totaltrials Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 I'd love to see the look on all your faces if God turns out to exist If God did suddenly appear and prove to exist it would probably mean atleast another 50% of people will be murdered in some bloody war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I'd love to see the look on all your faces if God turns out to exist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 If 'God' did exist it'd be 99.9% likely to be some alien with 3 heads and 15 anuses rather than anything to do with the Christian idea of him. In which case oh how we'd laugh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Lad Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I'd love to see the look on all your faces if God turns out to exist It'd probably be a huge grin. Like any genuine scientist I'd accept it. I care about the truth and the evidence that supports it. There is currently NONE to support the existence of a deity.I don't have anything invested in there not being a god, I have no need for there to not be a god. However, the devout cannot claim the equivalent and so you see how it is not possible for some to engage in open debate.(Cue long non-relevant ramble response) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) (Cue long non-relevant ramble response)What's the point in saying that? No doubt, like everybody else in this world, I get it wrong in places but if you were to actually take the time to try and understand my comments you would find that they are relavent and are not a ramble. A lot (but not all) of the ideas I put forward are my understanding (and probably misunderstanding) of ideas that come from religion and the philosophy of science. Admittedly they are not typical to a forum discussion but they are typical to the more detailed discussion that occurs elsewhere. I don't see anything wrong with the introduction of less commonly held ideas? I think the introduction of a realisable type of God (not as an entity) has massively helpful implications to us all. Same with the potential understanding of the limits of science and faith that often comes with it that can be so similar to that of religion. I was making a hypothetical joke. I'm not sure why you feel the need to put me down? Edited October 7, 2009 by Ben Rowlands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 What's the point in saying that? No doubt, like everybody else in this world, I get it wrong in places but if you were to actually take the time to try and understand my comments you would find that they are relavent and are not a ramble. A lot (but not all) of the ideas I put forward are my understanding (and probably misunderstanding) of ideas that come from religion and the philosophy of science. Admittedly they are not typical to a forum discussion but they are typical to the more detailed discussion that occurs elsewhere. I don't see anything wrong with the introduction of less commonly held ideas? I think the introduction of a realisable type of God (not as an entity) has massively helpful implications to us all. Same with the potential understanding of the limits of science and faith that often comes with it that can be so similar to that of religion. I was making a hypothetical joke. I'm not sure why you feel the need to put me down?Ben, can we invent a 'God' of our own to symbolise our shared beliefs? Ooooo, then can we start a holy war on everyone who doesn't agree with us?! Please??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Fel Posted October 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 How modest What's the point in saying that? No doubt, like everybody else in this world, I get it wrong in places but if you were to actually take the time to try and understand my comments you would find that they are relavent and are not a ramble. A lot (but not all) of the ideas I put forward are my understanding (and probably misunderstanding) of ideas that come from religion and the philosophy of science. Admittedly they are not typical to a forum discussion but they are typical to the more detailed discussion that occurs elsewhere. I don't see anything wrong with the introduction of less commonly held ideas? I think the introduction of a realisable type of God (not as an entity) has massively helpful implications to us all. Same with the potential understanding of the limits of science and faith that often comes with it that can be so similar to that of religion. I was making a hypothetical joke. I'm not sure why you feel the need to put me down?Right back at you big guy lol.Ben I think you are a really sound guy but I can't help but feel when you do post your huge replies that you are trying to show off the fact you are interested in "philosophy" and read quite a lot of it. It might just be me thinking this but I get the impression that you feel like you are above everyone else. Sorry I know this hasn't got anything to do with the tread and I'm not trying to attack you I just wanted to let you know the impression you give off to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Ben, can we invent a 'God' of our own to symbolise our shared beliefs? Ooooo, then can we start a holy war on everyone who doesn't agree with us?! Please???Looking for an excuse to kill some people JD? I'm sorry but my conception of God does not relate to war. It is more about having an awareness, separate to ideas, of the nature of our existence. This type of awareness relates to love and as such is anti-war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) Right back at you big guy lol.Ben I think you are a really sound guy but I can't help but feel when you do post your huge replies that you are trying to show off the fact you are interested in "philosophy" and read quite a lot of it. It might just be me thinking this but I get the impression that you feel like you are above everyone else. Sorry I know this hasn't got anything to do with the tread and I'm not trying to attack you I just wanted to let you know the impression you give off to me.Furry muff and thanks for your honesty. Definitely undesirable things motivate me in life, although I'm always trying to change that. I am, however, very passionate about these topics and any excuse to talk about them is almost always taken up. My 'passion' isn't helped by the fact that I rarely get to discuss these things, despite spending a lot of time thinking about them - it's somewhat of a pressure release and often goes unchecked. I guess I do feel quite confident in my views but, at least in theory, I accept that I could ultimately be talking nonsense. I hope you recognise that at least I try against negative motivations. I've been trying to call for a type of modesty against the view that religion is all nonsense, so does this not show a recognition of our limitations, myself included?. Perhaps I need to take my own advice? I'll try and reflect on that although I quite dislike the idea that I've been arrogant I like everyone of the forum. Sitting here I don't think or feel myself above people. Arrogance does frustrate me, but again, maybe I need to consider if I'm also engaged in this? Passion, arrogance or a bit of both? Edited October 7, 2009 by Ben Rowlands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Lad Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) You are yet to offer anything in this topic regarding the evidence for evolution or creationism. You see my point? You come on and talk about some philisophical way of viewing it, as usual, with that fence wedged right up your arse. You are Mr Diplomacy, the wise old owl. (I aggree with Al here)Philosophy can be useful though, if only for consolation. Infact, the problem with the blinkered mindset of creationists can be expressed through Plato's idea of essentialism. Edited October 7, 2009 by Spider Lad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 You are yet to offer anything in this topic regarding the evidence for evolution or creationism. You see my point? You come on and talk about some philisophical way of viewing it, as usual, with that fence wedged right up your arse. You are Mr Diplomacy, the wise old owl. (I aggree with Al here)Philosophy can be useful though, if only for consolation. Infact, the problem with the blinkered mindset of creationists can be expressed through Plato's idea of essentialism.What's the point in having a steadfast opinion on something and discounting the other side if there is not 100% understanding of either? I'm personally gonna keep the fence wedged right up my arse (and sit just a little bit behind Ben so I can look at his) until I find out for sure which side is 'right'.Looking for an excuse to kill some people JD? I'm sorry but my conception of God does not relate to war. It is more about having an awareness, separate to ideas, of the nature of our existence. This type of awareness relates to love and as such is anti-war.It was meant to be ironic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 What's the point in having a steadfast opinion on something and discounting the other side if there is not 100% understanding of either?You say that but when there's zero chance of creationism being correct and 99.99% chance of a more scientific explanation being correct (the other 0.01% is that FeS is god) I'd take my chances and say that creationism is a pile of shite. Technically speaking, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Lad Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 What's the point in having a steadfast opinion on something and discounting the other side if there is not 100% understanding of either?And in this debate you may have noticed the creationists don't have a clear understanding of evolution and even refuse to evaluate the evidence for themselves. Whereas I'm pretty sure anyone educated in evolutionary theory will have a very good understanding of the creationist side.I'm personally gonna keep the fence wedged right up my arse (and sit just a little bit behind Ben so I can look at his) until I find out for sure which side is 'right'.Maybe you should start being a little more proactive in looking at the evidence for yourself then. I'm confident that soon this particular fence will be nothing more than a speck on your horizon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 a very good understanding of the creationist side.God dunnit. Amirite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) You are yet to offer anything in this topic regarding the evidence for evolution or creationism. You see my point? You come on and talk about some philisophical way of viewing it, as usual, with that fence wedged right up your arse. You are Mr Diplomacy, the wise old owl. Philosophy can be useful though, if only for consolation. Infact, the problem with the blinkered mindset of creationists can be expressed through in Plato's idea of essentialism.I don't really see your point because you've clearly not taken the time to understand what I've said. I have offered a view, one open to experience and not just reason or faith, about what God means. This is not philosophical but it does, however, render the normal arguments for and against God as fairly meaningless. Consequently, I have also stated that I do not think it likely that a God, as an entity, exists. Unfortunately for your either/or desires, I have to reference any point of view to another point of view which considers the human limitation of knowledge. My experience informs me that I get it wrong quite frequently. History shows that the common sense/view of a great deal of people at a given time is frequently found to be incorrect. The first individual who suggested the existence of micro-organisms and their potential harm to our health was kicked out of the medical profession for saying such ridiculous things. Something may make a lot of sense to us, but we can only grasp a small amount of the picture at any one time with our ideas. Thinking this, I find myself unable to say to 100% that God, as an entity, does not exist. Although I will live my life as though he does not, due to 99.99% chance that I believe him not to. I also find this a good way of practicing against dogma regarding any area of life, not just religion and especially for science.Another point I've been trying to put forward is the idea that philosophy is not some separate practice that only practitioning philosophers engage in. Every individual possesses assumptions and reasoning that is not open to scientific examination. These are always incomplete, again, because of how limited we are. These underlying and often unconcious philosophies are carried into science. Science is immersed in phiosophy! It directs our practice of science! Understanding this gives us the freedom to adjust and discard philosophies which are no longer useful in whatever we are doing. This is what I mean of science as a type of myth or religion. It is considered a kind of all powerful, all knowing activity that doesn't have philosophical assumptions. Again, I'm trying to promote a modesty in our practices and potential knowledge but also trying to indicate the validity of philosophy. I will admit, relating to what I've just said that philosophy is very open to confusion and nonsense. But again, this has definite consequences for science.You don't seem to want to understand what I say yet you are very willing to point out how incorrect I am? Edited October 7, 2009 by Ben Rowlands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 And in this debate you may have noticed the creationists don't have a clear understanding of evolution and even refuse to evaluate the evidence for themselves. Whereas I'm pretty sure anyone educated in evolutionary theory will have a very good understanding of the creationist side.Maybe you should start being a little more proactive in looking at the evidence for yourself then. I'm confident that soon this particular fence will be nothing more than a speck on your horizon.I am aware that there is more evidence around for evolution, and that the 'evidence' around for creationism is woolly at best, but while there's any chance of spending an eternity in hell for pissing of some higher being I'm not gonna shift from this fence. It's comfortable after a while anyway. Perhaps, rather than me moving away from the fence, you should come closer to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Lad Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) God dunnit. Amirite?Yarp.(The ultimate in arrogance and laziness, don't understand it, unwilling to educate or discover anything about it, must have been that there god, then. Our god though). I am aware that there is more evidence around for evolution, and that the 'evidence' around for creationism is woolly at best, but while there's any chance of spending an eternity in hell for pissing of some higher being I'm not gonna shift from this fence. It's comfortable after a while anyway. Perhaps, rather than me moving away from the fence, you should come closer to it?I can still see the fence my friend. I fear it's the creationist contingent who do not aknowledge it.You appear to be grossly underestimating the enormity of the gulf between the two stables of evidence.Their psycho-battery form of child abuse has clearly affected you.You're just a Pascallian faggot. Edited October 7, 2009 by Spider Lad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 the 'evidence' around for creationism is woolly at bestI'd go for more along the lines of 'completely non existent'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 You appear to be grossly underestimating the enormity of the gulf between the two stables of evidence.Their psycho-battery form of child abuse has clearly affected you.You're just a Pascallian faggot. Or... You are overestimating the gulf, and you didn't get enough child abuse.What I'm trying to say is, do you believe you could be wrong? I do, even with sitting on the fence. But at least with sitting on the fence I get to appreciate both sides. I do not believe in a 'God', I believe in the possibility of there being one. I also believe in the possibility of there not being one. Or many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Haha!Mine would actually be similar to that, though not ina gimp mask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Lad Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Or... You are overestimating the gulf, and you didn't get enough child abuse.What I'm trying to say is, do you believe you could be wrong? I do, even with sitting on the fence. But at least with sitting on the fence I get to appreciate both sides. I do not believe in a 'God', I believe in the possibility of there being one. I also believe in the possibility of there not being one. Or many.I believe that the possibility of there being a god, the god which occupies the minds of the vast majority of believers in the world today, is so remote, that to consider it, even for a second, is still to afford it a disproportionately large chunk of my lifetime. However, I would be foolish to dismiss it as a statistical probability. I don't believe in fairies, flying unicorns or mermaids but for the sake of argument it is not posssible for me to 100% dismiss the possibilty of them existing.When I want to check on my fence, I use the Hubble telescope. But I still have a fence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I believe that the possibility of there being a god, the god which occupies the minds of the vast majority of believers in the world today, is so remote, that to consider it, even for a second, is still to afford it a disproportionately large chunk of my lifetime.Well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe O'Connor Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 anyone educated in evolutionary theory will have a very good understanding of the creationist side.Hahahahahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 HahahahahahaCome on... The Creationist story isn't exactly very complicated. My 'God dunnit' comment pretty much sums it up and I think we're (unfortunately) all fairly aware of what the bible says about the matter. However you've only managed to show your complete lack of understanding of Evolutionary theory and the science behind that fact throughout this topic. So Hahahahahaha back atcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Fel Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 HahahahahahaIs that all your argument is? "Hahahahahaha" pathetic.You have no clue about evolution. You seem to think that if you will wings you'll grow them and be able to fly and that cats and dogs should be able to breed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.