 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 443 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614196 Today 0 Topics 127547 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you're hot. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Wow, I wish I had checked back on this topic earlier, so that I could have saved it from turning into such a stupid argument. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There are 0 arguments for his existance. It all stems from 'I wish there was a god.' Well guess what? Wanting something to be true doesn't change reality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
logic is a bigger threat i think |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not believing things that haven't been done before are possible is the biggest threat, and if there is one group of people who don't believe that, it's scientists. "ooh, you can't calculate it, so it doesn't exist!" stupid attitude, really... randomness exists. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this is true, science wouldn't be going anywhere if people didn't take chances forming new theories.. but then comes the next step - trying to find out if this theory has any reason to exist. it's not just thinking up a theory and saying it must be true. the theory must be tested. and no, randomness really doesn't exist. yes, it is impossible (at this point in time at least) to calculate all the factors in most given events (simply too many factors and therefore too complex to calculate), but if you were to know all the factors you'd be able to predict ANY outcome exactly. if you say this can't be done, you are saying the idea of cause and effect is faulty. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
cause and effect isn't faulty, it's just not omnipresent. It can't be applied to everything. No scientific theory has ever been proved, by the way.. at least none of those that have held up... they have only been NOT disproved yet. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
We were dreamed up by a giant robotic croissant. THAT IS THE TRUTH. What I just said is NO different than believing in God. At all. No difference. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Also the croissant is invisible and likes to be scratched behind the ears. This was revealed to me in a vision. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not believing things that haven't been done before are possible is the biggest threat, and if there is one group of people who don't believe that, it's scientists. "ooh, you can't calculate it, so it doesn't exist!" stupid attitude, really... randomness exists. I'm starting to believe that you are inherently stupid and don't know what you're talking about. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
omg you're from the vagina too?!?!?!?! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im so goddamn happy about my quantummechanics course, solely for the philosophical implications. anyway, im positively certain randomness exists, in the sense that it is impossible to sucessfully predict what is going to happen tomorrow. id like to expand but im hungry and its time for a good chinese takeaway meal. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
THE vagina. not the vagina. THE vagina. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
crispy duck pancakes. mmm. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and who's to say you didn't speak the truth? Also, science is as much a religion as christianity.. you can only believe in it, and the "evidence" it gives within its own confines, just like with any other religion. None of the theoretical sciences can be applied to things in the real world, and as you stand within science, looking at religion, asking them to give you proof that is accepted in your religion, they stand in their religion, asking you for proof that can be accepted in their religion... The fact that 666 is merely a number to a scientist while being a symbol of fear or hatred to a christian, is enough "proof" for this connection. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I do not exactly understand what your last example is trying to prove, but it does highlight another rather large difference between science and religion - science has little to do with emotions (unless this is the subject ofcourse) and religion has everything to do with emotion. science, to me, seems to have come forth from wanting to understand the world and how it works, while religion seems to spring from being afraid of the world and trying to find some sense in it. they both have the same goal but very different startingpoints which make them intrinsically different. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my last example is showing how it is impossible for you, from within your sphere of set dogmas to accept the reasons a religious man give for believing in what he believes in, while it is impossible for a religious man to accept your "evidence." One of the things I've always hated is stuff where "scientists" try to disprove religion or convert religious people for no other reason than "being right." There's this group of people over at the science departement at the university here, and they once had this campaign where they tried to convert christians and other religious people with "proof" that their religion was "wrong" just because no-one could SEE god... pretty pathetic if you ask me... If you don't believe in metaphysical phenomena and things that cannot be broken down into numbers, your world seems pretty dull to me.. you've also accepted that your life is determined to end up a certain way from even before you were born. You have no free will. This thread has been printed into the fabric of time, since the dawn of time.. err.. "the big bang." I'm not a religious man and I dislike the things religion leads to at times, but that is mostly (note: MOSTLY) due to misinterpretations, and war has come from atheists and scientists too... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'll be back to drunkenpost in this subject later. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not "belief-less" I have my own faith, its not a 'organized' faith though, which I believe is what this topic is more or less about. Organized Reglion is a pox and a crutch for the weak minded, imo. Its just like any other group or club that makes people feel apart of something, only lately it seems to be dangerous and quite close-minded. We all have our beliefs but seriously keep them to yourself as no one really knows the 'truth'. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not talking about religion, I'm just saying that there COULD be a God. There are arguments for it, for example what created the world if not a perfect being? There are also arguments back for example creation due to the big bang, but then what caused the big bang? This is what I meant when I said that there are always equal a mounts of arguments for and against the existence of a God. I'm not saying which are right or wrong, I'm merely stating that there are arguments for both and neither side has yet been proved against, so it is best to keep an open mind. I'd be interested to hear any attempt at sufficiently proving either way though. I don't wish that there was a God at all. I don't feel like I want there to be something for me to worship, I just think that it is a possibility and it's interesting to see the arguments supporting and opposing it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Drunken Mastah, that was what is called reductio ad absurdum. It doesn't matter that you feel it's no-ones place to prove me wrong, or something. But it's to show that it's so ridiculous that it's just the same as believing in God, your soul, etc. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Also, science is as much a religion as christianity.. Get your head out of your ass. Do you know the basic function of science? Given a hypothesis, it is tested, and the answer is found from these tests. Ever heard of Creation "Science"? Here we take the ANSWER and pick and choose anomalous data to fit our need. It's lies. Fuck off. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think hes just taking another approach, and knows pretty well what hes talking about im too tired to think and put all these posts in context with eachother. nice thread. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sorry I just get pissed off sometimes. But it sure looks like he's spouting off a lot of nonsense to me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Allow me to direct you kids to |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i also have a problem with the leap of faith required to swallow the more dominant religions. meditation delivered for me a real, tangible experience. its held a lot more relevance than methods based on disputable belief |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
however it is my understanding that all religions pursue the same thing. we are presented with different mechanisms to reach spiritual fulfilment. an individual will be suited better to digest one means over another. this points toward my understanding of natural monotheism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This is one thing I never understood. Could you define spirit? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i cant, im not really disciplined enough to say :) but definition would probably elude its true nature |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It just stems from a biological fear of dying. Which is why people want these 'spiritual experiences' he's talking about. To make the imaginary more real. So they can ignore the truth. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ive been told that spirituality means 'the reality of the spirit'. however its not a global view. not all religions even subscribe to the existence of a soul. i think spirituality is a bit of a loose term when used in reference to all people. i personally digest it as being a way of life, the pursual of a 'spiritual reality'. my stand on what the spiritual defines, lies in what it is not - life blinkered by illusion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I believe in the GOD father of soul. Heunhh! |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
whats a 'soul' ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Do you know the basic function of science? Given a hypothesis, it is tested, and the answer is found from these tests." ok... I'll borrow from Descartes here. Hypothesis: A god exists. Test: Your idea of the perfect thing (how can you imagine something perfect in this inperfect world? Can you imagine a color you've never seen? Thus, you must have seen something perfect, but where, since nothing in this world is perfect. Nothing is 100% of what we think of when we hear the word describing it (Plato with his world of ideas (sorry if that's not the english term used, but I'm translating what it's called in norwegian) is also relevant here.. Plato argued that every thing stems from a perfect version of it, and that there is only ONE perfect version of every thing. These "perfects" exist in the world of ideas, and can never exist in the real world). Now, back to imagining the perfect thing. Even though you don't believe in god, you've got an idea of what he is, right? You connect different things to the word "god," and if you even CLAIM to not have any idea of what a perfect being is, you're most definately lying, since society wouldn't have let this thing pass you by). Now that we've established the frames for this argument.. compare the thought of a perfect being to something in this world.. something you've experienced. Nothing that resembles the perfect being? I'm not amazed. Now answer (with the thought of imagining an unseen color in mind).. where or what does your idea of the perfect thing stem from? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats a lot of parenthesiysurytueduhjes... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How can I imagine werewolves if they don't exist? According to your argument they must or I wouldn't have been able to imagine them. As for "perfection" what you are doing is called - you are taking an abstraction and placing it outside your mind. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The Bible says that man is made in the likeness of God. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What does this thread have to do with morality? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
threads on xltronic rarely have anything to do with the thread title. also, i couldnt give a flying fuck about a static collection of rules called a bible |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Nor could I, but I imagine a theist would. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a werewolf is a synthesis of a wolf and a man.. Hume had quite a bit of thoughts on this... Synthesis is when you combine existing elements into something new.. horn+horse = unicorn. The reason a perfect being doesn't fit into this is that nothing is perfect, and you have thus never experienced perfection. Synthesis involves things you have already experienced. Perfection is an idea that just has NO basis whatsoever in the world around us. And.. reification doesn't affect the hypothesis up there, since all I'm discussing is the IDEA of the perfect being which, as with all other ideas about "things" or "beings" is regarded as material. Once again: even if you don't BELIEVE in any god (i'm not necessarily talking about the one from the bible.. just anything), you have a vision of what he would look like (mostly a synthesis of things you consider holy, wise, and so-on.. most commonly, this implicates an old man with beard), and as with the idea of the moon, which you've never been to, nor has any evidence to wether or not exists, you DO consider this thought a material thing. I like this discussion! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh horseshit. When we say perfection as in perfect being it's just a synthesis of optimum qualities - wisdom, kindness, etc. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And I should add we recognize wisdom etc. from our experience of the world and the categories we've constructed to make sense of our experience. Of course our understanding is also the product of our biology, and hence of evolution - we can make sense of the world because to do so is a characteristic necessary for survival. Soapy tit wank. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't see how this relates to whether or not there is a god. Just because I can't imagine a new color doesn't mean it exists. I'm not following this very well, though, either. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Answer: Believing in something that's not only impossible to prove, but also indefinitely disproven is by definition irrational. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fuck, thread's longer than I thought. sue me for my millions. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm going to sue you for your millions. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well.. then it is irrational to believe in ANYTHING, since nothing can be proved. Your senses are wrong, and your thoughts are worthless, since they can't be proved. I have no proof that you exist, and I can't prove it ever. Even if I met a man claiming to be you, I would never be able to prove it, so I don't believe in you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Err.. how can perfection be a synthesis when it doesn't consist of things we know? Even if wisdom is a part of perfection (although perfection is so much more.. too much for us to ever experience it, actually), we've never experienced perfect wisdom. How come you know what it is then? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hahaha. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
