What The World Thinks Of God

[welsh]

Blade Runner- you kill me.

As for me, I don't mind the fact that the evidence of Christ is sketchy. In fact I like that. But for me, I am fully comfortable in accepting the existence of Christ as a matter of faith and not of knowledge. To mistake or even overlap the notion of faith or knowledge is, in my opinion, a mistake.

At my U. religious studies is a major discipline. I think it's all bullshit. I mean really, all that mental power going to the supernatural when we have some real tangible issues on earth worth thinking about.

Confucious was probably right when he dismissed the metaphysical for real issues of philosophy.

 

[Paladin Solo]

You say you're on a mission Blade Runner? You want people to listen to you?

Fools? Lackey? Dude, are you drunk? How about gaining some intelligence and posting some logic instead of the crap you post. And here people thought I was a moron. Fuck you Blade Runner, and your retarded logics. You blame the problems of the world on religion and beliefs, yet here you are, attempting, many times, to start a flame war because you disagree? There's no point in an intelligent argument/debate with someone who lacks the the intelligence part. And don't tell me to shut up mods. If Blade Runner is allowed to post shit about my religion and beliefs, I should be allowed to have a say in things. Now, if he came out and posted in a respectible manner, I wouldn't be obligated to say "fuck off" but have an intelligent debate with him. I have nowhere in here, or in life, said any crap about anyone's beliefs, whether I thought they were wrong or not. I may have judged their decisions, but never their religion or faith. So you'll have to excuse me for defending mine.

I saw this coming, well what do you know, I am a prophet, after all.

P.S. Mods-If needed be, I will come out and apologize if Blade Runner takes back his stupid remarks and tries to point out religions flaws in an educated manner, or just not say anything, instead of just saying religion/beliefs=suxxor along with anyone who has them.

 

[alec]

You say you're on a mission Blade Runner?

Why yes sir, I believe those are my exact words.

You want people to listen to you?

*nods*

Fools? Lackey? Dude, are you drunk?

Uhm... no sir!

How about gaining some intelligence and posting some logic instead of the crap you post.

Well... yes sir!

And here people thought I was a moron.

No, no, no sir. I didn't think so sir, but I know that all the rest did and still do. It's a gddmn shame sir.

Fuck you Blade Runner, and your retarded logics.

Hey, it thought about this stuff sir. And I know it works. It's a system sir.

You blame the problems of the world on religion and beliefs, yet here you are, attempting, many times, to start a flame war because you disagree?

Stop! In the name of love just stop sir! Please. I mean, aren't we getting a *little* touchy here? Hell, this is becoming a flame war because you know I am right and you can't take it! Haha! Touchy-touchy! Boehoe!

There's no point in an intelligent argument/debate with someone who lacks the intelligence part.

Exactly my point sir.

I have nowhere in here, or in life, said any crap about anyone's beliefs, whether I thought they were wrong or not. I may have judged their decisions, but never their religion or faith. So you'll have to excuse me for defending mine.

Well, might I refer to your sig sir?
It clearly says:

"I Reject Your Reality, and Substitute My Own."

I am a realist.

I saw this coming, well what do you know, I am a moron, after all.

You sure are sir, you sure are.

*walks off into the sunshine*

 

[Paladin Solo]

Blade Runner...my sig? Are you that dumb? *cough* joke *cough*

Hey, it thought about this stuff sir

My God! You can't be bloody serious! You actually thought about the shit you spewed out?! I am shocked, I truly am!

Stop! In the name of love just stop sir! Please. I mean, aren't we getting a *little* touchy here? Hell, this is becoming a flame war because you know I am right and you can't take it! Haha! Touchy-touchy! Boehoe!

Touchy, well for fuck's sake, I only replied to you after about the millionth time you said religion and the people who have them are dumb. Touchy? No just annoyed. And if I thought you were right, I wouldn't try and argue with you now would I?

Also, Paladin Silly? Changing my words to fit your childish little angsts? Dude, you're calling me a moron?

 

[Elissar]

Alright Kids... Lets cut back on the swearing just a touch..

It's all fun and games for a few minutes but then soon It grows old.... And everybody gets tired of reading it...

Then it becomes classified as flameing..

And thats when motherfuckers get banned.

By all means, Keep the debate going, Just keep it clean fellas.

 

[Sander]

Yet you just made an analysis based on assumption

The least you could do is admit that you assume a lot. I'm agnostic, like you, but to live I have to assume...I assume the world exists, for instance.

And, much like CC would do, you're avoiding one of Blade's statements (whether he made it conciously or not): if you assume Santa Claus and Edward Scissorhands don't exist without any TRUE evidence (since true evidence doesn't exist), why won't you assume Gods don't exist, despite their only proof being that there's writings about them and people believe in them?

Yes, I assume a lot, it's a necessity. And I did not conciously avoid that statement, my apologies... I'll explain it with the next quote-reply.(Though obviously both Blade Runner and CCR are completely ignmoring my statements. Pheh.)

You're assuming that the chances of all the beings existing are equal. That is as silly an assumption as assuming a being exists or assuming that it doesn't exist

All you can assume is that there is A chance of a being existing and A chance of a being not existing, anything further you figure out about these chances is assumption, because there is no data available whatsoever

Yes, I make a lot of assumptions. If you don't agree with the assumptions, tell me why you don't agree with them.
No, actually, it isn't a silly assumption. Let's look at the data:
A) There are an infinite number of possible higher beings.
B) The chance that one of those higher beings exists is directly proportional to the amount of evidence we have of them existing(which is nil) and their behaviour with regard to revealing themselves to humanity.
C) There is no evidence whatsoever.
From these three assumptions would follow that there is a chance of 1/infinity for any higher being that does not want to reveal itself to exist(since a being that does want to reveal itself would probably not exist, due to there being no evidence).
Then we take the occurrence of no such being existing. Since this is a case of a non-existing higher being, there is no higher being who wants to reveal itself, nor is there any evidence for it. Thusly, the chance that a higher being does not exist, would be the same as the chance of any random non-revealing being existing. Which makes it 1/infinity.
This also makes for why I don't believe in Scissorhands(besides him being made up by a person) and Santa Claus(He was made up as well. Sinterklaas is a different case. But I don't believe in him because: I know my parents bought my presents, he's supposed to be human, and as of yet, it is impossible to live for 700 years). The chance of them existing is also 1/infinity.

You want to disagree with any of these assumptions? Go ahead, but please make an argument, not just statements.
If you disagree, there's an arguably better way of looking at it:
There either is, or there is not a being. Since there is no evidence FOR a being, and there is no evidence against such a being, then the chances of either case happening must be equal. Ergo, chances of either thing occurring are 1/2. But, again, this makes the case for agnosticism: You just don't know.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense

True, but the ones making the original claim(God exists) carry the burden of proof in any debate.

Fifty years ago people belived it was impossible to break the sound barrier, people thought it was impossible that the Bible was anything but a bunch of fairy tales.....both of them where wrong.

Absolute bull.
A) The bible has not been proven to be anything more than a bunch of fairy tales.
B) People who thought you couldn't break the sound barrier were wrong, yes. But why would this mean that anyone thinking that something is impossible is immediately wrong? Pheh.

People with ALOT more common sene then you have belived in god- Descartes, Elvis, Einstien, Aquinas......

Elvis did not have more common sense, and Einstein did not believe in God, he made some statements about God(I'll provide you with a link: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#einstein ). But hey, even IF they believed in God, this does not mean that they were right, you know.

You see Sander? This guy is scary. This guy would beat me up if he knew I was Christian. This is the kind of guy in England that scared the shit out of me...washed up moron who still think that a bunch of dead commies had the world right.

Why do you have to go and insult AGAIN? Can you not just refrain from insults?
Plus, Blade Runner never said he'd attack you, and this only shows that you have false preconceptions about atheists.

History, for instance. In the mid 19th century, many people in archeological studies thought that several civilizations the Bible makes referances too- the Hittites, for instance- did not exsist. They where wrong. Also, the blief that Jesus was a composite or all together fictional character is quite wrong, as we have records of his followers going up to almost his death.

Ugh, this does not mean that the Bible IS anything more than a bunch of fairy tales. It merely proves that the fairy tales could have a historical basis, and that the Hittites did exist. Oh, goody, people who said a small part of the bible was incorrect are themselves incorrect. Now the entire bible must be correct!
Bad argument.

I was kind of being sarcastic about that. But alot more intellegent people with alot more "life expiriance" belive in God.

Yet this still doesn't prove ANYTHING.

What? It is possible to put anything anywhere instantly. It just requires about as much energy as some galaxies and a hell of a lot of computing power.

From what I know, this should theoretically be possible. It would require the speed of light, though. And attaining the speed of light is thought to be impossible, since the closer you get to the speed of light, the more of your energy goes into your mass, and your mass, instead of your velocity increases.(E=mc^2) This means that you can never attain the speed of light. You'll get closer, but you'll never get there.

Blade Runner: YOu got a link on interstellar travel, perhaps?

 

[Brother None]

Yes, I make a lot of assumptions. If you don't agree with the assumptions, tell me why you don't agree with them.

My problem is not disagreeing with the fact that you make assumptions or your making assumptions, but that you seem to state them as facts

True agnosticism, which doesn't exist, would hold it that you can truly assume NOTHING (or care about nothing, depending)

B) The chance that one of those higher beings exists is directly proportional to the amount of evidence we have of them existing(which is nil) and their behaviour with regard to revealing themselves to humanity.

Wrong. The chance of these beings existing depends on several factors, our knowledge of them is in fact not a factor of their existence.

You're making a completely wrong mathematical assumption, namely that if the accumulated knowledge of the chances is nil, the amount of possibilities is 1/(1/infinity) (i.e. infinity) and that each of these infinite chances is equal

This is wrong, any mathematician, or rather scientist, can tell you that when the accumulated knowledge on a subject is nil, there can simply be no assumption on the chance of the existence.

Your thought-frame would hold it that the belief of humanity somehow structures the universe (Planescape: Torment!)...The thing is, if you agree with the agnostic view that we know nothing of higher beings, that knowing nothing INCLUDES not knowing anything about the chance of a higher being existing.

If you disagree, there's an arguably better way of looking at it:
There either is, or there is not a being. Since there is no evidence FOR a being, and there is no evidence against such a being, then the chances of either case happening must be equal. Ergo, chances of either thing occurring are 1/2. But, again, this makes the case for agnosticism: You just don't know.

See above.

 

[Sander]

Wrong. The chance of these beings existing depends on several factors, our knowledge of them is in fact not a factor of their existence.

It is if it is a creature who would want to reveal himself, since then we would have to know of their existence.

You're making a completely wrong mathematical assumption, namely that if the accumulated knowledge of the chances is nil, the amount of possibilities is 1/(1/infinity) (i.e. infinity) and that each of these infinite chances is equal

This is wrong, any mathematician, or rather scientist, can tell you that when the accumulated knowledge on a subject is nil, there can simply be no assumption on the chance of the existence.

I agree with you. But problematically, we have to make some kind of assumption. This was a (rather weak) attempt at scientifically reasoning that we cannot possibly know.
The problem lies with the assumptions: We cannot assume anything about a higher being without any knowledge of those things.
Therefore I made those assumptions.
The main assumption being that every being has an equal chance of existance. The problem with this arises that this cannot be true, since there are always likelihoods and whatnot. These, however, cannot be transported since we know nothing.
Thusly, a simpeler model is required. This being that simpler model. Granted, it is far from perfect, but it can act as a justification of sorts. If you don't agree with it, that's fine. In fact, I personally don't base my stance on religion on it. It is only that what you see: a flawed justification.

 

[John Uskglass]

Elvis did not have more common sense, and Einstein did not believe in God, he made some statements about God(I'll provide you with a link: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#einstein ). But hey, even IF they believed in God, this does not mean that they were right, you know.

A) I know, the Elvis thing was a self-depricating joke.
B) I know, that A) Einstien was Jewish and B) He belived in a Spinoza like god, I should know, my father has a hard on for Spinoza.

A) The bible has not been proven to be anything more than a bunch of fairy tales.

See below. There IS a diffirence between "historically based fairy tales" and flat out fairy tales.

B) People who thought you couldn't break the sound barrier were wrong, yes. But why would this mean that anyone thinking that something is impossible is immediately wrong? Pheh.

This comment was more on the idea that interstellar travel was impossible, but IMHO science always thinks it knows more then it does, or at least some people think science knows more then it actually does. Aquinas, for instance, was not perfect in this regard, just as Edison, Marx and BR are not.

True, but the ones making the original claim(God exists) carry the burden of proof in any debate.

Not entirely true. The bible is a record of events, and I think it is fair to say that the burden of proof in a similiar situaition (say, that the Alexiad was accurate) the burden of proof is on the people who question it. Though you would have a point in that the Bible is more along the lines of say the Illiad then the Alexiad.

Why do you have to go and insult AGAIN? Can you not just refrain from insults?
Plus, Blade Runner never said he'd attack you, and this only shows that you have false preconceptions about atheists.

Preconceptions about people who think that "during the revolution, the first thing to be shot is organized religion" is a fair thing.

Now the entire bible must be correct!

It shows that there is some element of truth.

Yet this still doesn't prove ANYTHING.

It proves that BL was wrong when he stated that all you needed was a little life expiriance to realize that God is dead.

 

[Sander]

This comment was more on the idea that interstellar travel was impossible, but IMHO science always thinks it knows more then it does, or at least some people think science knows more then it actually does. Aquinas, for instance, was not perfect in this regard, just as Edison, Marx and BR are not.

Some people do think that science knows more than it does, yes. But science is always questioned by the scientists themselves..

It shows that there is some element of truth.

It shows that the Hittites that were mentioned in the bible did exist. Just as the Israelites in the bible did exist. Not really useful....

Preconceptions about people who think that "during the revolution, the first thing to be shot is organized religion" is a fair thing.

Preconceptions are never fair. Especially not about someone who hasn't said something like that...

Not entirely true. The bible is a record of events, and I think it is fair to say that the burden of proof in a similiar situaition (say, that the Alexiad was accurate) the burden of proof is on the people who question it. Though you would have a point in that the Bible is more along the lines of say the Illiad then the Alexiad.

Yes, it's a record of events, but this still leaves the burden of proog with the people who believe in it, since it has never been proven that its' record is correct. And even if its' record is generally correct, then there still is no proof for the existance of god, merely proof for the existence of a charismatic man like Jesus.(Saw a "Real Jesus" documentary about a historical Jesus, and how Christianity could've come into existance from nothing but a man doing some shocking things and having some fanatical followers. Interesting,that was.)

A) I know, the Elvis thing was a self-depricating joke.
B) I know, that A) Einstien was Jewish and B) He belived in a Spinoza like god, I should know, my father has a hard on for Spinoza.

Goodie, then.

See below. There IS a diffirence between "historically based fairy tales" and flat out fairy tales.

Indeed.
But it's a small difference.

It proves that BL was wrong when he stated that all you needed was a little life expiriance to realize that God is dead.

Yep.

 

[Myrrdin]

Preconceptions about people who think that "during the revolution, the first thing to be shot is organized religion" is a fair thing.

Since Craprunner totally unwarranted drew my sig into this discussion I think I have to clear some things up. Firstly, even though I probably share some of Blade Runner's sentiments, I'm no true-blood commmunist.

I think it's quite ok for people to believe in any God, read any religious writing they want, etc. The thing I have against organized religion in general, even though there are exceptions, is that the dishonesty of it all. Firstly, most religious organizations are hierarchical, very human, power structures. They tell people what to believe, and what moral sentiments to have, instead of people reading the texts in question and making up their own minds. They also often hold some kind of power, as an organization, in the society they are in. This makes the playing field uneven since we agnostics and atheists mostly don't organize in this fashion and if someone does, it's mostly in some silly way or in such a small scale that it doesn't really matter.

But the most dishonest and stupid about it, as far as I'm concerned, is the way most organized religion mixes the belief in some unfathomable, all encompassing, all powerful being, with the right to sell moral and ethical standpoints. This is stupid and dishonest because:

1. Many of the "religious" ethical standpoints could stand pretty well on their own, without the need of a belief in a supernatural entity.
2. Because it's coupled with a belief in said entity, it stops many people from examining their own ethical standpoints because they arrive at the conclusion that it's "Gods will" or somesuch.
3. It also stops others from questioning these people's standpoints for the same reason.

I probably could go on and on, but I can't be bothered to type any more at the moment. And in all honesty, a lot of this don't apply to you Mr. Craprunner, even though you occasionally come up with some spoonfed garbage.

And my sig might seem a little harsh, but hey, at least it caught CC's eyes and subliminally entered his mind. [/quote]