insane

Last time I checked, existence wasn't subjective. We would still be worshiping a God - the idea of a God precedes writings of a God. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that existence is objective, and irrelevant to what we think about existence. If I write about a unicorn that exists in the dining room I am typing this out on right now, the unicorn doesn't appear. It doesn't matter how much I write about the unicorn in my dining room, it's not appearing. Existence is irrelevant to thought. And I know you're going to say "you just can't comprehend it, you're close minded, illogical, blah blah blah". But no, until you refute the point I made that existence is separate from thought, you are the ignorant one. I have provided multiple examples that you have neither quoted or refuted. Quit saying the same things over and over again. Everybody has basic beliefs. Even you. When was the last time I used the Bible to prove God's existence? Where have you been? Where is my circular logic? In this entire argument I have never stated that God exists. This argument isn't even about the existence of God. This argument is about whether or not writing some empty words on some empty paper somehow brings a being into an objective existence. And I think the answer to the argument is clear - you just don't see it.

But this argument applies to basically anything unknown like fairies, ghosts, vampires, dragons, spaghetti monsters etc. God is a human construct, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. It doesn't rule out that God is some transcendent, inconsequential being but at the same time it doesn't rule out anything else; that's the problem. Thought is relevant to existence in the case of invented ideas. If humans didn't think think up there idea, people would have no reason to expect the idea to exist. If I asked you if there was Space Orc ruling our galaxy, of course you would say no. That is because the idea of a Space Orc existing is not perpetuated through society so you have no reason to believe in it. However, have you been around the galaxy; how would you know that Space Orc's don't exist? If I asked you if ghosts exist, you might say yes or you might say no. In the case of ghosts, the idea that they exist is commonly perpetuated through society. So that the idea that they exist doesn't sound so far fetched to many people. God is in the same class of ghosts, they are ideas which are perpetuated through society but neither are strong enough to be fully believable. You can't seriously say that God or Space Orc's exist if I didn't mention them to you, since there is no reason for them to exist from an infinite number of possible things. That's like saying people said the Earth was at the centre of the universe and was later found to be at the centre of the universe or saying that there was an ether and later shown to be an ether. Our ideas have been wrong before and there is no reason to believe that we will not be wrong again. All your argument applies to is the expectation of something existing. Not the actuality of something existing. Putting a pen to paper doesn't bring anything into existence - only the thought of something existing. If nobody wrote about God, then it doesn't change the fact that God might still be somewhere. So before we knew about other galaxies, they didn't exist? The second we saw another galaxy was the second it came into existence? Maybe in our minds, but not in actuality. Unless you're a pantheist. No, you made the thought that he exists exist to yourself and others. No, you're just not capable of believing in existence apart from thought. See galaxy example above. You're assuming your atheism in your argument more than I am assuming theism in mine. All I'm saying is that your question is irrelevant to God's existence. The only assumption I'm making is that existence is separate from thought. If existence is dependent on thought, then why do people get surprised? *someone jumps out from behind a wall* AAHHHHHHHH!!!!!! I only KNEW that thing existed right there, my thought just surprised me! Frig. Or from your point of view: That thing came into existence the second I thought about it! Up until the point that I saw him, that person didn't exist! Yah right. My university transcript begs to differ.

Irrelevant. Not even close to irrelevance...If it were never written, does God still exist? Does he? If it was never written to be passed on from person to person, does he still exist? It seems irrelevant to you because you have this cloud around you that disallows you from asking weither or not God actually exists. You've been raised to believe, nay, to know that he does. But if the Bible was never written, does God still exist? That's a pretty good question, actually. You just can't answer it. I think your brain just can't comprehend how putting a pen to paper is irrelevant to a transcendent being existing. Like seriously; someone writes "God did this", and all of a sudden God exists? Give me a break. Just because someone has the idea of God it doesn't mean that God exists and just because someone doesn't have the idea of God it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. I honestly can't believe you don't understand how thought is irrelevant to existence.

exactly, is that kinda like lucid dreaming? Cause I am aware I'm sleeping, but I can't control myself to fly or any other cool stuff like killing off entire armies with just a swipe of my left hand. No, that's not lucid dreaming. Lucid dreaming is when you have full control over what happens in your dream. I'll describe the one I had here: I was dreaming that I was looking at a brick wall. Then my unconscious self said "hey, I'm dreaming. Don't wake up!" And for the first time ever, I stayed in my dream, but was fully conscious in a sense. Then I said to myself "I'm going to turn around, and there will be a rainforest behind me", this is kind of a reality check. The stage where you first test the waters, to see if you are having a lucid dream. So in my dream, I turned around, and there was a rainforest behind me! "Sweet, I'm in a lucid dream!" I said... and as I walked towards it I woke up :P So they are extremely difficult and rare to have... I'm thinking the majority of people on this thread saying that they have had lucid dreams haven't actually had them.

As an aside, I'm getting my wisdom teeth yanked on Friday and I'm getting put under. Do you think drinking protein shakes is a good idea to keep going while I'm recovering?

I had a real one once. Like I went through all the reality checking in my dream. It only lasted a few seconds though. It took me a month of trying to have though... too much effort.

Irrelevant. Actully it makes perfect sence. If humans never wrote the Bible, people wouldn't believe in God. People just dont believe in a God then use a book to support it, the read the book first and then believe in God. Actually it makes no sense. Writing about something doesn't bring it into existence. Next time look at an argument from an objective point of view please.

Irrelevant.

I took first year chem at university last year. What was hard about it was that the lectures contained very few examples, and the ones that were given were extremely simple. It's easy to figure out the oxidation number of S in SO2, but on the exam we had to figure out the oxidation number of, say, C, in KrCO4S5P2Si2.

You didn't prove anything. You just said that homosexuality was right because people accept it (argumentum ad populum), and then therefore the Bible needs to change. You completely ignored Astra's point about the Pythagorean theorem... since you ignored that example I'll introduce another. Calculus is 300 years old. Man, that's outdated! We gotta get rid of every application of calculus! That's right along your logic lines, until you refute Astra's point. The quoted did nothing but repeat the point that Astra previously refuted.

none of these ppl are my neighbors, i bet i live in a different country to most of them!! You clearly have a less-than-juvenile understanding of the Bible.

From a Christian: Carlin, you're an idiot.

Introduce more Global Moderators. Obvious really. You are one of the people who should understand how hard it is to keep the forum moderated 24 hours a day , no matter how many moderators there are... I don't understand. Are you saying that introducing more globals won't help?

I think it's pretty sad that Amnesty int'l uses logical fallacies in their responses. They're equivocating killing with murder - that's ridiculous.

Because TIF doesn't support it. It has little to do with JaGex' stance, since they don't really have one.

That's gonna suck :uhh: Yeah, TSN already does that with their online highlights. You've gotta watch a 30 second commercial before every one.

Oh, it's "good"? What universal standard of morality says that? Last time I checked, an atheist doesn't have a universal standard of morality, so you telling me toleration is good is forcing your beliefs down my throat (the exact opposite of toleration). You're showing yourself to be a hypocrite more and more with every post. Why not? That's fairly exclusive and intolerant for no good reason. They are no different than you - they tolerate their own beliefs, and they are intolerant to opposing beliefs. Since the opposing belief (you) is intolerant, then both sides are intolerant to each other. You still haven't explained how you are any different than an intolerant religious person. Utility is lame. You can't quantize pleasure, and utility doesn't account for unforeseen circumstances - you've got to pretty much predict the future with every moral choice you make. It also doesn't account for intentions - if you try and murder your brother but somehow you fail and make $20 out of it, hey, that's a good action! What about slavery? Let's say my family of four has one slave. The slave benefits four of us, in many different ways. He is but one slave, and is being inconvenienced but one way! Utility is being reached here my friend, slavery must be right! Human rights don't exist with utility. Which is ironic as you've brought up people's right to be tolerated. If it benefits me more to be intolerant to someone then it's right, eh?

My parents tried both. They'd take privileges away first, and that wouldn't work in the long run. The spanking would. Calling it "cheap parenting" by comparing it to animals isn't really a good analogy, because you don't explain how it's cheap. You just say it is, and throw the example of an animal in there. The last time I checked, humans were animals too, and unless you've radically restructured your belief system you're a moral relativist who doesn't believe in an objective standard of morality so throwing the whole "animals don't have morals" is irrelevant as humans don't either. I don't see what is so wrong with physical pain when you've exhausted other options?

I currently go to Brock University in Ontario. I'm there for computer science, and though it's not a well known program, it's getting bigger and more popular every year. I hope to go for my B.Ed after I get my honours degree and that is something that Brock is well known for, so it will balance out. If I had my first choice, I would have gone to Waterloo for math/computer science and then gone to Brock for my B.Ed, but you need high 90's in high school to get into that program. (And getting high 90's in Ontario is alot harder than getting high 90's in the US).

Learn to read, [developmentally delayed]. He said he has a family member in a mental institution as a result of weed. That's experience.

Useless in that they are no different than you. So I guess hypocritical would have been a better term to use. You have a belief that tolerance is good - they have a belief that their religion is good. You are intolerant to those that don't subscribe to your belief, just like those people you mention are intolerant to those that don't subscribe to their belief. No difference. Yes, and the belief that tolerance is good is being forced down my throat on this thread.

What a useless stance. If you only tolerate the tolerant, then what's the point of toleration? That's like saying "I only tolerate the views I agree with".

Mind explaining how any of this is proven to be true and/or relevant? America might be a culture of freedom and love in your opinion, but realize that children are physically disciplined in the US. As far as the conservative government being corrupt and evil, you have no basis for your claims and as far as them being spanked as children, you have absolutely no proof of that and even if you did you could never tie that to their unproven "evil" tendencies.

Connect the dots. How is the belief that there is one true religion intolerant? It may be exclusive, but it's not intolerant. And if I'm "connecting your dots" correctly, you also mean to say that believing in one true religion makes you ignorant, then what is your basis for that claim?

Coachella can hold around 200 000 people I've heard? I heard Coldplay barely sold 70% of the seats when they played there.