|
The only reason I am rejoining this discussion is to tell Sotamursu that he is an idiot. There! Now I've said it. I feel much more happy.
1. You can not say or know something exists, if it hasn't been proven.
2. God hasn't been proven so go figure.
You really have no idea how many things have been known before they could have been proven. Even chemical elements from the periodic chart have been known to exist before they've been discovered.
BECAUSE WE HAVE BRAINS AND CAN THINK OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE CAN REACH PHYSICALLY !!!
Maybe Gog is sitting in a chair at milions of light years away. Until we have a telescope that can reach that far we will have no proof of him existing.
I could say more, but I don't want to fuel this topic.
EDIT: Also, one purpose of life can be to just breed. I take this from the smallest life forms that live for seconds, and all they do is breed. Why breed, don't know, but it is part of the Universe liking to complicate itself.
|
On June 30 2011 04:34 ceaRshaf wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The only reason I am rejoining this discussion is to tell Sotamursu that he is an idiot. There! Now I've said it. I feel much more happy. 1. You can not say or know something exists, if it hasn't been proven.
2. God hasn't been proven so go figure. You really have no idea how many things have been known before they could have been proven. Even chemical elements from the periodic chart have been known to exist before they've been discovered. BECAUSE WE HAVE BRAINS AND CAN THINK OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE CAN REACH PHYSICALLY !!!Maybe Gog is sitting in a chair at milions of light years away. Until we have a telescope that can reach that far we will have no proof of him existing. I could say more, but I don't want to fuel this topic. EDIT: Also, one purpose of life can be to just breed. I take this from the smallest life forms that live for seconds, and all they do is breed. Why breed, don't know, but it is part of the Universe liking to complicate itself .
This is the dumbest thing I've read in this thread, not that I'm surprised, you don't even know basic physics.
|
Please explain sir, I am waiting to be enlightened.
|
On June 30 2011 05:50 ceaRshaf wrote:
Please explain sir, I am waiting to be enlightened.
I already have, if you could actually read and comprehend what you are reading you would know that.
|
I know you've read my post, but I am editing it because you don't deserve the attention.
|
Basically, I think that if you view the world perfectly rationally** and logically the only logical conclusions are thus: A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning.
OP wasn't saying these were possibilities, he was saying they were the ONLY possibilities.
Since you can't change the world, change your philosophy to make it seem better.
Most philosophical basis are equally unprovable, so stop being sad and be awesome instead!
|
Sorry if someone already mentioned this view point, tried to read the more recent pages but it seems like things got derailed pretty fast. Your viewpoint is very similar to mine, as for my own reasons I do not believe that God exists and I do not believe that there is an inherent meaning of life. However, I don't think that coming to this conclusion means you have to go through life miserable. It's like Torte was saying back on page 1, the meaning of life can be what you make of it.
For example, I don't believe that I was born with a special purpose or meaning, however I know that while i live/exist I want to be happy. Thus, I can make the meaning of my life to be happy, and if I think about it like that, it's not depressing at all. I still view the world rationally (in my opinion at least), and I don't feel depressed at all that there is no "overall meaning" of life.
TLDR; I don't believe one has to make a choice between rationality or depression.
|
Being happy comes from our instinct of not wanting to feel pain, physical and emotional.
I find the instinct really interesting. How come you get to be born with some knowledge a priori (not based on prior experiences). You don't need a lesson to know that you like the opposite gender. You don't need a lesson to fear for your life. What is with all the knowledge that is passed through generations?
|
If you look at the world "rationally" you will understand that humans are pompous, dressed up monkeys who can hardly register more than a tiny fraction of objective reality with their primitive contraptions and pathetic 3d + linear time perception.
When people scream "prove it! prove it!" with regard to pretty much anything remotely metaphysical it's like they are shouting at ants to prove the existence of satellites.
I'd much rather discuss religion and afterlife topics with a seasoned psychoactive drug user than a scientist or philosopher :p
|
I have no idea, but I believe it doesn't because it is a very specific God with a very specific cult and mythology. The more specific a "God" is, the less likely to exists it seems to me.
I find it incredible that you STILL don't get it. I read your link, and a few things:
- Science has its own dogmas, which are disputed by the scientific crowd,
- Stating that one of the scientific dogamas is right is having FAITH in that way of thinking.
- It only aims to disprove the existance of a THEIST God and not the existance of a DEIST God, learn the god damned difference.
Thanks for painting your ignorance all over this thread and taking away credibility from serious atheists who try to have a moderate and critical view of the subject.
You even look as you consider science as one united movement and seem to forget that science is something to be thought about.
|
EDIT: since you and many others don't seem to comprehend anything I'm saying, maybe reading other sources will make you understand.
Lol, battle of the links? Not every word from any mouth matters.
The article is fun.
"Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe."
He has a giant wheel in his hands and he keeps it spinning. If he stops, the Universe stops.
"Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence."
He has the magic wheel.
"Look for such evidence with an open mind."
I'm looking. Note, with open mind.
"If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist."
But......I can't find it. Noooooo...
"If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist."
Ok, I understand now. Wow, I feel so much better.
We are not drawing conclusions only from empirical knowledge (based on observation and experiments) but also on pure knowledge.
|
|
|
On June 30 2011 20:25 Kukaracha wrote:I have no idea, but I believe it doesn't because it is a very specific God with a very specific cult and mythology. The more specific a "God" is, the less likely to exists it seems to me.
I fail to see how a deist god is any more plausible than a theist one. Both are supported by zero evidence. Even if it's a tiny bit more likely that it exists, it's still ten miles beyond seriously thinking that it exists. AS YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE.
I find it incredible that you STILL don't get it. I read your link, and a few things:
- Science has its own dogmas, which are disputed by the scientific crowd,
- Stating that one of the scientific dogamas is right is having FAITH in that way of thinking.
I find it incredible that you didn't understand anything you read. Did you skip the part where it shows how you "disprove" anything that isn't supported with evidence? Do you even know how the scientific method works? You are the one claiming there is a deist god, yet you don't give evidence for it's existance and just prance around somehow trying to avoid the burden of proof. I can't and you should not believe in such a big claim without anything to back it up.
No one has faith in the scientific method, because no one has to have it. It works and it's the best possible method for finding out the truth humanity has ever had. The thing that is disputed in the scientific community are the specific claims, tests and results, not the way the whole thing works and it's not like the scientific community has never reached a consensus.
- It only aims to disprove the existance of a THEIST God and not the existance of a DEIST God, learn the god damned difference.
Do you really think that the deist god is somehow above the scientific method? If you know a better method for determining true claims from false claims go ahead and inform the world. I'm sure the scientific community will shower you with money as you've pretty much made one of the most important discoveries for man kind.
Thanks for painting your ignorance all over this thread and taking away credibility from serious atheists who try to have a moderate and critical view of the subject.
What. The. Fuck. It's like I'm talking to a creationist, only ten times worse.
You even look as you consider science as one united movement and seem to forget that science is something to be thought about.
Uhh, because it is? Have you ever heard of peer review? Since you're borderline illiterate let me give you a short version of how it works.
Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Propose an explanation
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results (The scientific community looks at your work and makes sure it's legit)
Retest (falsifiability)
This is how any serious claim is tested, of course claims like "I had toast for breakfast" doesn't need such serious testing, because it is quite plausible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying that the universe has a creator that is outside time and space is a pretty serious claim and requires very solid evidence.
On June 30 2011 21:16 ceaRshaf wrote:
We are not drawing conclusions only from empirical knowledge (based on observation and experiments) but also on pure knowledge.
Pure knowledge? Is that what you're whole side of the arguement is based on? I mean if this magical knowledge is not based on observation and experiments the first thing that comes to mind is how do you know it's true? If this is some new age bullshit, I am not going to reply any further.
|
You are such a troll. Read Kant about pure knowledge. New age stuff...what an ignorant.
Sotamursu you are not making any sense and i think you are to dumb to realize it. For me it's fine, but you have to face the world with that brain of yours. Ouch...
I respect a good atheist that at least brings up Darwin and other good scientific explanations, but yours are just....stupid.
|
On July 01 2011 03:07 Sotamursu wrote:
No one has faith in the scientific method, because no one has to have it. It works and it's the best possible method for finding out the truth humanity has ever had.
It is good where it applies, but not all understanding submits to rational analysis.
Is true love real?
|
On July 01 2011 04:10 gyth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 03:07 Sotamursu wrote:
No one has faith in the scientific method, because no one has to have it. It works and it's the best possible method for finding out the truth humanity has ever had. It is good where it applies, but not all understanding submits to rational analysis. Is true love real?
Yes, it's a chemical reaction in your brain.
|
On July 01 2011 03:58 ceaRshaf wrote:
You are such a troll. Read Kant about pure knowledge. New age stuff...what an ignorant.
Sotamursu you are not making any sense and i think you are to dumb to realize it. For me it's fine, but you have to face the world with that brain of yours. Ouch...
I respect a good atheist that at least brings up Darwin and other good scientific explanations, but yours are just....stupid.
Honestly I was starting to suspect I was getting trolled, and this was the last straw. First you reject everything empirical and then say I should've brought up Darwin whose work is based on fucking science? On top of that Darwin has absolutely nothing to do with the existance of god. This conversatioon is over.
|
Honestly I was starting to suspect I was getting trolled, and this was the last straw. First you reject everything empirical and then say I should've brought up Darwin whose work is based on fucking science? On top of that Darwin has absolutely nothing to do with the existance of god. This conversatioon is over.
See, you can't understand simple logic. I was saying that if you were a decent atheist you would have at least brought up Darwin to support your case, not stupid links from nobodies. I was not saying that to prove points. It's like talking to a 2 year old.
Richard Dawkins, one known atheist, bases most of his arguments on Darwin. Please do your homework.
|
Darwin is irrelevant to theology. You're basically an idiot that hasn't actually read Kant and is completely ignorant to any of the actual workings of philosophy and theology of the past century and a half. Citing Dawkins as an argument for the nonexistence of God has about as much weight as asking a theologian about physical chemistry. Every post of yours betrays just how goddamned clueless you are about the entire discourse, and it's all the more frustrating because you hijacked a thread to spout on about your inane opinions.
What a goddamned waste of time.
|
Ok.
But maybe you can take the time to explain to me why I'm clueless. It's easy to throw words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
