One concerns the "how" factor, and the other concerns the "why" factor. You have science to explain how the world works, you have religion/philosophy to explain what you should do.

Anything from religious books that concern 'how' is a glimpse into a time before we knew how it all started, and if you look at it without that in mind of course you aren't going to appreciate it. remember that the source text could be thousands of years old.

Likewise, science shouldn't be saying "why", because that idea is inherently unscientific.

Eh, science and religion are really just two different schools of thought. You can't try to use either in order to try to justify your views concerning both of them. End of story.

 

Why? Why are they seperate?

 

If religion tries to tell me that my physical world was created by some magical being who pooped me out some day, why can I not examine my physical world and try to find evidence that supports the occurance?

 

 

 

Well, of course you can examine the physical world in order to gain factual knowledge, but when you delve into the realm of dogmatic believes, that's when you go against the purpose of science. It's the same reason why many theories have been tested and shown to be true, yet there are very, very few scientific laws. Science can only be used to gain data through observable (both direct and indirect) means. It can and never will answer certain things, which is what philosophy/religion are for.

 

And religion is part of philosophy.

 

One concerns the "how" factor, and the other concerns the "why" factor. You have science to explain how the world works, you have religion/philosophy to explain what you should do.

Anything from religious books that concern 'how' is a glimpse into a time before we knew how it all started, and if you look at it without that in mind of course you aren't going to appreciate it. remember that the source text could be thousands of years old.

Likewise, science shouldn't be saying "why", because that idea is inherently unscientific.

 

This is a good explanation of what I just said, really.

Ok: In the first quote I was while making a joke, also saying in Genesis the 7 day week of creation explains the creation of the world via the Big Bang theory. Almost exactly. So I was implying they just stole the idea of the big bang/evolution from the bible.

If you think the genesis story has any similarity at all to the idea of the big bang, you either are unfamiliar with the genesis story or the big bang theory. Genesis does not explain the nuclear reactions that form stars, it does not describe galaxies of stars, it does not include anything about life originating on earth in microbial form. Etc etc...

On the 2nd part:

When I say appreciate, I don't mean appreciate in the sense of being thankful. But in the sense of... I guess you could say understanding Religion's place in the world, both good and bad of it. Your take on it seems very one sided, which is why I say you don't fully understand it. Religion has brought so much good into the world, and you don't even care.

And I have repeatedly tried to ask you what these things are. What events? What good has it brought?

You try to dissect it, and compare it to effigies of Humanism in an attempt to degrade it. And the very idea that you can compare any serious religion to the spaghetti monster shows you don't know what it's like to be Religious.

And again I will ask you, HOW is the FSM different from your god? You arent giving any response to anything. You haven't laid down a single shred of support for all of the claims you are making. For example, your reply should be "The FSM is inferior to my god because _____" where you then cite evidence to support your claim.

The clincher is, you don't even have to be religious to know how they feel, surprisingly. If you can show me you do know, (based upon your replies/arguments) I'll eat my words, every last morsel.

Again I must either be illiterate or you have made some type of writing error. Don't understand what you are even trying to get at here.

 

 

One concerns the "how" factor, and the other concerns the "why" factor. You have science to explain how the world works, you have religion/philosophy to explain what you should do.

Anything from religious books that concern 'how' is a glimpse into a time before we knew how it all started, and if you look at it without that in mind of course you aren't going to appreciate it. remember that the source text could be thousands of years old.

Likewise, science shouldn't be saying "why", because that idea is inherently unscientific.

 

1. It is absolutely insulting to use "religion/philosophy" with a slash together like that. They are not even remotely the same thing.

 

2. Who says we need somebody to create these answers to "why" questions? Why cant everyone just answer their own "why" questions?

HOW is the FSM different from your god?

FSM was created by an atheist for the sole purpose of showing the flaws in inherently unprovable ideas. The Judeo-Christian God is/was an answer to questions that were unanswerable thousands of years ago and even a few that are still today.

 

That has to count for something, yes? Funny how no atheists though about that angle.

HOW is the FSM different from your god?

FSM was created by an atheist for the sole purpose of showing the flaws in inherently unprovable ideas. The Judeo-Christian God is/was an answer to questions that were unanswerable thousands of years ago and even a few that are still today.

 

That has to count for something, yes? Funny how no atheists though about that angle.

 

But the flying spaghetti monster answers these same questions. Hell, I could come up with an infinite number for these same questions:

 

1. God accidentally let out a fart and created the big bang

2. A field of cosmic unicorns were playing together. They stomped on a flower and this is what the big bang was.

3. The universe has just always existed, this most recent big bang is just what we percieved to be "the" big bang. The only way a universe can exist is if it blows up many times

4. The same as #2 but with supernatural soccer players who accidentally blew up their soccer ball.

5. Allah

6. Buddah

7. Zeus

etc...

 

All of these "explanations" are equally as probable as the creation by the judeo christian god. Why favor any of them?

When I say appreciate, I don't mean appreciate in the sense of being thankful. But in the sense of... I guess you could say understanding Religion's place in the world, both good and bad of it.

 

Well this is wrong. I can look at it and I believe that it's done far more harm than good on the net. We don't just look at the negative, we see it as an overall negative with the positive being outweighed.

 

Religion has brought so much good into the world, and you don't even care.

 

It's brought a hell of a lot more bad. Take for example Mother Teresa. She is oftentimes elevated to saint-like status. I think she was a net-negative in her charity work. I don't believe in altruism, everyone wants something out of everything; even if it's as small as a congratulations. I joined a service fraternity because I love doing service, and I didn't want to join your average fraternity. However, I still wanted to meet other people and have something for my resume. Even without those added bonuses I still would have done it, and they weren't the main thrust for why I wanted to join.

 

I can't say the same for Mother Teresa. I see her main thrust to be proselytizing, not to help other people. That's not saying she didn't have good intentions along with that main motive, but that's still where her focus was. She was a religious fanatic, and she actively has killed millions--along with the Pope--for arguing against contraceptives in parts of the world that need them the most. It's a catch-22. The Salvation Army supposedly feeds a lot of homeless people, though they attach quite a pious guilt trip to it. But at least they don't do more harm than good--even though they are bigoted and xenophobic--which is what the Catholic Church does with its severely outdated teachings on contraception and forced childbearing.

 

This is just one example, and it doesn't even go into the factor of its ability to rouse a crowd into a frenzy over The Other with wars, genocides and military invasions.

 

And the very idea that you can compare any serious religion to the spaghetti monster shows you don't know what it's like to be Religious.

 

The part that I don't think you've tried conceiving is that most atheists were once religious themselves.

But the flying spaghetti monster answers these same questions. Hell, I could come up with an infinite number for these same questions:

 

1. God accidentally let out a fart and created the big bang

2. A field of cosmic unicorns were playing together. They stomped on a flower and this is what the big bang was.

3. The universe has just always existed, this most recent big bang is just what we percieved to be "the" big bang. The only way a universe can exist is if it blows up many times

4. The same as #2 but with supernatural soccer players who accidentally blew up their soccer ball.

5. Allah

6. Buddah

7. Zeus

etc...

 

All of these "explanations" are equally as probable as the creation by the judeo christian god. Why favor any of them?

You don't really know much about Buddhism, do you...? :lol: Or Greek mythology for that matter. Also, Allah is just the Arabic word/name of the Judeo-Christian god. It may help to actually study other religions before calling BS on all of them.

 

The last question is why I'm agnostic. :razz: You can look at it as several views of the same thing. Different cultures may have different values, existed at different time periods, and lived in vastly different areas. Their religions exemplify that: They show the values of that culture in particular, but they all explain the same things: What happens after we die, how did we get here, what do we do now, and so on.

 

The difference between them and yours is that, like with the FSM, you don't believe they exist, and you're simply making these up to say that if they don't exist, none can. If anything that's more illogical than the religions that you're trying to disprove, with even more hypocrisy.

 

You don't really know much about Buddhism, do you...? :lol: Or Greek mythology for that matter. Also, Allah is just the Arabic word/name of the Judeo-Christian god. It may help to actually study other religions before calling BS on all of them.

 

The last question is why I'm agnostic. :razz: You can look at it as several views of the same thing. Different cultures may have different values, existed at different time periods, and lived in vastly different areas. Their religions exemplify that: They show the values of that culture in particular, but they all explain the same things: What happens after we die, how did we get here, what do we do now, and so on.

 

Yes, all the views are the same except for the one that bases its views on reality.

 

The difference between them and yours is that, like with the FSM, you don't believe they exist, and you're simply making these up to say that if they don't exist, none can. If anything that's more illogical than the religions that you're trying to disprove, with even more hypocrisy.

 

That isn't the point. The point is that anyone who chooses to believe in any of the popular gods is being highly descriminatory and close minded. FSM does not aim to disprove the existence of god, the FSM is a tool used against a specific religion. The FSM cannot be used to disprove god, unicorns, santa claus, or anything that you must believe in. FSM is a satire of religion, not god. If you need more clarification I'd be glad to elaborate.

Yes, all the views are the same except for the one that bases its views on reality.

If you believe that your beliefs are the only ones that look at reality I can't help you. It must be nice to be able to argue that all other belief systems are inferior, though. Wish I could play that card.

 

That isn't the point. The point is that anyone who chooses to believe in any of the popular gods is being highly descriminatory and close minded. FSM does not aim to disprove the existence of god, the FSM is a tool used against a specific religion. The FSM cannot be used to disprove god, unicorns, santa claus, or anything that you must believe in. FSM is a satire of religion, not god. If you need more clarification I'd be glad to elaborate.

At the same time you're using it to argue against the existence of any gods, so which is it?

It's also a bit odd that you can say that every theist who has ever lived is/was being discriminatory and closed-minded. That seems almost... Ah never mind.

The part that I don't think you've tried conceiving is that most atheists were once religious themselves.

 

 

Umm ok. Frankly, just because you're religious doesn't mean you know what being religious means at all. And I'm perfectly aware that now you're all enlightened and [cabbage].

 

 

And you don't know Mother Teresa then, but go on. I'm all ears

If you believe that your beliefs are the only ones that look at reality I can't help you. It must be nice to be able to argue that all other belief systems are inferior, though. Wish I could play that card.

 

My beliefs are based on physical evidence that any human being is free to go look at. This evidence exists in what we call reality. Where is the evidence for religion? Where is the basis of religion that is founded on evidence that exists in reality? Where is the evidence that I can go look at that suggests the presence of an intelligent creator?

 

At the same time you're using it to argue against the existence of any gods, so which is it?

It's also a bit odd that you can say that every theist who has ever lived is/was being discriminatory and closed-minded. That seems almost... Ah never mind.

 

Yes, I'm using it against the existence of any specific gods, but it does not disprove the idea of an unprovable creator. The FSM himself is a god that cannot be disproven. You actually got the idea all wrong. The idea isnt that the FSM DOESNT exist, the idea is that theres no way we can DISPROVE his existence. If we are going to run around believing that a god created adam and eve, we might as well believe in the FSM, we might as well believe in unicorns, etc. That is the point of the FSM, he is a tool to prove that it is idiotic to have blind faith about any specific theory. But it does not disprove faith itself.

 

I think that any theist is descriminatory, because the idea of ANY god is equally as probable. You might as well believe in every single illogical unprovable theory for the creation of the universe.

 

I am not descriminatory, because I only believe in the theory that is the most probable.

Theres nothing wrong in acknowledging the fact that other people would rather believe in something that seems illogical to you. If someone says that they believe in god because he "talked" to them and guides them, then fine. If it makes them happy to believe in a god then I'm not going to bother.

@ Weapon

You don't see the contradiction in it? You say without a hint of irony that every theist is discriminatory. You say that the FSM cannot be used to disprove faith while using it to do just that, in a way that's condescending to anyone that dares disagree with your logical view of the universe. And you're portraying yourself as a highly logical individual who values facts and evidence, while making it clear that you have no idea what the other side really believes.

Ok: In the first quote I was while making a joke, also saying in Genesis the 7 day week of creation explains the creation of the world via the Big Bang theory. Almost exactly. So I was implying they just stole the idea of the big bang/evolution from the bible.

If you think the genesis story has any similarity at all to the idea of the big bang, you either are unfamiliar with the genesis story or the big bang theory. Genesis does not explain the nuclear reactions that form stars, it does not describe galaxies of stars, it does not include anything about life originating on earth in microbial form. Etc etc...

On the 2nd part:

When I say appreciate, I don't mean appreciate in the sense of being thankful. But in the sense of... I guess you could say understanding Religion's place in the world, both good and bad of it. Your take on it seems very one sided, which is why I say you don't fully understand it. Religion has brought so much good into the world, and you don't even care.

And I have repeatedly tried to ask you what these things are. What events? What good has it brought?

You try to dissect it, and compare it to effigies of Humanism in an attempt to degrade it. And the very idea that you can compare any serious religion to the spaghetti monster shows you don't know what it's like to be Religious.

And again I will ask you, HOW is the FSM different from your god? You arent giving any response to anything. You haven't laid down a single shred of support for all of the claims you are making. For example, your reply should be "The FSM is inferior to my god because _____" where you then cite evidence to support your claim.

The clincher is, you don't even have to be religious to know how they feel, surprisingly. If you can show me you do know, (based upon your replies/arguments) I'll eat my words, every last morsel.

Again I must either be illiterate or you have made some type of writing error. Don't understand what you are even trying to get at here.

 

 

One concerns the "how" factor, and the other concerns the "why" factor. You have science to explain how the world works, you have religion/philosophy to explain what you should do.

Anything from religious books that concern 'how' is a glimpse into a time before we knew how it all started, and if you look at it without that in mind of course you aren't going to appreciate it. remember that the source text could be thousands of years old.

Likewise, science shouldn't be saying "why", because that idea is inherently unscientific.

 

1. It is absolutely insulting to use "religion/philosophy" with a slash together like that. They are not even remotely the same thing.

 

2. Who says we need somebody to create these answers to "why" questions? Why cant everyone just answer their own "why" questions?

 

I will not post what my reasons are, as I'm not one to waste my time for no reason. You will invalidate my reasons, my beliefs, banish them from your mind simply because you're not here to accept what I believe. That's completely understandable, however, you're not here either to even consider them. You're here to attempt to secure your rung on the ever crumbling E-volutionary ladder. c wat i did thar? no? Shame.

 

I once saw a quote on Zybez, which has become my favorite ever. No doubt some famous philosopher wrote it, since I doubt that poster thought it up.

 

"Someone with intelligence, is someone who believes what your believe, and agrees with what you agree.

Someone with genius, is someone who has said something you've yet to say. " (Which can be also interpreted as thinking something you've yet to think)

 

And that is how the major part of this forum operates. As long as we believe what you believe, we are logical, rational, intelligent people. But if we dare have differing opinions, we are thrown from the top of your ivory towers, to rot in the cesspool decaying grave, where all who are irrational, illogical, and unintelligent blissfully rot. Let's not argue the dynamics such as God has nothing to do with Logic, and depending on how you come to acknowledge the existence of God, it can perfectly logical. Wait, what am I saying...? WHAT WAIT AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

Splat.

 

*sigh*

 

Oh well, being logical was fun while it lasted.

@ Weapon

You don't see the contradiction in it? You say without a hint of irony that every theist is discriminatory.

I think perhaps we are disagreeing on the linguistic use of the word "discrimination"? What I mean is that it is unfair for a theist to say that the muslim god exists, but the Greek gods do no exist. Why should anyone assume that one particular religion is correct? They all have the same ammount of evidence

You say that the FSM cannot be used to disprove faith while using it to do just that,

Again, the fsm does not disprove the notion of faith, it disproves the idea that one should believe in any one particular idea that has no evidence. For instance, if someone prays to a certain god, the FSM can be used to suggest that that person is being awfully close minded, because the FSM is equally as probable of a god. The very point is that we cannot disprove the existence of FSM. The point is that he is equally as likely as any other god, and the "theory" deserves equal respect

in a way that's condescending to anyone that dares disagree with your logical view of the universe.

It is not MY logical view of the universe, it is the view that anyone would have if they look at the proof and evidence.

And you're portraying yourself as a highly logical individual who values facts and evidence, while making it clear that you have no idea what the other side really believes.

They believe in some type of magical/supernatural being that has either created something or influences daily events or protects them. This being has no evidence to support its existence, and thus the religious people must have faith in it. Correct?

I think perhaps we are disagreeing on the linguistic use of the word "discrimination"? What I mean is that it is unfair for a theist to say that the muslim god exists, but the Greek gods do no exist. Why should anyone assume that one particular religion is correct? They all have the same ammount of evidence

For that definition, you're right. Again, I've always thought of it as different societies giving names and values to the same concept.

 

Again, the fsm does not disprove the notion of faith, it disproves the idea that one should believe in any one particular idea that has no evidence. For instance, if someone prays to a certain god, the FSM can be used to suggest that that person is being awfully close minded, because the FSM is equally as probable of a god. The very point is that we cannot disprove the existence of FSM. The point is that he is equally as likely as any other god, and the "theory" deserves equal respect

The concept of faith is an idea that an individual believes in so strongly that he or she does not need evidence. In saying that all ideas require evidence to be correct, you are acknowledging that the idea of 'faith' is inherently wrong.

 

It is not MY logical view of the universe, it is the view that anyone would have if they look at the proof and evidence.

I've been looking at the same evidence, and I cane up with a different conclusion.

 

They believe in some type of magical/supernatural being that has either created something or influences daily events or protects them. This being has no evidence to support its existence, and thus the religious people must have faith in it. Correct?

If you're willing to look at the broadest possible definition, yes. Unfortunately, nothing is that simple.

If we look at the example that started me on that little tangent, it would be where Buddha was put in the same category as a creator god, where Buddhism acknowledges its founder as a mortal man, and where for the most part the religion is atheistic.

Zeus was the second example, where in Greek mythology he does not show up as a creator because he was born to beings that existed long before him. I don't know the details of them, however.

That is what I was talking about. You're free to have your opinions, but if you're going to talk about other religions, at least be sure that you know about them first.

The concept of faith is an idea that an individual believes in so strongly that he or she does not need evidence. In saying that all ideas require evidence to be correct, you are acknowledging that the idea of 'faith' is inherently wrong.

I merely want people to admit that things that EXIST must have evidence of their existence. If somebody wants to "believe" in a "god" that guides their personal morals then I do not have a problem with that. However, there is a large problem with people being allowed to have a faith about something that is of a physical nature. You can't just jump off a cliff and believe that gravity won't pull you down. There are certain things that can be correct without physical evidence. However, nothing can be real (in the sense that it is a physical object somewhere) without physical evidence.

 

I've been looking at the same evidence, and I cane up with a different conclusion.

Then you either looked at the wrong evidence or used flawed logic. Also, the evidence IS THERE. You can at least look at it and interpret it. If you look at a fossil, you will see the same fossil that everyone else does. Many people cite "religious visions" as evidence for god, but nobody has any way of verifying that this evidence ever existed. You can see the evidence that supports my argument, but I can't see yours.

If you're willing to look at the broadest possible definition, yes. Unfortunately, nothing is that simple.

If we look at the example that started me on that little tangent, it would be where Buddha was put in the same category as a creator god, where Buddhism acknowledges its founder as a mortal man, and where for the most part the religion is atheistic.

Zeus was the second example, where in Greek mythology he does not show up as a creator because he was born to beings that existed long before him. I don't know the details of them, however.

That is what I was talking about. You're free to have your opinions, but if you're going to talk about other religions, at least be sure that you know about them first.

I didnt say that the religion corresponded with the particular theory. I was suggesting random mythical beings as being the creator of the universe, because they are all equally as likely. Regardless of what the specific mythologies might have to say. Those were the ones that came to mind.

Just incase you didn't see it the first time.

 

 

Ok: In the first quote I was while making a joke, also saying in Genesis the 7 day week of creation explains the creation of the world via the Big Bang theory. Almost exactly. So I was implying they just stole the idea of the big bang/evolution from the bible.

If you think the genesis story has any similarity at all to the idea of the big bang, you either are unfamiliar with the genesis story or the big bang theory. Genesis does not explain the nuclear reactions that form stars, it does not describe galaxies of stars, it does not include anything about life originating on earth in microbial form. Etc etc...

On the 2nd part:

When I say appreciate, I don't mean appreciate in the sense of being thankful. But in the sense of... I guess you could say understanding Religion's place in the world, both good and bad of it. Your take on it seems very one sided, which is why I say you don't fully understand it. Religion has brought so much good into the world, and you don't even care.

And I have repeatedly tried to ask you what these things are. What events? What good has it brought?

You try to dissect it, and compare it to effigies of Humanism in an attempt to degrade it. And the very idea that you can compare any serious religion to the spaghetti monster shows you don't know what it's like to be Religious.

And again I will ask you, HOW is the FSM different from your god? You arent giving any response to anything. You haven't laid down a single shred of support for all of the claims you are making. For example, your reply should be "The FSM is inferior to my god because _____" where you then cite evidence to support your claim.

The clincher is, you don't even have to be religious to know how they feel, surprisingly. If you can show me you do know, (based upon your replies/arguments) I'll eat my words, every last morsel.

Again I must either be illiterate or you have made some type of writing error. Don't understand what you are even trying to get at here.

 

 

One concerns the "how" factor, and the other concerns the "why" factor. You have science to explain how the world works, you have religion/philosophy to explain what you should do.

Anything from religious books that concern 'how' is a glimpse into a time before we knew how it all started, and if you look at it without that in mind of course you aren't going to appreciate it. remember that the source text could be thousands of years old.

Likewise, science shouldn't be saying "why", because that idea is inherently unscientific.

 

1. It is absolutely insulting to use "religion/philosophy" with a slash together like that. They are not even remotely the same thing.

 

2. Who says we need somebody to create these answers to "why" questions? Why cant everyone just answer their own "why" questions?

 

I will not post what my reasons are, as I'm not one to waste my time for no reason. You will invalidate my reasons, my beliefs, banish them from your mind simply because you're not here to accept what I believe. That's completely understandable, however, you're not here either to even consider them. You're here to attempt to secure your rung on the ever crumbling E-volutionary ladder. c wat i did thar? no? Shame.

 

I once saw a quote on Zybez, which has become my favorite ever. No doubt some famous philosopher wrote it, since I doubt that poster thought it up.

 

"Someone with intelligence, is someone who believes what your believe, and agrees with what you agree.

Someone with genius, is someone who has said something you've yet to say. " (Which can be also interpreted as thinking something you've yet to think)

 

And that is how the major part of this forum operates. As long as we believe what you believe, we are logical, rational, intelligent people. But if we dare have differing opinions, we are thrown from the top of your ivory towers, to rot in the cesspool decaying grave, where all who are irrational, illogical, and unintelligent blissfully rot. Let's not argue the dynamics such as God has nothing to do with Logic, and depending on how you come to acknowledge the existence of God, it can perfectly logical. Wait, what am I saying...? WHAT WAIT AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

Splat.

 

*sigh*

 

Oh well, being logical was fun while it lasted.

I merely want people to admit that things that EXIST must have evidence of their existence. If somebody wants to "believe" in a "god" that guides their personal morals then I do not have a problem with that. However, there is a large problem with people being allowed to have a faith about something that is of a physical nature. You can't just jump off a cliff and believe that gravity won't pull you down. There are certain things that can be correct without physical evidence. However, nothing can be real (in the sense that it is a physical object somewhere) without physical evidence.

I'm pretty sure that few religious people believe that their deity is a physical being that they could find if need be. The idea behind a god is that it is beyond mortal comprehension.

 

Then you either looked at the wrong evidence or used flawed logic. Also, the evidence IS THERE. You can at least look at it and interpret it. If you look at a fossil, you will see the same fossil that everyone else does. Many people cite "religious visions" as evidence for god, but nobody has any way of verifying that this evidence ever existed. You can see the evidence that supports my argument, but I can't see yours.

There we go. Was waiting for the admission where the only right belief system is the one you hold. That's what drives all of those atrocities, not the religions themselves, but the idea that the people behind them are right and their victims are wrong.

It isn't that black and white. I've studied science for years, yet on the topic of gods, I have yet to see anything conclusive from either side. Science can, and does, disprove what people thought that a god did thousands of years ago, but that's simply what people thought gods did thousands of years ago. They couldn't have known what we do now, and thousands of years in the future they're going to say the same thing about us.

 

I will not post what my reasons are, as I'm not one to waste my time for no reason. You will invalidate my reasons, my beliefs, banish them from your mind simply because you're not here to accept what I believe. That's completely understandable, however, you're not here either to even consider them. You're here to attempt to secure your rung on the ever crumbling E-volutionary ladder. c wat i did thar? no? Shame.

 

I once saw a quote on Zybez, which has become my favorite ever. No doubt some famous philosopher wrote it, since I doubt that poster thought it up.

 

"Someone with intelligence, is someone who believes what your believe, and agrees with what you agree.

Someone with genius, is someone who has said something you've yet to say. " (Which can be also interpreted as thinking something you've yet to think)

 

And that is how the major part of this forum operates. As long as we believe what you believe, we are logical, rational, intelligent people. But if we dare have differing opinions, we are thrown from the top of your ivory towers, to rot in the cesspool decaying grave, where all who are irrational, illogical, and unintelligent blissfully rot. Let's not argue the dynamics such as God has nothing to do with Logic, and depending on how you come to acknowledge the existence of God, it can perfectly logical. Wait, what am I saying...? WHAT WAIT AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

Splat.

 

*sigh*

 

Oh well, being logical was fun while it lasted.

 

No. Logic is not believing what the same crowd believes. Logic is logic. Take a class in logic, read a book in logic. A thought can be proven to be illogical or irrational. Not ALL thoughts can be proven illogical. However, "beliefs" about reality can certainly be proven to be illogical due to the fact that there is physical, real, tangible evidence that proves the contrary.

 

There are also jumps in logic. If you would tell me the support that you have for your beliefs I could describe to you exactly where the objective logical error has occurred.

 

However you take the strange, unsatisfying, easy way out and give some more BS about "oh no I wont waste my time..."

 

Well if you're not going to "waste your time" (aka, DEFENDING YOUR VIEWPOINT) then don't even bother posting anything. If youre not going to discuss a topic then don't even post in a discussion board. Or if you arent planning on discussing something you should preface your post by saying: "I do not plan on elaborating on any of my viewpoints"

 

That way, every sane person could just skip your ramblings since there is nothing to discuss, since you refuse to discuss it.

Wow how'd you figure me out.

 

I'm pretty sure that few religious people believe that their deity is a physical being that they could find if need be. The idea behind a god is that it is beyond mortal comprehension.

If he is beyond mortal comprehension then why would we waste our time speaking with him? What is the point of prayer, then? You can't possibly comprehend how he will repond.

 

There we go. Was waiting for the admission where the only right belief system is the one you hold. That's what drives all of those atrocities, not the religions themselves, but the idea that the people behind them are right and their victims are wrong.

Again, science is not a belief system. I do not hold beliefs or faiths. I see things that occur in the world, and I live my life based on facts that things exist or do not exist.

It isn't that black and white. I've studied science for years, yet on the topic of gods, I have yet to see anything conclusive from either side.

Can you show me conclusive evidence that the world isn't going to explode tomorrow? Can you show me conclusive evidence that an invisible asteroid is not on its way to earth? Just because something has not been disproven does not mean that it would be equally logical to live your life on the presumption that it could be correct. There are an infinite number of things that could be happening right now that cannot be proven. We cannot prove that an invisible asteroid will not hit new york city in 12 hours. Should we start evacuating? We also cannot disprove god, and that also is not a reason to assume that he exists.

 

Science can, and does, disprove what people thought that a god did thousands of years ago, but that's simply what people thought gods did thousands of years ago. They couldn't have known what we do now, and thousands of years in the future they're going to say the same thing about us.

 

So you're saying that everything people dont know about the world should just be substituted by "god" until we know how they work? What does that accomplish?

If he is beyond mortal comprehension then why would we waste our time speaking with him? What is the point of prayer, then? You can't possibly comprehend how he will repond.

That's something you ask someone who believes that you can communicate with a god.

 

Again, science is not a belief system. I do not hold beliefs or faiths. I see things that occur in the world, and I live my life based on facts that things exist or do not exist.

And that's good for you. It still doesn't change the fact that you think that it is the only correct conclusion, if anything it clarifies it further. That's what I was saying. And the belief that only your beliefs are correct has led to many more problems than the belief in a sky wizard.

 

Can you show me conclusive evidence that the world isn't going to explode tomorrow? Can you show me conclusive evidence that an invisible asteroid is not on its way to earth? Just because something has not been disproven does not mean that it would be equally logical to live your life on the presumption that it could be correct. There are an infinite number of things that could be happening right now that cannot be proven. We cannot prove that an invisible asteroid will not hit new york city in 12 hours. Should we start evacuating? We also cannot disprove god, and that also is not a reason to assume that he exists.

And your point here is that your beliefs are restricted to things that can be proven to exist. Which is what you've been saying this whole time.

 

So you're saying that everything people dont know about the world should just be substituted by "god" until we know how they work? What does that accomplish?

No, I'm saying that's what did happen in the past. That's why we have religions. Because not everyone is like you, for better or worse.

 

And that's good for you. It still doesn't change the fact that you think that it is the only correct conclusion, if anything it clarifies it further. That's what I was saying. And the belief that only your beliefs are correct has led to many more problems than the belief in a sky wizard.

But there is nothing special about my beliefs. I would not hold onto what I think is true. I would not be an evolutionist if there were compelling evidence that ended up disproving evolution. If there was compelling evidence of a god, for instance him coming out of the sky and talking to us and openly communicating with us throughout history, I would not deny him. I would want to study his existance. The problem is with people who believe that a certain theory is correct and will always be correct despite whatever evidence there ever will be.

 

No, I'm saying that's what did happen in the past. That's why we have religions. Because not everyone is like you, for better or worse.

 

Okay and those people in the past were obviously wrong. I dont see where this is going

 

I will not post what my reasons are, as I'm not one to waste my time for no reason. You will invalidate my reasons, my beliefs, banish them from your mind simply because you're not here to accept what I believe. That's completely understandable, however, you're not here either to even consider them. You're here to attempt to secure your rung on the ever crumbling E-volutionary ladder. c wat i did thar? no? Shame.

 

I once saw a quote on Zybez, which has become my favorite ever. No doubt some famous philosopher wrote it, since I doubt that poster thought it up.

 

"Someone with intelligence, is someone who believes what your believe, and agrees with what you agree.

Someone with genius, is someone who has said something you've yet to say. " (Which can be also interpreted as thinking something you've yet to think)

 

And that is how the major part of this forum operates. As long as we believe what you believe, we are logical, rational, intelligent people. But if we dare have differing opinions, we are thrown from the top of your ivory towers, to rot in the cesspool decaying grave, where all who are irrational, illogical, and unintelligent blissfully rot. Let's not argue the dynamics such as God has nothing to do with Logic, and depending on how you come to acknowledge the existence of God, it can perfectly logical. Wait, what am I saying...? WHAT WAIT AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

Splat.

 

*sigh*

 

Oh well, being logical was fun while it lasted.

 

No. Logic is not believing what the same crowd believes. Logic is logic. Take a class in logic, read a book in logic. A thought can be proven to be illogical or irrational. Not ALL thoughts can be proven illogical. However, "beliefs" about reality can certainly be proven to be illogical due to the fact that there is physical, real, tangible evidence that proves the contrary.

 

There are also jumps in logic. If you would tell me the support that you have for your beliefs I could describe to you exactly where the objective logical error has occurred.

 

However you take the strange, unsatisfying, easy way out and give some more BS about "oh no I wont waste my time..."

 

Well if you're not going to "waste your time" (aka, DEFENDING YOUR VIEWPOINT) then don't even bother posting anything. If youre not going to discuss a topic then don't even post in a discussion board. Or if you arent planning on discussing something you should preface your post by saying: "I do not plan on elaborating on any of my viewpoints"

 

That way, every sane person could just skip your ramblings since there is nothing to discuss, since you refuse to discuss it.

 

Ok I'll take the bait.

 

You clearly cannot comprehend the post (and I say *you* because a few people have pm'd me in game saying they understood it.), I said that you believe, (which you do) that only your way is the way. Proof right here: "I could describe to you exactly where the objective logical error has occurred." You've already come to the conclusion my belief's are illogical, without even truly knowing what they are. So why should I trust my your decisions? Why should I even try to defend something, when I don't even know what I'm defending them against. I never said I wasn't against discussing, I love discussing. However, I am against telling. You telling me this, and that. It's not debating, it's fighting.

 

If you would have a more open mind, I'd gladly post my beliefs.