evolution based on the fossil record, observed behaviour or other establishing criteria. Note the way that the fact is established - at the _end_ of the chain of evidence.


I find the proof of everyone sharing a common ancestor as very clear, do you? It is a simple proof if you want it...

Maybe I shouldn't have muddied the water with talking about everything before 1972 as different to personal experience, but I do draw that line between first and second hand experience, I find it useful to recognise what I have experienced, and what is basically reported speech.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 11, 2012)

john cooper said:


> if you believe church is a house of god and not just bricks and mortar then getting married in church if you are gay is about making a point , what the point is i cannot see ?


So gays cannot be christian, believe in god and hold christian beliefs?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 11, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Yep. I recall you getting quite upset about it at the time too. Didnt you actually manage to get yourself banned by the end of that thread?
> .


 
No and no.
You seem to have a pretty lousy memory. 
There is not much point in lying about your 'infamous' thread, everyone saw it and nothing with proven to a single poster. Apart from that fact that you are a dick of course.


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 11, 2012)

john cooper said:


> if you believe church is a house of god and not just bricks and mortar then getting married in church if you are gay is about making a point , what the point is i cannot see ?


 
Marriage doesn't have to take place in any church.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 11, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> <snip>There is not much point in lying about your 'infamous' thread, everyone saw it and nothing with proven to a single poster. Apart from that fact that you are a dick of course.


Word.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 11, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Sorry, but there is no way you can have given my argument the attention it requires in a mere eight minutes. Since you specifically requested that I link to the thread, it behooves you to study it with greater diligence.<snip>


Fuck off, Dwyer.  BTW you have no idea of my reading speed, sweetie.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Evolution is a historical fact, and so I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


 
*Therefore No Bacon *


----------



## Gmart (Mar 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> *Therefore No Bacon *


I think you misunderstand my statement. I am simply saying that evolution is a historical issue, and thus suffers from the usual lack of evidence that all historical issues have. Of course stories have been passed on and written down, but it is difficult to be certain what happened even a couple of hundred years ago, let alone 2000+ up to 3600 mya odd.

The evidence for evolution is convincing though, especially the proof that we are all related through a common ancestor - we are related, fact! 

I don't see how bacon comes into it tho.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 11, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I think you misunderstand my statement. I am simply saying that evolution is a historical issue, and thus suffers from the usual lack of evidence that all historical issues have. Of course stories have been passed on and written down, but it is difficult to be certain what happened even a couple of hundred years ago, let alone 2000+ up to 3600 mya odd.
> 
> The evidence for evolution is convincing though, especially the proof that we are all related through a common ancestor - we are related, fact!
> 
> I don't see how bacon comes into it tho.


I think the point butcher's is making is that your method of constructing an argument in debate is back to front. You've started with the conclusion and then stated that the truth of the conclusion is why you believe the evidence. 

A properly constructed argument would start with the evidence and draw a conclusion from that.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 11, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I think the point butcher's is making is that your method of constructing an argument in debate is back to front. You've started with the conclusion and then stated that the truth of the conclusion is why you believe the evidence.
> 
> A properly constructed argument would start with the evidence and draw a conclusion from that.


 
As I said to Butchers - stating that evolution is a historical fact is not a conclusion, it is part of its definition.

Here is one:



> _Biology _. ​change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation,​natural selection, and genetic drift.​


 
The idea of generation to generation is referring to time passing, thus it is historical.

Perhaps if you state what you think my premise and conclusion are - you and BA obviously have one in mind for both, so let's hear it...


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 11, 2012)

The criticism is of your method, not necessarily the contents.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

> Evolution is a historical fact, and so I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 11, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> The criticism is of your method, not necessarily the contents.


You claim that my method is starting with a conclusion. I have shown that I am starting from first principles - so if you were criticising my method, then where is your riposte? Are you backing away? Why did you start in the first place - the original statement was fine. If you feel that maybe this statement is fine but others I have made are not, then give an example...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

> Evolution is a historical fact, and so I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


 
is not starting from first principles you thicko, it's the exact opposite. It's starting from the conclusion to be reached. You haven't _got_ a method - beyond faith.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 11, 2012)

Gmart said:


> You claim that my method is starting with a conclusion. I have shown that I am starting from first principles - so if you were criticising my method, then where is your riposte? Are you backing away? Why did you start in the first place - the original statement was fine. If you feel that maybe this statement is fine but others I have made are not, then give an example...



I can't state it any more clearly. You started with a conclusion ("begging the question" - look it up), then stated you believe the truth of the evidence because the conclusion is true - that is not a logical argument, it is a faith based argument.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I can't state it any more clearly. You started with a conclusion ("begging the question" - look it up), then stated you believe the truth of the evidence because the conclusion is true - that is not a logical argument, it is a faith based argument.


Are you really suggesting evolution isn't a fact?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Are you really suggesting evolution isn't a fact?



I'm starting to believe Gmart isn't a fact.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 11, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I can't state it any more clearly. You started with a conclusion ("begging the question" - look it up), then stated you believe the truth of the evidence because the conclusion is true - that is not a logical argument, it is a faith based argument.


Again, stating that evolution is historical is simply stating part of its definition. You seem unable to comment on that.

I am well aware of begging the question, but there is no circular argument that I am using, I am simply stating two pieces of information. One that evolution is historical by definition. the second is that historical data is again by definition going to be second hand. The further back it goes the higher the hand is.

As I said earlier, you would be more clear if you stated the reasoning in the usual way to show that it is circular.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 11, 2012)

A logical argument would say something like "these facts lead to this conclusion", you've got it the other way round.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 11, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> A logical argument would say something like "these facts lead to this conclusion", you've got it the other way round.


No I haven't Blagsta, I stated that evolution is historical, and it is by definition. If I said the word 'milk' I would presume that you would know that milk means coming from a cow. I do not need to state that milk comes from a cow first with the conclusion that I have a glass of milk. I can start with a glass of milk because you know what one of those is.

In the same way you know that evolution is by definition historical.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

No, you didn't state it was merely historical (even if you had of done you'd still face the exact same question begging asccusations). What you actually said was;



> Evolution is a historical *fact*, and so I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


 
No way out down this road.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

Gmart said:


> No I haven't Blagsta, I stated that evolution is historical, and it is by definition. If I said the word 'milk' I would presume that you would know that milk means coming from a cow. I do not need to state that milk comes from a cow first with the conclusion that I have a glass of milk. I can start with a glass of milk because you know what one of those is.
> 
> In the same way you know that evolution is by definition historical.


 

Method!



> If I said the word 'milk' I would presume that you would know that milk means coming from a cow


 
Is that really what milk means?


----------



## Gmart (Mar 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No, you didn't state it was merely historical (even if you had of done you'd still face the exact same question begging asccusations). What you actually said was;


It is both historical due to its definition and a fact due to the evidence from history and logic. Still no circular arguments there and you and Blagsta are starting to be very obviously avoiding stating the circle clearly for all to see.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

Of course it's historical. Yet that's not what you said. I demonstrated the circle very clearly yesterday.



> Evolution is a historical fact, and so I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse.


 
a) Evolution is a historical fact
b) and so
c)I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse of my opening FACT a)


----------



## Gmart (Mar 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Of course it's historical. Yet that's not what you said. I demonstrated the circle very clearly yesterday.
> 
> a) Evolution is a historical fact
> b) and so
> c)I have no choice but to rely on second hand evidence or worse of my opening FACT a)


 
Of course you didn't demonstrate anything yesterday.

This is not circular reasoning - I am saying that historical facts, as a set of facts, are based on second hand (or worse) evidence and I have to rely on such evidence _because_ Evolution is _an example_ of a historical fact, but it is not historical facts in general and so it is not circular.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

I did, I just did again, you _started_ with your conclusion. As pointed out a few times now, this is commonly known as begging the question. You then proceeded to argue that as your conclusion was true you were forced to rely on methods other than direct experience to show that it was true. That's circular. You do the same above. You're too slow to understand this though - and you're certainly too slow to see why this is religious thought.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 11, 2012)

Gmart said:


> No I haven't Blagsta, I stated that evolution is historical, and it is by definition. If I said the word 'milk' I would presume that you would know that milk means coming from a cow. I do not need to state that milk comes from a cow first with the conclusion that I have a glass of milk. I can start with a glass of milk because you know what one of those is.
> 
> In the same way you know that evolution is by definition historical.


 
I give up.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Is that really what milk means?


 
Someone better tell my daughter!


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 11, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Interesting re-write of history there. I remember that thread, you didn't by any means get as far as the end of your 'proof', and you ignored all my questions/comments not surprisingly. Just when I thought you might get on with it, it was binned for no reason other than boredom on the part of the mods, it was way over 1000 posts by that time IIRC.


 
Absolutely false.  You do have a point about the various posters who just tried to disrupt the thread, and I admit that they managed to sidetrack us occasionally.  And it is true that the Mods binned the thread just as I was approaching the climax.  But I certainly did work through my proof in its entirity.  I suggest you re-examine the thread in greater detail.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 11, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Do you believe in evolution? That would seem to fly straight in the face of the accepted forms of religion, thus leaving only the pick 'n' choose version left with God so vague as to be meaningless.


 
Of course I believe in evolution. But I do not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. Most theories of evolution are quite compatible with the existence of the Creator.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 11, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> So gays cannot be christian, believe in god and hold christian beliefs?


 
Yes they can!  Why do you have a bee in your bonnet about this issue?  Why shouldn't they be Christians?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 11, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I stated that evolution is historical


 
Which theory of evolution do you think is historical?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 11, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Yes they can! Why do you have a bee in your bonnet about this issue? Why shouldn't they be Christians?


 
Er Phil, it's not all about you you know. This is a discussion I was having with someone else. The bee in my bonnet is that the OP pretty much says gays can't be christian (read the thread before jumping in), but is dancing round the issue. Whatever I think about any religion, a bigoted, exclusive and hateful religion is obviously far worse. I think gays should be free to be a part of  any religion they see fit. I still won't think they are doing the right thing, but that's up to them, as long as they don't act like arseholes, who cares?
There are those who take the bible 100% as the word of god that must be followed and will not deviate, you obviously do not, so you are at least (for all your sins) not quite as foolish.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Er Phil, it's not all about you you know. This is a discussion I was having with someone else. The bee in my bonnet is that the OP pretty much says gays can't be christian (read the thread before jumping in)...


 
Does he frig. Have you read the thread?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Does he frig. Have you read the thread?


Really? In all the back and forth with me he has said that he is ok with gays but can't understand why they would want to get married in a church. 
He said that christians believe in the word of the bible and that to lie with another man in the bible is wrong, so why would a gay want to get married in a church? 

Ha, actually shit I was wrong. I didn't mean the OP I meant John Cooper thread bumper. Apologies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Oh very well, if you insist.  I think this ought to settle the matter, but if anyone still has any questions they should feel at liberty to ask them.  If I deem the questions sufficiently intelligent I will answer them fully and instantaneously.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-rational-proof-of-gods-existence.58182/


Odd that that thread was binned.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Odd that that thread was binned.


 
Yep. Especially the timing--just as I was about to clinch the argument once and for all.


----------



## mark dodds (Mar 12, 2012)

Can anyone tell me if there is a god please?

And if there is, please can you tell me how to find it?

And then how will I know I've found it?

Been looking for a long time. Can't see it, can't find it. I'm worried that I must be blind. But I'm not. I can see very clearly. Just not any of those hundreds of gods out there I know must exist because so many people keep telling me they know that god exists... Which one is it? Where is it? I want to know.

Please > I can't bear it!


----------



## john cooper (Mar 12, 2012)

Gmart said:


> That's nice, but do you feel that you should be able to force your religious views on others who may not share your faith - say someone gay who wishes to marry their partner? Their commitment is real, who are you to tell them that they cannot call their union marriage while enjoying the same perks of marriage that other marriages do?


 what are my religious views you seem to know ?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 12, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I did not mean to imply that I knew your position - most religious people are a bit too much Leviticua and not enough Sermon on the Mount.
> 
> If you feel that freedom is more important than any individual religion then that's fine, that is the basis for the modern secular state - we don't have one yet in the UK (bishops in the second chamber sadly) but it is an ideal many share.
> 
> As for the catalogue of proofs for the existence of God - I am an atheist and I also believe in evolution (even if we don't know the exact details, it is obviously true), but if you wish to practice your faith while not imposing it on others against their will then you will have no problem from me.


 atheists i see , ime sure on the point of death you would pray to god as working in a hospice ive seen this many times by people who said they were athiests .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 12, 2012)

mark dodds said:


> Can anyone tell me if there is a god please?
> 
> And if there is, please can you tell me how to find it?
> 
> ...


 its really quite simple pray and mean it .


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 12, 2012)

john cooper said:


> atheists i see , ime sure on the point of death you would pray to god as working in a hospice ive seen this many times by people who said they were athiests .


"There are no atheists in a lifeboat" - blah blah zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I can remember some years back, quite a lot of the most enthusiastic evangelists were ex-habitual criminals and / or addicts who had simply swapped one addiction for another...


----------



## Gmart (Mar 12, 2012)

john cooper said:


> atheists i see , ime sure on the point of death you would pray to god as working in a hospice ive seen this many times by people who said they were athiests .


You have to believe that in the end fear will get even us. 

I am happy that you find solace in your faith. Good for you, but apart from Phil Dwyer who claims to be religious, there are few who I meet with any intelligence, who remain religious. those who claim to be religious have the vaguest versions possible.

That is not to say that there is not a place for faith in this story, it is just that the religious have attached humanist values to their dubious stories, and with the globalised world they have been found out.

The universe is purely deterministic from start to finish - we are simply an evolved ape the same as any other animal on this planet. No one can give an example of God doing anything against the laws of nature - not you, not Phil, no one, because there is no God, it is just Man pushing his arrogance as far as possible, trying to prove that things 'matter' in some way, when they don't.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2012)

You're religious. Apparently one of the few hidden in amongst the billions.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2012)

Gmart said:


> The universe is purely deterministic from start to finish - we are simply an evolved ape the same as any other animal on this planet. No one can give an example of God doing anything against the laws of nature - not you, not Phil, no one, because there is no God, it is just Man pushing his arrogance as far as possible, trying to prove that things 'matter' in some way, when they don't.


Fan-tast-ic. Not only does all milk come from cows, all animals come from apes 

THIS IS EVOLUTION


----------



## Gmart (Mar 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Fan-tast-ic. Not only does all milk come from cows, all animals come from apes
> 
> THIS IS EVOLUTION


What a reposte! - well that's me convinced then - let's all just whinge about how awful everything is while dreaming of a revolution which will never come.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2012)

Convinced of what? Your incoherence? Your stupidity? If you really think that all milk comes from cows and that all animals are descended from apes then you've just given the best argument against evolution i've ever read.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Convinced of what? Your incoherence? Your stupidity? If you really think that all milk comes from cows and that all animals are descended from apes then you've just given the best argument against evolution i've ever read.


You don't really think that I said that, you are just being disingenious to avoid commenting on what I really said.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2012)

_You_ don't think that you really said those things? Really?



> The universe is purely deterministic from start to finish - we are simply an evolved ape the same as any other animal on this planet.





> If I said the word 'milk' I would presume that you would know that milk means coming from a cow


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 12, 2012)

Gmart said:


> What a reposte! - well that's me convinced then - let's all just whinge about how awful everything is while dreaming of a revolution which will never come.


We didn't evolve from apes.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2012)

Gmart said:


> disingenious


 
Great word. And pretty accurate.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 12, 2012)

LOL


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 12, 2012)

Gmart said:


> apart from Phil Dwyer who claims to be religious


 
I have never made any such claim.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 12, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I have never made any such claim.


Okay then, how do you define "being religious" if it doesn't include somebody who acknowledges the existence of at least one deity (as you do, if I remember rightly)?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 12, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Okay then, how do you define "being religious" if it doesn't include somebody who acknowledges the existence of at least one deity (as you do, if I remember rightly)?


 
As somebody who observes the practical rites of an organized church.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 12, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> As somebody who observes the practical rites of an organized church.


So, dropping in for a  bit of a think, or a quick prayer, or to light a candle wouldn't count, but going to mass would?  Even if the person attending mass might not live the rest of his/her week according to the tenets of his/her organised church, while the other one might?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 12, 2012)

Greebo said:


> So, dropping in for a bit of a think, or a quick prayer, or to light a candle wouldn't count, but going to mass would? Even if the person attending mass might not live the rest of his/her week according to the tenets of his/her organised church, while the other one might?


 
Aye.  "Religion" suggests external observance.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 12, 2012)

Human sacrifice?

Inflatable butt-plugs?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 13, 2012)

Gmart said:


> You have to believe that in the end fear will get even us.
> 
> I am happy that you find solace in your faith. Good for you, but apart from Phil Dwyer who claims to be religious, there are few who I meet with any intelligence, who remain religious. those who claim to be religious have the vaguest versions possible.
> 
> ...


 ive met many intelligent religious people , i think to imply being religious is for un-intelligent people is really quite shallow .


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ive met many intelligent religious people , i think to imply being religious is for un-intelligent people is really quite shallow .


Intellectually self-deceiving then. The notion that someone can get a whole DEGREE in "Divinity" is something I find totally incomprehensible.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You're religious. Apparently one of the few hidden in amongst the billions.


 i think religion is a very important part of living , as ive said before we are two things body and soul the soul being very important , so praying and the general feeling of well being aids the soul and consequently the mind


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> atheists i see , ime sure on the point of death you would pray to god as working in a hospice ive seen this many times by people who said they were athiests .


Yes, clutching at straws in the most difficult times, perhaps not the greatest argument for a god.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 13, 2012)

What a wonderful thread, phildwyer, gmart and john cooper all together in one place. I am happy just to stand back and watch the scrap.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 13, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Yes, clutching at straws in the most difficult times, perhaps not the greatest argument for a god.


 its like everything , its in the eye of the beholder .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 13, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> What a wonderful thread, phildwyer, gmart and john cooper all together in one place. I am happy just to stand back and watch the scrap.


 ive no axe to grind with anyone , puting my point of view is all .


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 13, 2012)

I find your use of whitespace more annoying that your point of view tbh


----------



## john cooper (Mar 13, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> I find your use of whitespace more annoying that your point of view tbh


 what is it that annoys you , and i will endeavour to double my efforts .


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 13, 2012)

Luckily you can't.  The way html renders whitespace prevents it.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> its like everything , its in the eye of the beholder .


The delusional or desperate.


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 13, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i think religion is a very important part of living , as ive said before we are two things body and soul the soul being very important , so praying and the general feeling of well being aids the soul and consequently the mind


Praying to whom ?
What would your take be on yoga / meditation - with the focus on letting go of the daily struggle of life. ?
The soul is of course just a construct..


----------



## Gmart (Mar 13, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> We didn't evolve from apes.


 
We evolved from a common ancestor of apes. We are the naked ape.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 13, 2012)

Gmart said:


> We evolved from a common ancestor of apes. We are the naked ape.


That's not what you originally said is it.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 13, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> That's not what you originally said is it.


I said we are an evolved ape:



Gmart said:


> we are simply an evolved ape the same as any other animal on this planet.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2012)

Genius


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 13, 2012)

Why are you arguing over minor linguistic sloppiness when the issue at hand is whether we are the direct descendants of Adam and Eve and their incestuous children ?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 13, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I said we are an evolved ape:


Which you then agreed that we are not.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 14, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Which you then agreed that we are not.


I did not - we are an ape who evolved - thus the description is fine.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I did not - we are an ape who evolved - thus the description is fine.


We didn't evolve from apes. You just agreed as much!


----------



## Gmart (Mar 14, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> We didn't evolve from apes. You just agreed as much!


We are still the naked ape, a species of the ape family - and we evolved on this planet the same as any other creature - so we are an evolved ape.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

Gmart said:


> We are still the naked ape, a species of the ape family - and we evolved on this planet the same as any other creature - so we are an evolved ape.


Depends on what you mean by "ape".

It is true that we are classified as the family of "great apes", we did not "evolve from apes" though afaik (although I'm happy to be proved wrong).


----------



## Gmart (Mar 14, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Depends on what you mean by "ape".
> 
> It is true that we are classified as the family of "great apes", we did not "evolve from apes" though afaik (although I'm happy to be proved wrong).


I did not say we 'evolved from apes' - I said we are an 'evolved ape'. We didn't evolve from them - we are part of the same family; we evolved from the same common ancestor which is estimated at between 5 and 7 million years ago, and it is our 250,000 great grandparent, approximately.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

As I said - depends on what you mean by ape.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 14, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> As I said - depends on what you mean by ape.


Under what conditions would this change anything?

How do you think the definition of ape can be altered?


----------



## Gmart (Mar 14, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ive met many intelligent religious people , i think to imply being religious is for un-intelligent people is really quite shallow.





gentlegreen said:


> Intellectually self-deceiving then. The notion that someone can get a whole DEGREE in "Divinity" is something I find totally incomprehensible.


This^^ - Religion seems to be a delusion which the whole of society apparently has to turn a blind eye to.

And 'shallow' if you like, but I took some time to come to that conclusion. I appreciate that religions can have 'nice' people in it, charitable people even, peaceful people certainly (mostly), but unless their philosophy is based on rationality, then one must have some kind of doubt about them - anyone who can persuade themselves that they hear voices can convince themselves of anything. They cannot be described as anything other than delusional, and their conclusions should therefore be taken with a mountain of salt...

If you need to believe in something, then fine, but don't just believe in a book uncritically. And that goes for anyone's favourite, be it the Bible, Koran or Das Capital...

No offense meant, I have my favourite stories too, but they are just stories.


phildwyer said:


> I have never made any such claim.


You claim to have a logical argument for God, and yet you think that somehow you can step away from that. That's almost interesting. 
Are you religious then? If so which story did you choose? If not, why not come out and say it? Are you embarrassed of it?


john cooper said:


> its like everything , its in the eye of the beholder .


That's true n'all, and we all thinker/prover ourselves into a reality tunnel of our own creation, but maybe that would be a bit off topic.


john cooper said:


> i think religion is a very important part of living , as ive said before we are two things body and soul the soul being very important , so praying and the general feeling of well being aids the soul and consequently the mind


Fine, but why have some dubious story? Quote Jesus if you like, but the Bible is a set of stories at best.


john cooper said:


> ive no axe to grind with anyone , puting my point of view is all .


I have no axe to grind either, you seem like a peaceable guy though, not abusing anyone, it's a nice change - they all abuse each other here, strangely - they seem to enjoy it. Phil Dwyer has never particularly abused on here either ime. I am here just to explore whatever different topics come up, maybe the abuse is a symptom of an oppressed society?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Under what conditions would this change anything?
> 
> How do you think the definition of ape can be altered?


It depends on whether you are using it in the technical scientific classification sense of family: hominidae or in the non-technical sense of "tailless monkeys"


----------



## Gmart (Mar 14, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> It depends on whether you are using it in the technical scientific classification sense of family: hominidae or in the non-technical sense of "tailless monkeys"


In either situation we are evolved apes, and so was not contravening any rules as far as I know. eta oh you mean that we are all evolved monkeys instead! Ah yes maybe, species is a strange word too.

Is it important that we are just another animal? It means that we are as 'special' as they are - they therefore probably have consciousness, so it would seem reasonable to assume that they think much the same as us - should they have rights? Maybe we'll need a line somewhere or else the meat industry will be wiped out.

And why not? An anachronism from the past, maybe we'll be able to grow steaks on a genetically modified shrub - maybe they'll adapt? Who knows.

Strange old world


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

Gmart said:


> In either situation we are evolved apes, and so was not contravening any rules as far as I know. eta oh you mean that we are all evolved monkeys instead! Ah yes maybe, species is a strange word too.


 
No, I don't mean "we are all evolved monkeys".


----------



## Gmart (Mar 14, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> No, I don't mean "we are all evolved monkeys".


So what did you mean then?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 14, 2012)

Gmart said:


> You claim to have a logical argument for God, and yet you think that somehow you can step away from that. That's almost interesting.
> Are you religious then? If so which story did you choose? If not, why not come out and say it? Are you embarrassed of it?


 
I am stepping away from nothing.  I stand firmly behind the opinions expressed in the thread where I prove God's existence. 

No, I am not religious.  Why would you think such a thing?



Gmart said:


> they all abuse each other here, strangely - they seem to enjoy it. Phil Dwyer has never particularly abused on here either ime. I am here just to explore whatever different topics come up, maybe the abuse is a symptom of an oppressed society?


 
I think it is, yes.  As you've noticed, I tend to stay out of all the abuse-hurling that goes on around here.  As you say though, the rest of them seem to enjoy it so let them get on with it I suppose.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

Gmart said:


> So what did you mean then?


 
I've stated what I mean.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 14, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I did not say we 'evolved from apes' - I said we are an 'evolved ape'. We didn't evolve from them - we are part of the same family; we evolved from the same common ancestor which is estimated at between 5 and 7 million years ago, and it is our 250,000 great grandparent, approximately.


 were is the missing link ?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 14, 2012)

Gmart said:


> This^^ - Religion seems to be a delusion which the whole of society apparently has to turn a blind eye to.
> 
> And 'shallow' if you like, but I took some time to come to that conclusion. I appreciate that religions can have 'nice' people in it, charitable people even, peaceful people certainly (mostly), but unless their philosophy is based on rationality, then one must have some kind of doubt about them - anyone who can persuade themselves that they hear voices can convince themselves of anything. They cannot be described as anything other than delusional, and their conclusions should therefore be taken with a mountain of salt...
> 
> ...





Gmart said:


> This^^ - Religion seems to be a delusion which the whole of society apparently has to turn a blind eye to.
> 
> And 'shallow' if you like, but I took some time to come to that conclusion. I appreciate that religions can have 'nice' people in it, charitable people even, peaceful people certainly (mostly), but unless their philosophy is based on rationality, then one must have some kind of doubt about them - anyone who can persuade themselves that they hear voices can convince themselves of anything. They cannot be described as anything other than delusional, and their conclusions should therefore be taken with a mountain of salt...
> 
> ...


 i never abuse anyone as everyone has a right to express thenselves , some i agree with some i dont .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 14, 2012)




----------



## john cooper (Mar 14, 2012)

i saw these words and i paused for thought .


----------



## Greebo (Mar 14, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i saw these words and i paused for thought .


Are you actually capable of original thought?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 15, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Are you actually capable of original thought?


 i see you walk in darkness , thats a pity , well you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink .


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 15, 2012)

So some bod in the middle east apparently said this 2000 years ago (though the original video has been lost) and we're supposed to be drop everything ?
It doesn't help that so many of those who promote the Jesus cult have been hypocrites, money-grabbers and pedophiles.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 15, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i see you walk in darkness<snip>


I walk in darkness, light, and everything in between, sweetie.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 15, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> So some bod in the middle east apparently said this 2000 years ago (though the original video has been lost) and we're supposed to be drop everything ?
> It doesn't help that so many of those who promote the Jesus cult have been hypocrites, money-grabbers and pedophiles.


 this desreves a responce indeed, to compare all christians with pedos its a brave move and being described as a cult no you are wrong , a cult has brain washed members i cant see that in christians .


----------



## Greebo (Mar 15, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> So some bod in the middle east apparently said this 2000 years ago (though the original video has been lost) and we're supposed to be drop everything ?
> It doesn't help that so many of those who promote the Jesus cult have been hypocrites, money-grabbers and pedophiles.


Quite.  If a few more of his so-called followers had stuck to his main point (ie. just try being nice to each other for once!) it could have been very different indeed.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

How have I up to now missed the glorious works of john cooper, Active Member?


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 15, 2012)

john cooper said:


> this desreves a responce indeed, to compare all christians with pedos its a brave move and being described as a cult no you are wrong , a cult has brain washed members i cant see that in christians .


If not all brainwashed then most are deluded - certainly if they believe he was more than human.

Following people _*per se*_ is a bit passé ...


----------



## john cooper (Mar 15, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I walk in darkness, light, and everything in between, sweetie.


 sweetie ? ok i will take that on the chin , i hope you are a female , so you walk in all kinds of light i guess thats pretty liberal .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> How have I up to now missed the glorious works of john cooper, Active Member?


 how have you indeed , are you on day release ?


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 15, 2012)

john cooper said:


> ........i cant see that in christians .


 
That's the result of the brain-washing.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 15, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> If not all brainwashed then most are deluded - certainly if they believe he was more than human.
> 
> Following people _*per se*_ is a bit passé ...


 yes he is the light and the salvation of mankind .


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

john cooper said:


> how have you indeed , are you on day release ?


Lovely stuff.  Please may I have another?


----------



## Greebo (Mar 15, 2012)

john cooper said:


> this desreves a responce indeed, to compare all christians with pedos its a brave move and being described as a cult no you are wrong , a cult has brain washed members i cant see that in christians .


Really?  Not even in the way that children are indoctrinated long before they're deemed capable of much independant thought?  Not in the way that young adults, potentially living far away from home for the first time in their lives, are schmoozed and recruited by evangelical christian fundamentalists, even in Freshers' Week?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 15, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> That's the result of the brain-washing.


 how can any belief be brain washing unless all belief is brain washing if so nobody would believe anything .


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

LOVE teh jeebus!


----------



## john cooper (Mar 15, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Really? Not even in the way that children are indoctrinated long before they're deemed capable of much independant thought? Not in the way that young adults, potentially living far away from home for the first time in their lives, are schmoozed and recruited by evangelical christian fundamentalists, even in Freshers' Week?


 i didnt say it hasnt gone on , i said it was wrong to label all christians .


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

Are you a pedo, john cooper?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Are you a pedo, john cooper?


 i dont think you should trivialise such a awful thing as for me sticks and stones .


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 15, 2012)

john cooper said:


> how can any belief be brain washing unless all belief is brain washing if so nobody would believe anything .


 
Indeed. Don't believe anything. Prove it and belief becomes redudant.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 15, 2012)

john cooper said:


> sweetie ? ok i will take that on the chin , i hope you are a female , so you walk in all kinds of light i guess thats pretty liberal .


Think of it as a verbal slap in the face.  One "sweetie" implies contempt.  More than that in one day (let alone in one reply) implies that you'd be torn to shreds if I could be bothered to risk damaging my nails.  

BTW if you insist on (IMO irrelvant to the debate) dragging genitals into this, I hope that you're male, just so that I can make you wince by telling you about the size (and binding) of Family Bible I'd like to shove into your groin.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i dont think you should trivialise such a awful thing as for me sticks and stones .


Sticks and stones?  So you _are_ a pedo but you don't mind being called one?


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Are you a pedo, john cooper?


 
Don't be as stupid as John Cooper. Unless, of course, you are as stupid as John Cooper, which that post suggests.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Don't be as stupid as John Cooper. Unless, of course, you are as stupid as John Cooper, which that post suggests.


john cooper -- please, he has no need for capitals -- is a prophet of our times.  Do not besmirch his name with talks of stupidity.

I merely asked him a question, so as to better understand his works.


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> john cooper -- please, he has no need for capitals -- is a prophet of our times. Do not besmirch his name with talks of stupidity.
> 
> I merely asked him a question, so as to better understand his works.


 
Questions can be as stupid as answers, as you've proved.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Questions can be as stupid as answers, as you've proved.


There are no stupid questions, only stupid people.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> There are no stupid questions, only stupid people.


  Or at least, people who behave in a stupid way.


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 15, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Or at least, people who behave in a stupid way.


 
By asking that question Kabbes is, I submit, acting in a stupid way.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> By asking that question Kabbes is, I submit, acting in a stupid way.


Guilty as charged.

I still want to know if john cooper is a dirty pedo though.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> <snip>I still want to know if john cooper is a dirty pedo though.


I doubt it, he may have washed today.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Think of it as a verbal slap in the face. One "sweetie" implies contempt. More than that in one day (let alone in one reply) implies that you'd be torn to shreds if I could be bothered to risk damaging my nails.
> 
> BTW if you insist on (IMO irrelvant to the debate) dragging genitals into this, I hope that you're male, just so that I can make you wince by telling you about the size (and binding) of Family Bible I'd like to shove into your groin.


 reading this ide say 95% female , whatever


----------



## john cooper (Mar 16, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Indeed. Don't believe anything. Prove it and belief becomes redudant.


 proof now you are asking a good question , one cannot prove a theory and thats all religion is , ive been told black holes actually move , see what i mean .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 16, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Sticks and stones? So you _are_ a pedo but you don't mind being called one?


 you want me to take offence how can when i dont take you seriously .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 16, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Questions can be as stupid as answers, as you've proved.


 de vinci was thought a crank at the time , now we different .


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

john cooper said:


> de vinci was thought a crank at the time , now we different .


Leonardo, you mean? He wasn't thought of as a crank at the time. There was great demand for his services - as an artist and an engineer - from the richest people in Italy.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 16, 2012)

john cooper said:


> you want me to take offence how can when i dont take you seriously .


That doesn't sound like a denial to me.  J'accuse.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 16, 2012)

john cooper said:


> reading this ide say 95% female , whatever


Whatever indeed, seeing as we come here to talk, not to fuck.


----------



## Gmart (Mar 16, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i saw these words and i paused for thought .


The quote about Jesus being the light is nice, you feel that your religion gives you a feeling of light, your faith gives you strength and maybe an uplifting feeling. Good for you. I get the same feeling from my way of living, and I would say that every religion has faithful people who obtain that from their religion as well.

So Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, all with their own stories, and globalisation has shown them all to be much the same. The idea that one of them is 'right' immediately hammers a wedge between groups who could be sharing their humanity.  Each has a concept of the truth (their own story) and contrast it with those who do not believe (them) - often this can be used as a reason to persecute the unbeliever.

Faith can be a force for good, but religion hijacks basic humanist values and attaches them to its story, in order to spread the meme further and further. I agree that it probably seemed like a good idea to aim at a whole world believing the same thing in the past, but again globalisation has rendered this null and void, and the religious could do with adjusting their worldview to accept the humanity we all share and the science which is now all too evident around us.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 19, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Leonardo, you mean? He wasn't thought of as a crank at the time. There was great demand for his services - as an artist and an engineer - from the richest people in Italy.


 yes i agree , but it was a great shame that he had to hide many things in code as the then population could not grasp what he was saying .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 19, 2012)

kabbes said:


> That doesn't sound like a denial to me. J'accuse.


 i cannot bring myself to respond to you ....(end)


----------



## john cooper (Mar 19, 2012)

Gmart said:


> The quote about Jesus being the light is nice, you feel that your religion gives you a feeling of light, your faith gives you strength and maybe an uplifting feeling. Good for you. I get the same feeling from my way of living, and I would say that every religion has faithful people who obtain that from their religion as well.
> 
> So Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, all with their own stories, and globalisation has shown them all to be much the same. The idea that one of them is 'right' immediately hammers a wedge between groups who could be sharing their humanity. Each has a concept of the truth (their own story) and contrast it with those who do not believe (them) - often this can be used as a reason to persecute the unbeliever.
> 
> Faith can be a force for good, but religion hijacks basic humanist values and attaches them to its story, in order to spread the meme further and further. I agree that it probably seemed like a good idea to aim at a whole world believing the same thing in the past, but again globalisation has rendered this null and void, and the religious could do with adjusting their worldview to accept the humanity we all share and the science which is now all too evident around us.


 i enjoyed reading this ...makes good sense .


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 19, 2012)

I'm amazed at the number of pages, could someone give me a brief overview of how many valid arguments there have been compared to the number of posts please? For brevity use percentages.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 19, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i cannot bring myself to respond to you ....(end)


And yet you come to a messageboard, which is more diverse than most.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes i agree , but it was a great shame that he had to hide many things in code as the then population could not grasp what he was saying .


frankly the then population (or 99.999% of them) would never had had a chance to see his paintings.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i didnt say it hasnt gone on , i said it was wrong to label all christians .


no it isn't. all christians should be marked - labelled, if you will - as centres of pestilence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 19, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes i agree , but it was a great shame that he had to hide many things in code as the then population could not grasp what he was saying .



Common practice at the time. It was the only way to protect trade secrets. Tbh I'd think that most people wouldn't have been hugely interested anyway.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> no it isn't. all christians should be marked - labelled, if you will - as centres of pestilence.


I'm not having that - leave the quietly decent ones in peace.  Those doorstepping-at-silly-o'-clock-on-Sunday christians possibly deserve marking at the least though.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 20, 2012)

Greebo said:


> And yet you come to a messageboard, which is more diverse than most.


 yes but when i get asked if ime a child abuser i take offence at that , ime sure you will agree thats bad even for on here , if somebody wants to talk about religion which is what the thread is about ok , but insults forget it .


----------



## kabbes (Mar 20, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes but when i get asked if ime a child abuser i take offence at that , ime sure you will agree thats bad even for on here , if somebody wants to talk about religion which is what the thread is about ok , but insults forget it .


We have to be open to all things, john cooper, including the possibility that you enjoy a good nonce.  How can I know unless I ask?  I come to you in the spirit of inquiry.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 20, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Common practice at the time. It was the only way to protect trade secrets. Tbh I'd think that most people wouldn't have been hugely interested anyway.


 at the time no i agree they would not show interest , as most people were thick . Was de vinci religeous ime not sure ?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 20, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> frankly the then population (or 99.999% of them) would never had had a chance to see his paintings.


 he was a man way ahead of his time i think .


----------



## kabbes (Mar 20, 2012)

john cooper said:


> Was de vinci religeous ime not sure ?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 20, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I'm not having that - leave the quietly decent ones in peace. Those doorstepping-at-silly-o'-clock-on-Sunday christians possibly deserve marking at the least though.


 i think they are called jehovas witnesses


----------



## john cooper (Mar 20, 2012)

kabbes said:


>


 yes but painting a scene , does that say he was religeous , ime not sure , the figure on the left of jesus is supposed to be mary magdalane if you believe the film .


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 20, 2012)

"if you believe the film"


----------



## john cooper (Mar 20, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> "if you believe the film"


 i found the film fascinating personnally , many a book has been written with insider knowledge ..you have to sieve through it .


----------



## kabbes (Mar 20, 2012)

Brilliant.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 20, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes but when i get asked if ime a child abuser i take offence at that , ime sure you will agree thats bad even for on here , if somebody wants to talk about religion which is what the thread is about ok , but insults forget it .


Hey, it's not just you.  Known pagans also get ribbed mercilessly at times, as do militant atheists.  IMHO you need to give as good as you get or shrug it off.  



john cooper said:


> i think they are called jehovas witnesses


Oh we get JWs here, but we also get a lot of other denominations doing likewise.  Come to think of it there are very few christian denominations which haven't had people making made a bit of a nuisance of themselves here, or trying to.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 20, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Brilliant.


 
It's practically a documentary


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Mar 20, 2012)

Just because Leonardo produced religious imagery doesn't mean he actually believed any of it.  He was making a living!

There's quite a lot of evidence that he wasn't religious.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 23, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Hey, it's not just you. Known pagans also get ribbed mercilessly at times, as do militant atheists. IMHO you need to give as good as you get or shrug it off.
> 
> 
> Oh we get JWs here, but we also get a lot of other denominations doing likewise. Come to think of it there are very few christian denominations which haven't had people making made a bit of a nuisance of themselves here, or trying to.


 shrug it off....ok


----------



## john cooper (Mar 23, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Just because Leonardo produced religious imagery doesn't mean he actually believed any of it. He was making a living!
> 
> There's quite a lot of evidence that he wasn't religious.


 he wasnt religeous what evidence have you got for this? after all he was hand in glove with the pope who comissioned his works , seems strang that as the pope would only deal with catholics .


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> he wasnt religeous what evidence have you got for this? after all he was hand in glove with the pope who comissioned his works , seems strang that as the pope would only deal with catholics .


Just as in any other oppressive, religious-dominated society, I doubt it was actually possible to be an atheist. (Certainly not something one would dare admit to)


----------



## john cooper (Mar 23, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> Just as in any other oppressive, religious-dominated society, I doubt it was actually possible to be an atheist. (Certainly not something one would dare admit to)


 i cannot agree that all religious faiths a oppressive


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i cannot agree that all religious faiths a oppressive


Where it's in effect compulsory, I would call that oppressive - it's currently Islam's turn.

Buddhism seems fairly safe, but it isn't a religion in the way of the Abrahamic death cults.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Mar 23, 2012)

john cooper said:


> he wasnt religeous what evidence have you got for this? after all he was hand in glove with the pope who comissioned his works , seems strang that as the pope would only deal with catholics .


 
The catholic church was the biggest, richest institution and so was able to commission grandious works of art.  They obviously commissioned religious works, so Leonardo made his living from producing such art.  That certainly doesn't mean that he shared their beliefs!


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> he wasnt religeous what evidence have you got for this? after all he was hand in glove with the pope who comissioned his works , seems strang that as the pope would only deal with catholics .


 
You are rather ignorant, JC. Nearly all your posts suggest that. Don't you know that everyone in Leonardo's time, in any catholic country, had to profess catholicism if they didn't want to be burned at the stake? The opposite, of course, was true in protestant countries.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2012)

Neither of them claims are true!


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Neither of them claims are true!


 
Assuming your cryptic posting was directed at me, are you saying that JC is not ignorant, and that nearly all his posts don't suggest that?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2012)

How the hell is saying that _you_ made two claims (one that if you didn't profess Catholicism in catholic countries in Leonado's time then you were burnt at the stake and the same with professing protestantism in protestant countries - of which there were none btw) in any way cryptic you silly old fool?


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How the hell is saying that _you_ made two claims (one that if you didn't profess Catholicism in catholic countries in Leonado's time then you were burnt at the stake and the same with professing protestantism in protestant countries - of which there were none btw) in any way cryptic you silly old fool?


 
There were plenty of burnings before Luther came along. But you are right that actual protestant countries were a little later than da Vinci.

By the way, can you never speak without employing abuse? Is it a sort of tourettes that you suffer from?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2012)

No one said that there weren't burnings, your claim however was that anyone who didn't profess Catholicism was burnt - a shocking piece of historical ignorance in a post designed to point out another posters historical ignorance. Can you tell me how my post was cryptic now as well please?


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Can you tell me how my post was cryptic now as well please?


 
All your posts are cryptic. Always have been. Usually because all you are capable of is nit-picking.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 24, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The catholic church was the biggest, richest institution and so was able to commission grandious works of art. They obviously commissioned religious works, so Leonardo made his living from producing such art. That certainly doesn't mean that he shared their beliefs!


 its a bit like today , religions are just tribes are they not or gangs and if you dont belong then you are shunned .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 24, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> All your posts are cryptic. Always have been. Usually because all you are capable of is nit-picking.


 i wouldnt call putting my point of view nit picking , there are posts on here ive agreed with .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 24, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> Where it's in effect compulsory, I would call that oppressive - it's currently Islam's turn.
> 
> Buddhism seems fairly safe, but it isn't a religion in the way of the Abrahamic death cults.


 i understand were you are coming from regarding islam .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 24, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You are rather ignorant, JC. Nearly all your posts suggest that. Don't you know that everyone in Leonardo's time, in any catholic country, had to profess catholicism if they didn't want to be burned at the stake? The opposite, of course, was true in protestant countries.


 i see what you are driving at the he was forced , i cant agree unless you have proof ?


----------



## john cooper (Mar 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How the hell is saying that _you_ made two claims (one that if you didn't profess Catholicism in catholic countries in Leonado's time then you were burnt at the stake and the same with professing protestantism in protestant countries - of which there were none btw) in any way cryptic you silly old fool?


 you saved me saying it ..(well done )


----------



## john cooper (Mar 24, 2012)

maybe this guy has the answers ??


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 24, 2012)

john cooper said:


> i wouldnt call putting my point of view nit picking , there are posts on here ive agreed with .


 
I didn't call you a nit-picker, John. That was how I described butchersapron.

You I called ignorant.


----------



## xes (Mar 26, 2012)

Anyone seen that thing where they've found a computer code in string theory?

Apparently, the very same computer code that my computer here is using to send this message, has been found in the very fabric of everything, including the correcting code. It's identical. Does this put any weight to intelligent design? I'm certainly not the one to answer that question, as I don't understand much about what's been discovered.

disclaimer, this is a snippet of a talk by S. J. Gates, the video maker has stuck a load of shit on the end of it which can be ignored.


here is the paper, if you want to look further into it
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0051

Could this be the evidence so many of us are looking for?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

Yes, i think it is.


----------



## xes (Mar 26, 2012)

the edit button seems to not be working, I wanted to say that there are a couple more links in the youtube blurb.


----------



## xes (Mar 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, i think it is.


yay, worship everything!!


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 26, 2012)

xes said:


> Could this be the evidence so many of us are looking for?


 
But isn't the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, 43?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

Oh god.


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god.


 
Yes. What do you want?


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 26, 2012)

I'm interested in the existence of Zod.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 27, 2012)

xes said:


> Anyone seen that thing where they've found a computer code in string theory?
> 
> Apparently, the very same computer code that my computer here is using to send this message, has been found in the very fabric of everything, including the correcting code. It's identical. Does this put any weight to intelligent design? I'm certainly not the one to answer that question, as I don't understand much about what's been discovered.
> 
> ...




I've not watched that video but from the abstract of that paper it sounds like a classic case of 'layman totally misunderstands what scientist said" to me. There's a ton of things around like this. Some of the maths and concepts behind binary networks can also be applied to the genome for example. 

I mean, your description doesn't even make sense. Computer code? What do you mean, the computer code in your computer?   Information theory has many applications, and that sounds like what's going on here.


----------



## john cooper (Mar 30, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I didn't call you a nit-picker, John. That was how I described butchersapron.
> 
> You I called ignorant.


 ignorant , i see , something ive never considered myself as being , thinking about i suppose we are all ignorant to some things including you that is unless you know everything .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 30, 2012)

xes said:


> Anyone seen that thing where they've found a computer code in string theory?
> 
> Apparently, the very same computer code that my computer here is using to send this message, has been found in the very fabric of everything, including the correcting code. It's identical. Does this put any weight to intelligent design? I'm certainly not the one to answer that question, as I don't understand much about what's been discovered.
> 
> ...


 it backs up what ive said in the past , we are all controlled from cradle to grave , intelegent design , interesting .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god.


 see what i mean in times of surprise we call his name .


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

john cooper said:


> see what i mean in times of surprise we call his name .


Fucking don't call yours, that's for sure


----------



## john cooper (Mar 30, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> I'm interested in the existence of Zod.


 I dont know about zod , but ive discovered the second coming .


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

john cooper said:


> it backs up what ive said in the past , we are all controlled from cradle to grave , intelegent design , interesting .


If it was "intelligent design" you'd be able to spell "intelligent"


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

john cooper said:


> I dont know about zod , but ive discovered the second coming .View attachment 17858


Usually shortly after the first


----------



## john cooper (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Fucking don't call yours, that's for sure


 HELLO ! my friend still hurting i see .


----------



## john cooper (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> If it was "intelligent design" you'd be able to spell "intelligent"


 as ive said in past a slip of the  finger , you are lucky it was"nt two fingers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

john cooper said:


> HELLO ! my friend still hurting i see .


i don't give a stuff about your friend, if you have even one mate i'd be surprised


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2012)

john cooper said:


> as ive said in past a slip of the  finger , you are lucky it was"nt two fingers.


I hope it's fucking eight fingers and two thumbs in a circular saw


----------



## ohmyliver (Mar 30, 2012)

xes said:


> Anyone seen that thing where they've found a computer code in string theory?
> 
> Apparently, the very same computer code that my computer here is using to send this message, has been found in the very fabric of everything, including the correcting code. It's identical. Does this put any weight to intelligent design? I'm certainly not the one to answer that question, as I don't understand much about what's been discovered.


 
If it's true that something akin to HTML has been found within string theory, it may well explain why the world is so f*cked up


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> If it was "intelligent design" you'd be able to spell "intelligent"


 
That is a very unintelligent thing to say.


----------



## john cooper (Apr 2, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> If it was "intelligent design" you'd be able to spell "intelligent"


 i refuse to spell correctly all the time , its a rebel thing , you carry on though .


----------



## john cooper (Apr 2, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I hope it's fucking eight fingers and two thumbs in a circular saw


 why so aggresive when ive been nice to , mostly .


----------



## john cooper (Apr 2, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't give a stuff about your friend, if you have even one mate i'd be surprised


 not many people have true friends , perhaps praying to god will bring you peace , and in christ you my find a kindred spirit .


----------



## Greebo (Apr 2, 2012)

john cooper said:


> <snip>perhaps praying to god will bring you peace , and in christ you my find a kindred spirit .


Or perhaps it won't.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 3, 2012)

john cooper said:


> it backs up what ive said in the past , we are all controlled from cradle to grave , intelegent design , interesting .


 
It doesn't say that at all you fucking cretin.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 3, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> I've not watched that video but from the abstract of that paper it sounds like a classic case of 'layman totally misunderstands what scientist said" to me. There's a ton of things around like this. Some of the maths and concepts behind binary networks can also be applied to the genome for example.
> 
> I mean, your description doesn't even make sense. Computer code? What do you mean, the computer code in your computer? Information theory has many applications, and that sounds like what's going on here.


Exactly. Its suprising, but first of all, its the mathmatics that the code was found in, not a hidden code in every atom or whatever. Squares fit together quite nicely, circles leave a gap, what can it mean? There is a god? We are in a computer game?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 3, 2012)

john cooper said:


> it backs up what ive said in the past , we are all controlled from cradle to grave , intelegent design , interesting .


 
Even the way it has been twisted in that video it doesnt even say either of those things. They dont call it blind faith for nothing, but they should maybe call it ignorant faith as well.


----------



## john cooper (Apr 3, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Or perhaps it won't.


 yes thinking about , i think he is passed saving .


----------



## john cooper (Apr 3, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Even the way it has been twisted in that video it doesnt even say either of those things. They dont call it blind faith for nothing, but they should maybe call it ignorant faith as well.


 do we believe out of ignorance , yes i think we do .


----------



## john cooper (Apr 3, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> It doesn't say that at all you fucking cretin.


 i know (it) dos"nt i do .


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 4, 2012)

john cooper said:


> do we believe out of ignorance , yes i think we do .


 Thats just moronic. To actually realise that you only beleive in something because you are too dumb to think it through propperly.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 4, 2012)

john cooper said:


> yes thinking about , i think he is passed saving .


And I think that you're probably past enlightenment, but that's neither here nor there.


----------



## mk12 (May 1, 2012)

Good thread! I watched an interesting debate between Christopher Hitchens and this American religious guy on YouTube. Hitchens is very good on explaining why he dislikes the concept of a god, as he sees him as a totalitarian, celestial Kim Jong-Il. All well and good. However, Hitchens wasn't so hot on the scientific arguments. He never answered the question, posed to him by his debating opponent, of, "how can something come from nothing?"

I think this is an interesting question that hasn't, as far as I'm aware, been answered by atheists/agnostics.


----------



## xes (May 1, 2012)

yes, but _has_ something come from nothing?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 1, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Good thread! I watched an interesting debate between Christopher Hitchens and this American religious guy on YouTube. Hitchens is very good on explaining why he dislikes the concept of a god, as he sees him as a totalitarian, celestial Kim Jong-Il. All well and good. However, Hitchens wasn't so hot on the scientific arguments. He never answered the question, posed to him by his debating opponent, of, "how can something come from nothing?"
> 
> I think this is an interesting question that hasn't, as far as I'm aware, been answered by atheists/agnostics.


How could something not have come from nothing?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 1, 2012)

xes said:


> yes, but _has_ something come from nothing?


Or is this 'something' just another way of expressing that 'nothing'?

The question's meaningless because of the alternatives  - why A rather than B? - only A is defined.


----------



## xes (May 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The question's meaningless because of the alternatives


 
Got to agre with this.

I'm presuming the person mk12 was quoting, was on about the big bang, which in itself is only a theory. So, as you say, the question is quite meaningless in the context.


----------



## mk12 (May 1, 2012)

xes said:


> yes, but _has_ something come from nothing?


 
Unless the universe is eternal and has no start point.


----------



## mk12 (May 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How could something not have come from nothing?


 
What else comes from nothing?


----------



## mk12 (May 1, 2012)

xes said:


> Got to agre with this.
> 
> I'm presuming the person mk12 was quoting, was on about the big bang, which in itself is only a theory. So, as you say, the question is quite meaningless in the context.


 
Yes he was arguing against the Big Bang theory.


----------



## xes (May 1, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Unless the universe is eternal and has no start point.


we don't understand the universe, what it is or how it came to be. Until we know, or at the very least get a clue, then we'll not be able to answer lifes oldest questions. Postulating around theories is all well and good, but those who cling to these theories as fact, will always fall over when the tricky questions get asked.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

mk12 said:


> What else comes from nothing?


 
Everything. It cant not have can it?


----------



## mk12 (May 1, 2012)

Frank Turek, who was the other debater, seemed to cling to the 'god of the gaps' theory.

"Christopher, can you explain how the Universe was created? No? Then God must exist."


----------



## mk12 (May 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Everything. It cant not have can it?


 
Give me an example of something that comes from nothing.


----------



## xes (May 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Everything. It cant not have can it?


Well, depends on your view of "nothing" and where all the matter of the universe comes from. IF there is some singularity point, from which all matter has come from, then it still couldn't have been "nothing" as such, as nothing would create nothing. There has to be some kind of energy/matter there for the energy/matter of the universe to have come about. Wether we're falling out of the arse end of a blackhole in another universe, or "god did it". There has to have been something to make it so. Youy can't have all the matter which has built this universe, in a point of singularity, unless this singularity has infinate ammount of matter/energy, and if it does, it was never nothing".


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Give me an example of something that comes from nothing.


You.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

xes said:


> Well, depends on your view of "nothing" and where all the matter of the universe comes from. IF there is some singularity point, from which all matter has come from, then it still couldn't have been "nothing" as such, as nothing would create nothing. There has to be some kind of energy/matter there for the energy/matter of the universe to have come about. Wether we're falling out of the arse end of a blackhole in another universe, or "god did it". There has to have been something to make it so. Youy can't have all the matter which has built this universe, in a point of singularity, unless this singularity has infinate ammount of matter/energy, and if it does, it was never nothing".


And this is where the religionists arguments are turned back on themselves. If there never was nothing then how did god do it? Or if you're not a religionist how did the stuff that you say had to exist come into being? If it came into being _it had to have previously not existed._


----------



## mk12 (May 1, 2012)

I came from sperm, eggs, my mother, my father etc etc. Not "nothing".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 1, 2012)

Until you can provide some idea (just a hand-wavy one would be fine) of how to answer the question 'how could it not?', your question isn't meaningful.

I know that doesn't sound satisfactory, but there is a problem here with the question. Until that is addressed, there is no way of moving on to considering an answer.


----------



## mk12 (May 1, 2012)

I don't understand what's wrong with the question. As xes said, "nothing would create nothing" therefore how did nothing create something (in reference to a big bang or singular start of the universe).


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

mk12 said:


> I came from sperm, eggs, my mother, my father etc etc. Not "nothing".


Not you you, you as material, you as part of everything that exists.


----------



## mk12 (May 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Not you you, you as material, you as part of everything that exists.


 
Well that's the question Turek is asking isn't it?


----------



## xes (May 1, 2012)

Dunno about anyone else, but the matierial I am made from, my body has created from the food I have eaten. "i" came from my parents, and the food they've eaten. And so on and so forth. You can go back and back as far as you like. But as we've not got a clue how the universe and all the matter in it has come to be, then the argument is just going to go round and round.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Well that's the question Turek is asking isn't it?


He might be asking it but his answer is ludicrous, illogical nonsense:



> "Christopher, can you explain how the Universe was created? No? Then God must exist."


 
"Christopher, can you explain how the Universe was created? No? Therefore no bacon"

The _therefore_ in that is pathetic.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

xes said:


> Dunno about anyone else, but the matierial I am made from, my body has created from the food I have eaten. "i" came from my parents, and the food they've eaten. And so on and so forth. You can go back and back as far as you like. But as we've not got a clue how the universe and all the matter in it has come to be, then the argument is just going to go round and round.


Not according to Turek - because you personally or humanity collectively cannot establish a historical chain back to 'something' (which he would almost certainly say is impossible due to his beliefs) then god necessarily exists.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 1, 2012)

mk12 said:


> I don't understand what's wrong with the question. As xes said, "nothing would create nothing" therefore how did nothing create something (in reference to a big bang or singular start of the universe).


Did nothing create something? There are other questions that need to be considered here, such as what is time? Our experience of 'time' with ordered events in a causal relation to each other is something that we generate in order to make sense of what we need to make sense of to live. Until we understand properly what it is that we are living through, we're jumping the gun by even theorising that the Big Bang can meaningfully be taken to be the 'start' of anything except one particular way of ordering events.


----------



## xes (May 1, 2012)

I've not heard of this Turek person, are they a bit of a twunt?


----------



## mk12 (May 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Not according to Turek - because you personally or humanity collectively cannot establish a historical chain back to 'something' (which he would almost certainly say is impossible due to his beliefs) then god necessarily exists.


 
Obviously I was paraphrasing him but that was his argument in a nutshell, and also a common one put forward by theists (cosmological argument).


----------



## mk12 (May 1, 2012)

xes said:


> I've not heard of this Turek person, are they a bit of a twunt?


 
He's an American Christian who wrote a book called "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 1, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Obviously I was paraphrasing him but that was his argument in a nutshell, and also a common one put forward by theists (cosmological argument).


It's not an argument, though. It seems like a misunderstanding of atheism more than anything - the idea that atheists 'believe that there is no god', which is a misrepresentation of what most atheists think.


----------



## xes (May 1, 2012)

a simple "yes" would have done


----------



## mk12 (May 1, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not an argument, though. It seems like a misunderstanding of atheism more than anything - the idea that atheists 'believe that there is no god', which is a misrepresentation of what most atheists think.


 
Is there no such thing as an atheist then, only agnostics? I know atheists don't argue that their lack of faith is a "belief" per se. It is a rejection of the belief in a deity. But if they cannot explain how the universe was created, isn't the possibility of a god just as likely as any other theory that we haven't yet developed?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 1, 2012)

If 'god' is the answer to the question: god is the reason there is something rather than nothing, all that does is push the question back. Ok, well why is there a god rather than no god? Solves nothing.

If god is defined as the observation that there is something rather than nothing, that 'existence is', then this is fine. But you have merely _defined_ god into existence. This is not an argument for religion.


----------



## deke t lefel (Jun 10, 2012)

mk12 said:


> "how can something come from nothing?"


 
yesh from ayin.....apparently

underlying monotheism


----------



## Greebo (Jun 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If 'god' is the answer to the question: god is the reason there is something rather than nothing, all that does is push the question back. Ok, well why is there a god rather than no god? Solves nothing.
> 
> If god is defined as the observation that there is something rather than nothing, that 'existence is', then this is fine. But you have merely _defined_ god into existence. This is not an argument for religion.


And we're back with humans feeling uncomfortable that there might not be something they can define or explain.  Whether a deity or deities exist is IMHO less interesting than why so many humans need to call it/them into existence.  Is it a type of security blanket or just something/someone else to blame?


----------



## Roxy641 (Jun 10, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Is there no such thing as an atheist then, only agnostics? I know atheists don't argue that their lack of faith is a "belief" per se. It is a rejection of the belief in a deity. But if they cannot explain how the universe was created, isn't the possibility of a god just as likely as any other theory that we haven't yet developed?


 
We can explain how the universe was created, it's called The Big Bang.

Ah, the Pascal's Wager...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

Pascal was wrong in thinking that it is better to believe in a god than not to.  Let us for a moment presume there is a god, when you or I die and go to heaven, I will probably not get in as I've never believed in any god.  But anyone that does believe in god isn't sure of a place in heaven.  Most religions have a rule saying you shouldn't believe in "false gods".  So, my point being, there could of course being a god, but even if there was it doesn't mean that it's a christian god, a Muslium god, etc. 

Pascal seem to presume it was just a case of 50/50.  ie. There is either a god or there isn't.  There are thousands of different god beliefs, which one is the correct god?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 10, 2012)

Roxy641 said:


> We can explain how the universe was created, it's called The Big Bang.
> 
> Ah, the Pascal's Wager...<snip>
> Pascal seem to presume it was just a case of 50/50. ie. There is either a god or there isn't. There are thousands of different god beliefs, which one is the correct god?


Ever heard of Ain Soph?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 11, 2012)

Roxy641 said:


> We can explain how the universe was created, it's called The Big Bang.


That's more of a "when, what" than a "how" tbf.


----------



## deke t lefel (Jun 11, 2012)

the theory of tzimtzum (contraction of the infinite away from the finite) seems to explain red shift just as well as the big bang


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 12, 2012)

Wow- this thread has been brought back from 2004!


----------



## Mungy (Jun 26, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> Wow- this thread has been brought back from 2004!


resurrections and inquisitions of the spanish variety are like that, nobody expects them.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 26, 2012)

Mungy said:


> resurrections and inquisitions of the spanish variety are like that, nobody expects them.


 





Sorry, the temptation was just too great.


----------

