Romy

As it's off-topic, let's take that discussion to a private conversation.

Elitism of mankind towards animals? :S.... That's not bigotry, mankind is more intelligent than other animals (although I read a study not long ago claming that dolphins' average IQ is 102, while humans' is 100, lol. I have no idea how they tested dolphins' IQ though). Bigotry within the bounds of mankind is real bigotry. When a Christian claims to know better than a Muslim, that's bigotry. When a white person claims to be better than a black one, that's hell of bigotry. When a man claims to be smarter than an elephant... No, I don't think that's bigotry. My RSN? Lol, which one :P? I've got like 20...

I bet RpgGamer would applaud that post . Now you're just mocking me. :P In a friendlly manner :wink: .

[hide] Umm... I KNOW there isn't a scientific reason for every single thing. I believe one could eventually be found, but that doesn't mean I think science can explain everything. Science itself doesn't claim to be able to explain or prove everything. You just made him cry. Yeah, except he claims otherwise in the first 7 seconds of this video- His quote says, "Unlike religion, science doesn't pretend to know everything. There are still deep questions [...] that have yet to be explained. But just because science can't answer it right now..." How does that contradict what I said, "Many atheists believe that there's a scientific reason for every single thing"? [/hide] I never said it contradicts what you said... I said- "Umm... I KNOW there isn't a scientific reason for every single thing. I believe one could eventually be found, but that doesn't mean I think science can explain everything. Science itself doesn't claim to be able to explain or prove everything." Then you said "You just made him [Dawkins] cry." Which is when I showed you that video of Dawkins saying the same thing I did- that science does not claim to know everything. Which is why I wouldn't "make him cry"...

First of all, that's not atheists that believe in theories like the big bang as a group. Scientists came up with it, our current evidence shows that's the most likely possibility. But that in no way means atheists=someone who claims to know how the universe was created. I'll let you off with saying that the vast majority of atheists do go with that theory (including myself by the way). Also, most who do believe in theories like the big bang, are usually aware to the fact that the theory they follow may be very likely, considering the evidence we have, but it still is a theory and could eventually, if wrong, be disproven. What religion does (or atleast mainstream religion) is claim to know. And not to doubt what it claims to know. What's the point of arguing that free will could either exist or not exist with someone who claims to believe it could either exist or not exist? I never once said I trust 1 theory to be true, only that an omniscient God couldn't exist along with the concept of free will. That's my only point here, really. 2. What you seem to have missed is that I said "What I was trying to say is that a religion has to protect it's truth if it believes only 1 truth exists." 4. An S jumped infront of my face for some reason, lol. Also, you misread what I said. I clearly mentioned that God cannot be proved or disproved. And then I said that although it cannot be proved/disproved, we should follow (my exact phrase was believe) the most likely one. I also once said in this thread (not sure if as a response to you or not) that I find the mere fact that religion cannot prove itself correct as enough to dismiss it. When I present a story or a new faith, and claim it is true to the other side (being anyone who does not already believe in my story/follow my faith), I'm the one who should supply the proof, and not claim that since the other side cannot prove me wrong, I'm infact right. 6."You can't put a pin down on religion and label it the cause of all sins"... but I never did? I'd also like to present a quote I think fits greatly in here- "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." – Steven Weinberg Lastly, I'd like to remind your where these numberings came from. a_local_guy asked both sides of the equation (theists and atheists) why do they care so much for what the other side believes. These are the reasons I gave him for both sides to want to keep discussing the issue and prove the other wrong.

Support bigotry...towards... other animals? That sounds... absurd...

Not necessarily. That's not even probable. Not necessarily. Actualy, rules existed long before governments existed. Umm... not necessarily... I guess so. Pretty much :P.

And to build on that, there were more atrocities committed for a reason that wasn't religious. To assume that the world would be a better place without religion is ignorance to the rest of history. Hell, even the religious ones had political undertones. Well, neither of us could prove the other wrong, and really shouldn't try to. We cannot possibly know what our history would be like without religion. It could be wrose, it could be better, it could even (although highly unlikely) 'stay the same'. Personaly, I just assume a world without religion would be a better one, is all.

But that's, basically, the perspective I'm trying to disprove. I know for certain that I cannot disprove God, and I don't mind the agnostic perspective. It's the theist ones I care about. Whether it is that there is an infinite number of realities, each holding the precence of a different decision, or there's only 1, either free will is canceled or an omniscient God. I'm not claiming that free will is wrong and neither that it is right, only that an omniscient God couldn't exist along with free will. Note, in my responses to these, I'm going to assume that I understood what it was you were trying to say... It's not very clear the way you wrote it... 1.) Agreed. Mankind has always pursued the dream of indulging themselves with the secrets of the masses, en masse. 2.) I really don't know what you're trying to say here... The last part is confusing, and the first part makes little sense. I think you're taking into account Man's interpretation of God, not the idea of God itself. On both sides of the debate, it's pretty widely accepted that Man is fairly stupid, and attempting to counter the idea of God by criticizing Man's views on it is idiotic at best. 3.) Sure. 4.) I'll agree it is, but only if everyone comes to the conclusion that arguing for/against the idea of God is completely inane. We have no perception of anything past our minuscule 3-dimensional field of view... Which is pretty pathetic if you consider some of the things that science is uncovering in the field of String Theory. 4.) Apparently I can't count... 5.) Sure. 6.) OK, this is where you really started to piss me off. You bring up some good points (granted, your "good" points are only relative to what I've seen on teh intrawebs thus far), but your assumption here is entirely ungrounded. You might be stating your opinion, but even opinions can be wrong. You say that the world would be a better place without religion, but fail to notice all the things that religion has given us. Morals, for example, stem from religious gospels of Man and Woman being punished by God for their crimes. Sure, you could argue that these laws would eventually develop with the "discovery" of the social contract, but, IMO, nothing hits as hard as the fear of being eternally damned. The social contract might apply to small communities, but if you're surrounded by 6 billion people, 5.999999 billion of those people wont give a [cabbage] if you randomly stabbed someone to death. If the fear of consequences hadn't been drilled into our heads for the past few millenia, we'd be no closer to the idea of God than we would be to the animals. Religion taught humanity to actually give a damn about what they do, and you can't ever take that away from history. 2. What I was trying to say is that a religion has to protect it's truth if it believes only 1 truth exists. Obviously, 2 contradicting truths cannot be correct at the same time. It can't be that both theists and atheists are right, so one side must be wrong. Furthermore, different religions contradict each other (even if by very small differences). A religous person that believes his truth is the only truth, sees other truths as false (other truths could be other religions, atheism, deism, agnoticism, etc), and thus should protect his own truth. 4. No, not that insane. I assume by insane you mean that since God couldn't be proved and neither disproved, trying to prove one side is right is impossible. But that does not mean that we shouldn't believe in what, logically, is closest to the truth. If, for example, I presented Russell's teapot analogy, in a way, I made 1 truth seem a little bit more likely. 6. I never said religion doesn't do good. I actualy believe the contrary. Religion had given people morals and thus had helped quite a bit throughout human history. I completely agree that logically, being punished for immorality, is a much better incentive to be a moral person. And yet I believe religion had caused more harm than good.

Umm... I KNOW there isn't a scientific reason for every single thing. I believe one could eventually be found, but that doesn't mean I think science can explain everything. Science itself doesn't claim to be able to explain or prove everything. You just made him cry. Yeah, except he claims otherwise in the first 7 seconds of this video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iwYDO1PtJY

You've twisted my words, I never said or meant to say that evolution was bigotry. My post would make sense even if the phrase was changed to "supports bigotry".- Actualy, evolution couldn't possibly support bigotry. A bigot is basically someone who is devoted to his opinions and thinks they're the 'right' ones. Evolution doesn't even discuss opinions, only facts. It's a fact that men are smarter than cats and horses for example. EDIT: According to Wikipedia- "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

Actualy, evolution couldn't possibly be bigotry. A bigot is basically someone who is devoted to his opinions and thinks they're the 'right' ones. Evolution doesn't even discuss opinions, only facts. It's a fact that men are smarter than cats and horses for example. EDIT: According to Wikipedia- "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

I'm better than you because I care too. [hide] And as opposed to you, I do care about me :P.[/hide]

Actualy, my semi-retired account's Fishing level is 96... Lol...

320.

Most adults don't understand the happenings on the internet. In 20 years, it'll be great when the new adults who were practically raised with a controller in their hands and a keyboard at their fingers actually start using some damn common sense. Yeah and then there will be something new that comes out that most of us "don't understand". Damn if my parents find out about /b/ they wont understand Parents are probably more easily influenced by the media than the children they are trying to "protect" :/ Neil Postman would have A LOT to say about that... Lol...

That's what I don't get. Stupid people don't make my day because I do NOT like stupid behavior. I'll be in a much better mood if somebody did something witty, clever, and with a form of grace rather than just blunt stupidity. When the stupid behavious is not pointed at you, it's funny. Especialy when it backfires, lol. I guess that's why people laugh at other people falling, missing, confusing themselves, saying dumb things, etc.

Don't admit? Personaly I've admitted that countless times. It's the fact that we cannot disprove God that keeps this religous debate alive everywhere. I just see the fact that you can't prove God does exist, as enough to deem him false, just like I deem the Tooth-Fairy and Leprechauns false. Umm... I KNOW there isn't a scientific reason for every single thing. I believe one could eventually be found, but that doesn't mean I think science can explain everything. Science itself doesn't claim to be able to explain or prove everything. The 'need'? What need?

I think you don't quite understand the reasoning behind proving free will as false/true. A man without free will cannot really sin, because it wasn't his choice. If someone steals, for example, and the concept of free will is false, it wasn't him who decided to steal whatever it is that he stole, but the future that was set for him. For that reason, if free will is false, humans cannot&should not be punished for what they do (religously that is). If, however, the concept of free will is true, an omniscient God cannot exist. If someone (anyone, not necessarily a God) knows the future, that means the future is set, and is unchangeable (if something is changed, that change was foreseen by God, and thus wasn't really a change but rather the future as it is supposed to be). For example, long before you were born, God knew whether you'd belong to Heaven or Hell, whether you'd steal and murder, and even when, how, and why you'll die. So, it's either free will, or an omniscient God. The existence of both creates a paradox that cannot be solved. If free will doesn't exist, men cannot sin, and thus shouldn't be punished for their sins. If an omniscient God doesn't exist, that means the God many religions created isn't as people thought, and if they were wrong about one thing related to God (and as acute as whether God is omniscient or not), they could be wrong about more. They could even be wrong about whether or not God exists. As for your second point- It's not about how complicated it is, it's about the truth. It doesn't matter which 1 is more complicated, aslong as the one we believe in is the correct one. And as for your last question- For many reasons: 1. The truth is something we should seek regardless of the consequences. If, for instance, the consequences of finding out whether God exists or not, is cancelation of all religions, that's something we should seek. 2. I guess theists cannot let their one true God not be true for all. If there really is one true religion, each religion shouldn't want anyone to dismiss it's "facts". 3. The "bigger things to worry about" doesn't stand well here. So what if we have bigger things to worry about? Does that mean we shouldn't worry about the "smaller" things? You probably already know we're not able to explain everything on Earth, or even reach Earth's center- Does that mean we should stop researching space? Even the moon? 4. Personaly, as some of you probably already noticed, I find it fun and interesting to discuss God, religion, etc. 5. God is a philosophical question just as any other. 6. Religion thus far has done more harm than good IMO, and is probably going to continue doing what it's doing. I think a world without religion would be a better world, and the only possible way we could ever dismiss religion, is disprove God. I'm sure there's more, I just can't think of any right now.

^ Yeah, I knew both... < I guess I should have added a [/sarcasm] tag in my previous post. V agrees.

~Matthew 18:3-4 [/hide] I'm thinking the lack of knowledge made him accept the different. That's just amazing. People don't usually accept the different, that's where racism and anti-homosexuality come from. But that kid met the case of homosexuality probably before even completely understanding heterosexuality, and he didn't have much problem with it. I'm certain that unless his parents or at some point his peers shed bad light on gays, he's not going to have any problem with gays. At all. Now to spread that kind of acceptance... Kind of ironic that in the same week that DC marries its first gay couple, a school district in rural Mississippi (I believe) cancels its prom because a lesbian couple was to attend it. Grrr!! People are so dumb!

Your statement doesn't make much sense... "Trying to get to have sex with". The sentence makes more sense when I curse, but that's not allowed here so sometimes my translating fails. Oh, got what you were trying to say... Next time you should let censor do it's own, I'm sure I would have gotten it right away if you have.

I guess you're pretty excited about it, congrats :).

Your statement doesn't make much sense...

^ Thinks... for some reason... that I have a grudge against people in the Public Relations field. < Don't see where he got that from. V Either knows he/she can't lick his/her own elbow, or is currently trying that.