My title says it all.No one knows what the fuck is up there.Be like me.An agnostic I dont know kinda guy.Atleast all give all religions that much instead of saying I dont believe.So Ill be square with all the gods and fucked up religions like christianity.I definately though dont believe in the christian god.That seems fucking impossible and exagerated.The story was probably Mary had sex and didnt tell anyone in the fear she

would be stones like I am right now.She gave birth to some fucking con artist called christ.He was crucified for his crime and the disciples were in so much shock that they went senial and saw hallucinations of christ.Thats the end of the story.Period

Shut up. Period.

quote:Originally posted by AmericanJap89:

My title says it all.No one knows what the fuck is up there.

But some people would like to find out.

Is it just me or is Iscariot a hypocritical bastard.He defends christianity yet he uses the last name of the man who turned in christ.Anybody else see something wrong with this picture.So to Iscariot fuck you.

To Tiger,I agree I cant wait to die and find the winning religion. I have 20 dollars on hinduism.If thats correct ill come back as a squirel(I know its not spelled right)and bite Iscariots ass and rip the motherfuckers tongue out after I magle his testacles and take out his eyes with a tootpick.Period. Iscariot must be on his.

Since every culture found any kind of religion, mostly to explain natural phenomenoms they couldnt explain, i am starting to think if in our age of science religions isnt needed anymore...... but u are a lame sucker anyway

Granted, the bible is myth. Anyone with two brian cells to rub together should be able to figure that out. It does not follow, however, that god is mythical.

There are many of us who know "for sure whats up" with god. The term for us is gnostic.

Well the "gnosis" is an ancient dogma from the middle East, that turned into "catharrism" in France, and was repressed by catholic church as heretical.

But ethymologically it means "knowledge" so the word is good if it doesn't refer to its historical meaning.

Agnostic means what you mean by gnostic: one who believes in a creative power but doesn't dare to put a label on it. In opposition to "gnostic", the dogma-based knowledge of god.

Fuck the hypocrits, miscarryot and such leeches who probably know how to be more boring to God than atheists.

Iscariot don't be so rude, this forum of all places should uphold a certain sense of civility, (eh, eh, ain't I classy). Anyway, I personally am agnostic, I see alot of proof that there is a power behind the movements and patterns in the universe. I can't claim to know any specifics though, cause I'd probably be lying. I guess the point is, although I find theology interesting I'm just concerned with living my life. If there is an afterlife well then I'll just have to wait. And fuck, If I end up in hell for not beleiving in a specific god, then not much is right with existence anyway, am I right, or am I right?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

There are many of us who know "for sure whats up" with god. The term for us is

gnostic.

So you have seen god.You have had a actually physical conversation.I mean since you know "for sure whats up" with god you must have talked and seen him right.Im sure you have.

Shut the hell up.You fucking cristians have no fucking idead.Anything that happens thats good its a miracle.Anything bad its the work of satan.The only reason theres so many christians is all the great kingdoms chose it.France(Charlemange),Byzantium(Justinan), and England(Alfred The Great) are only a few examples of kings who chose christianity as the ONLY RELIGION IN THEIR KINGDOM.So all these people were maid to be christian and their children were maid to be christian and their children were maid to be christian but somewhere along the way they start wanting christianity so from then on millions were dedicated christians.Then came the inquisitions and more people were maid to be christians.Here we are today with fucking hypocrites.

quote:Originally posted by AmericanJap89:

Here we are today with fucking hypocrites.

And you are? I find it far-fetched for anyone to call others hyporicts without being hypocrits themselves. Arms didn't even make reference to being christian, You just seem to have some personal vendetta. Furthermore you don't give indication to what you believe, rather what you don't believe. Could it be you're covering yourself from others making the same "HYPOCRITE!" response to you.

I assume gnosis (the concept not the history) is similar to enlightenment. It feels good to have a feeling of being graced with something larger then yourself, larger then anything your mind could have previously concieved.

Perhaps it's a bit arrogant to claim that you know the score, but it feels good, it can do good as long as you try to inspire rather then force or be condescending, and it's for damn sure better then wishy-washy "I'll never know so I'll never try" agnostic attitude.

The fact that there is no proof of God is reason enough to be atheist. There's no proof of fairies, but people don't generally believe in them. If you want to make me believe in God, it's your job to prove him. If you don't do that, then there's no reason to believe in him.

quote:Originally posted by Inebriateddonkey:

The fact that there is no proof of God is reason enough to be atheist. There's no proof of fairies, but people don't generally believe in them. If you want to make me believe in God, it's your job to prove him. If you don't do that, then there's no reason to believe in him.

It seems all to simple until a theist tries to understand it. What's the deal with that?

By scientific law, one assumes there is a cause, just as in the world there is a cause for every effect.

By the same law if there is no proof against a logical hypothesis, it is assumed by the sanity of its logic vs. the insanity of the opposite proposition.

Here the logic is, according to general law, there must be a cause of all causes.

I hate to say it since in the USA belief in God can be misinterpreted as belief in christian stupid heretic dogma. But hey it's true, there is a good chance that a God made us.

Then we shouldn't try to blame on God all human sins and atrocities, but change ourselves to improve what we dislike in God's creation.

And being that the greatest enemy of God is organized religion, then we'd better be agnostics.

quote:Originally posted by UrbnTbone:

Here the logic is, according to general law, there must be a cause of all causes.

No. Wrong. Not everything is an effect. The universe itself is not an effect.

'yeah but my god said that if i don't believe in him, he'll send me to a horrible place where a scarey monster will hurt me'

Fuck that!



Believe dude, believe

Believe and then find out what it is you believe in.

for instance

I believed that God was the consciousness behind all that exists.

After months of deep deep thinking, it turns out i was right.

It wasn't a drug indiced revelation, was it?

You know how many times the secret of the universe has been conclusively solved on shrooms, only to be forgotten when the effect wear off http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)?

If you proved it to yourself, then you should be able to prove it to everybody else using that same criteria, right? I'm sure you thought it through, checked it's validity, the logic, and rationale, worked out any discernable counterpoints to it, tested the hypothesys, and came to a definitive conclusion, right?

"The fact that there is no proof of God is reason enough to be atheist. There's no proof of fairies, but people don't generally believe in them. If you want to make me believe in God, it's your job to prove him. If you don't do that, then there's no reason to believe in him."

------------------------------------

The fact that there is no proof of the non-existance of God, is reason enough to be a theist. There's no proof of the infinity of the universe, but people generally believe in it. If you want to make me, not believe in God, it's your job to prove his non-existence. If you don't do that, then there's no reason not to believe in him.

It seems all to simple until an atheist tries to understand it. What's the deal with that?



If you ask a theist to prove the existence of God, the burden of proof is on him.

If you ask an atheist to prove the non-existence of God, the burden of proof is on him.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

If you proved it to yourself, then you should be able to prove it to everybody else using that same criteria, right? I'm sure you thought it through, checked it's validity, the logic, and rationale, worked out any discernable counterpoints to it, tested the hypothesys, and came to a definitive conclusion, right?



Sure did. But since Language has many limitations, it's impossible to prove it to someone else, but you can help them on the right path to proving for themselves.

It's impossible to acurately communicate most of your thoughts through spoken laguage without the other person misunderstanding to a degree.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If you ask a theist to prove the existence of God, the burden of proof is on him.

If you ask an atheist to prove the non-existence of God, the burden of proof is on him.



I like

quote:Originally posted by AmericanJap89:

So all these people were maid to be christian and their children were maid to be christian and their children were maid to be christian but somewhere along the way they start wanting christianity so from then on millions were dedicated christians.Then came the inquisitions and more people were maid to be christians.

How about their maids?

Christianity does not have a monopoly on the word 'god'

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

Perhaps it's a bit arrogant to claim that you know the score, but it feels good, it can do good as long as you try to inspire rather then force or be condescending, and it's for damn sure better then wishy-washy "I'll never know so I'll never try" agnostic attitude.

Just a bit arrogant?

And what's so wishy-washy about forming an opinion and sticking with it?

If I were to come across anything convincing enough to make me believe/disbelieve in a god, then I would do so. Since I haven't, I won't. What's so unreasonable about that?

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

Perhaps it's a bit arrogant to claim that you know the score, but it feels good, it can do good as long as you try to inspire rather then force or be condescending, and it's for damn sure better then wishy-washy "I'll never know so I'll never try" agnostic attitude.



I totally agree.

I sometimes wonder if im being arrogant for thinking I have life sussed.

But i truely wanna help people to understand what i know.

People sometimes say 'How do you know if you are right', well what I say to that is 'you know when you know'.



[This message has been edited by Beany (edited 05-19-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

You know how many times the secret of the universe has been conclusively solved on shrooms, only to be forgotten when the effect wear off http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)? I got the definite answer to that: shrooms are the secret of the universe http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Who says you can only worship one god,other than the christian/jewish/islamic god,I walk around with a wheel of life,a pentagram,a cross,a star of david,and a shibodune necklaces.

I dont like sticking to one god.I believe theres soemthing higher than us up there,but the question is WHAT!!!

"He touched the dead girls body and she rose up as riseing from a sleep."So what...Is jesus christ E.T. now.

I dont put any faith down on any religion but I find christianity unlikely and hypocritical.Ive heard all the storys Ive read the whole bible and to be honest the satanic bible makes a shit load more sense than that damned thing."If someone slaps you turn the other cheek."BULLSHIT!!!!If someone slaps me Ima beat the everliving shit out of them.

"Moses held up his staff and the water split into two."Do I really have to say anything.

[This message has been edited by AmericanJap89 (edited 05-20-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The fact that there is no proof of the non-existance of God, is reason enough to be a theist. There's no proof of the infinity of the universe, but people generally believe in it. If you want to make me, not believe in God, it's your job to prove his non-existence. If you don't do that, then there's no reason not to believe in him.



ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE

1) Ignorance runs rampant.

2) Therefore, God exists.

quote:

If you ask a theist to prove the existence of God, the burden of proof is on him.



Yes.

quote:

If you ask an atheist to prove the non-existence of God, the burden of proof is on him.



Yes. But since it is impossible to prove a negative, like the nonexistence of something I arbitrarily make up (which doesn't exist, yet can't be shown not to) they'll never be able to do it.

There is this interesting thing I am about to reveal called the Leibniz Principle of Sufficient Reason which states that nothing should be considered real or true or existing unless there is valid corroborative evidence to indicate so and not otherwise.

It stops having to maintain some notion that space pixies might exist because they can't be disproven and other psychodramas rather effectively.

With that in mind, what is the criteria for falsification to the proposition that God exists? In other words, if God didn't exist, how couls one show that.

Well formulated, objective statements about reality have a basis for falsification.

"If you could show _____, that would be evidence against god's existence".

If you can't fill in that blank with some criteria, then the belief that god exists seems to be without merit since no matter what submitted, you would still believe in god anyway.

So god could, in fact, not exist, and you wouldn't even know it. Since the claim "god exists" is not centered around anything concrete, testable, verifiable, tangible, "real", etc. the claim is baseless and without foundation.



[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 05-21-2003).]

"ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE

1) Ignorance runs rampant.

2) Therefore, God exists."



First of all I want to make it clear that, that's not my point of view, I just took what Inebriateddonkey said, filled in the blanks, to show that an argument can be constructed against him, by using his own words.



"But since it is impossible to prove a negative, like the non-existence of something I arbitrarily make up (which doesn't exist, yet can't be shown not to) they'll never be able to do it."

If that word choice is too negative for you, use this one:

Disprove the existence of God.

Before you say that you can prove it with

"The Principle of Sufficient Reason", take in consideration that Leibniz himself believed in God.

"According to Leibniz, the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) tells us that there is a sufficient reason why something is so and not otherwise. Reasons can be sought for any contingent event in previous states of the world, but the reason for the existence of the whole chain of events, of the world itself, can only be found in something that exists outside the world, in something whose essence contains existence, which is God."

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



If that word choice is too negative for you, use this one:



Disprove the existence of God.



You can't disprove something that had no proof to begin with. There is no proof to dispell.

First we have to determine that a god exists, which has yet to be done, then we have to determine which god it is and define it.

quote:

Reasons can be sought for any contingent event in previous states of the world, but the reason for the existence of the whole chain of events, of the world itself, can only be found in something that exists outside the world, in something whose essence contains existence,



This statement is completely speculative and assertive. First of all, what is meant by "reason" for existence and why can it only be found in something that exists outside the world?

quote:

which is God.



Which begs the question with a vague undefined reference to a theoretical godforce and fails to answer anything at all.





[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 05-21-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by AmericanJap89:

Who says you can only worship one god,other than the christian/jewish/islamic god,I walk around with a wheel of life,a pentagram,a cross,a star of david,and a shibodune necklaces. Right on. quote:

I dont like sticking to one god.I believe theres soemthing higher than us up there,but the question is WHAT!!!I also believe there is, and every real tradition has some clue of it, but not necessarily all of it. So every human should design their own religion according to the best patchwork suiting their soul root. quote:

"If someone slaps you turn the other cheek."BULLSHIT!!!!If someone slaps me Ima beat the everliving shit out of them. Granted! But maybe for an individual giving the other cheek is the right path. If they had an evil karma to atone for or some other shit. But not me! quote:

"Moses held up his staff and the water split into two."Do I really have to say anything.

No, but you could learn about the 72 names which were engraved on his staff, and are still considered 3000+ years later, as a major tool by various schools of metaphysics.

"You can't disprove something that had no proof to begin with. There is no proof to dispell."

Ok try this:

God doesn't exist.

Prove it or disprove it.

Same shit.

"This statement is completely speculative and assertive. First of all, what is meant by "reason" for existence and why can it only be found in something that exists outside the world?"

First of all, you quote Leibniz, yet you dont agree with him? The quote that I posted (it was a quote, not something I said) talks about "On the Ultimate Origination of Things" Leibniz's essay on his beliefs. He believes in God.

The very same man you quote on the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Leibniz was really on to something with that principle. It's too bad he didn't practice what he preached though.

Blaise Pascal's findings are used in everyday mathematics to this day, but that speaks nothing of his religious beliefs and wager that subsequently followed.

Do you really think that Leibniz the creator of the "Leibniz Principle of Sufficient Reason" didn't think about God when he created it. Of all things, he forgot to practice it on his belief of God?

He had his reasons for believing in God.

People don’t get that proof of the existence of God is relative. For me it could be some "miracle" or unexplained phenomena.

For others it could be something else.

It just has to be something that proves to you there is a God, not to "them".

"Blaise Pascal's findings are used in everyday mathematics to this day, but that speaks nothing of his religious beliefs and wager that subsequently followed."

His wager had little to do with mathematics and more to do with faith, logic, and HIS beliefs.

You may think I’m just a raving theist, just blinding believing in God, but I’m more like you: not and atheist, just really, really sceptical; I’m just leaning to a different side...

Why do people need to discuss on God's existence from an outsider perspective?

No proof is transmissible, so it's a matter of personal choice.

Either you consider the God hypothesis as never disproved, yet unproved, and you bet.

Or you have reliable enough experience to start a personalrelationship with the idea of God, and how God would relate to you and you to God. I'm serious: if you had 50% chances to have an unknown uncle, very rich and famous let's say, wouldn't you imagine and prepare and try to reach the uncle?

If you would write letters for him, nobody could say you are acting unrational, since such an important relative is worth the practical hypothesis.

quote:Originally posted by UrbnTbone:

No proof is transmissible, so it's a matter of personal choice.

Why would a person believe in something that had no proof? If someone were to do that, and they weren't applying selective biased reasoning (and therefore appied the resoning equally to other claims as well), they would have to use the same criteria for every unproveable claim and thusly, they would believe anything unfalsifiable that you tell them. Like "Give me all your mony and you'll go to heaven".

quote:

I'm serious: if you had 50% chances to have an unknown uncle, very rich and famous let's say, wouldn't you imagine and prepare and try to reach the uncle?



I hope your not suggesting what I think you are, because pascal's sucker bet (http://www.jhuger.com/pascal.mv) logic isn't going to convince anyone with half a brain.

The chance of any specific god factually existing is *statistically* impossible since there are an infinite number of possible gods.

quote:

If you would write letters for him, nobody could say you are acting unrational, since such an important relative is worth the practical hypothesis.

But when you keep sending letter after letter after letter, is it safe to assume that this unknown relative doesn't exist? What if you attempt to call them or visit them and they never produce themselvs? How would you know if the person was hiding for some stupid reason or didn't exist to begin with?

For the record, I'm not atheist. I'm just really really really really really skeptical of the existence of gods.

Every god lacks what every god has never had: Proof. For an all-powerful being, you would think this would be the simplest of tasks to perform. I find it ridiculous to think that a deity can create a physical world, but is incapable of generating physical proof.

I'll only believe something if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt since I apply logic equally to all claims. If there is no proof for it, then there is no reason to believe it as well.

It keeps things rather simple and uncomplicated. If something comes along one day, great. If not, oh well.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 05-23-2003).]

"The chance of any specific god factually existing is *statistically* impossible since there are an infinite number of possible gods."

You are wrong.

Yes there are infinite possible gods.

But in that realm of "possible gods" there are "wrong" ones and "right" ones.

There are an infinite number of "wrong" gods and "right" ones.

You could argue that your chances of choosing the "right" god are infinitely small or infinitely great.

Even if your chances were infinitely small, you would still have a chance to choose the "right" god. Not believing yields no chance at all.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Even if your chances were infinitely small, you would still have a chance to choose the "right" god. Not believing yields no chance at all.

There are an infinite number of possible gods that would only grant atheists entrance to heaven because he respects skepticism and free thought. So, pascal's wager is still bullshit.

The journey of a soul is to find out what god is.

So no-one really knows yet, but we all will at some point.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

But when you keep sending letter after letter after letter, is it safe to assume that this unknown relative doesn't exist? What if you attempt to call them or visit them and they never produce themselvs? How would you know if the person was hiding for some stupid reason or didn't exist to begin with? So, then you come up to the thread's title: agnostic. quote:

For the record, I'm not atheist. I'm just really really really really really skeptical of the existence of gods. Kewl, why not?

[/B][/QUOTE]

Every god lacks what every god has never had: Proof. For an all-powerful being, you would think this would be the simplest of tasks to perform. I find it ridiculous to think that a deity can create a physical world, but is incapable of generating physical proof.[/B][/QUOTE] Well they came up with the postulate of "free-will", in order that you will pass your karma tests in a neutral environment and reveal your true nature to a situation, the higher reality is kept veiled from you, if not you would have no merit behaving well.

quote:

I'll only believe something if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt since I apply logic equally to all claims. If there is no proof for it, then there is no reason to believe it as well.

OK, but to the same extent, none ever proved this reality is 'the' reality, maybe it is depending on some other root dimension, wether you call it God or whatever concept.

One can safely assume there are as many chances for, than against, some "higher reality" hypothesis.

As of why such a god and not another, this is not the topic here. Agnostic means being at peace with the idea of 'some' higher realm.

quote:Originally posted by UrbnTbone:



Well they came up with the postulate of "free-will", in order that you will pass your karma tests in a neutral environment and reveal your true nature to a situation, the higher reality is kept veiled from you, if not you would have no merit behaving well.



So free will can only exist on an environment where we are ignorant of gods existence? Doesn't that kind of deal a critical blow to popular notions of free will in an afterlife where gods presence is known?

quote:

OK, but to the same extent, none ever proved this reality is 'the' reality, maybe it is depending on some other root dimension, wether you call it God or whatever concept.



Yeah. And maybe it's all just a dream/we are coma patience in a hospital ward/ ad infinitum. I never did like solipsism myself. If anything comes along to demonstrate that we don't exist in reality here, I'll have to seriously consider it. Until then, such notions are only mental masturbation excercises.

I can accept "some" form of higher "something" may exist, but when people start defining, manufacturing, packaging, and labeling belief systems for mass consumption, hook, line, and sinker, a "few discrepancies" to say the least arise reflective of the era it was designed in .

T"here are an infinite number of possible gods that would only grant atheists entrance to heaven because he respects skepticism and free thought. So, pascal's wager is still bullshit."

A theist can still be skeptical, and a theist can still have "free thought" thus, they win as well.

Skepticism is doubt, and an atheist does not doubt. He does not believe in or denies the existence of a God.

"Yeah. And maybe it's all just a dream/we are coma patience in a hospital ward/ ad infinitum. I never did like solipsism myself. If anything comes along to demonstrate that we don't exist in reality here, I'll have to seriously consider it. Until then, such notions are only mental masturbation excercises."

Tell that to Descartes.

Plus, you can't demostrate you dont't exist:

"Cogito ergo sum"

Noone can demonstrate that they don't exist because they would have to exist to demonstrate it.

That's one thing I never got about nihilism. Even being able to incorporate a nihilistic worldview requires that the person be exposed to the view, consider it, and choose to accept it.

If nothing existed, the idea of nihilism itself wouldn't be possible.

"Noone can demonstrate that they don't exist because they would have to exist to demonstrate it."

I agree 100%, thats why I said: "Cogito ergo sum", I think, therefore I am.

But, you can't demostrate without reasonable doubt that everything else does exist, thats what Descartes said.

Well, the brain works by incorporating external data and rearranging it. Everything you have ever thought of or concieved is something you have been exposed to or otherwise recieved sensory input of previously in some form.

If there really was nothing other than the human mind, it would be like a computer which could only keep the system running and do nothing else. You would be incapable of thought.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 05-24-2003).]

"Well, the brain works by incorporating external data and rearranging it. Everything you have ever thought of or concieved is something you have been exposed to or otherwise recieved sensory input of previously in some form."

Existing has nothing to do with the brain. How do you know that the brain is what makes you think, and not some type of consciousness?

Even so, your mind, can create impulses of its own, which do not come from the senses, or anything real for that mater.

"If there really was nothing other than the human mind, it would be like a computer which could only keep the system running and do nothing else. You would be incapable of thought."



Have you read Rene Descartes?

He is known for doubting "everything", that’s how he discovered the Cogito (Cogito ergo Sum). The only thing you cannot doubt. The Cogito remains one of the most important discoveries of Western Philosophy.

Lets put it this way, you could be fooled to believe that you have (don’t have) legs or that you are (aren't) touching something, but you cannot be fooled about your existence.

That's why I employ a good ol' fashioned Occam's razor.

Cuts out all that shit.

Well if you think what he said is shit, then you might as well think all Philosophy is shit, after all he is the father of Modern Philosophy, and his discovery of the Cogito marked the end of Scholasticism and the start of Modern Philosophy.



Also why use this fictitious razor, when you can use a witty remark?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Well if you think what he said is shit,



It was a figure of speech. I was referring to excess. The simplest explanation is that we have legs in that scenario. Sure, they could all be products of some highly sophisticated virtual reality dreamworld, but lets not get caught up in ad-hoc rationalizations and use the simple naturalistic ones first, working our way up.

quote:

...then you might as well think all Philosophy is shit, after all he is the father of Modern Philosophy, and his discovery of the Cogito marked the end of Scholasticism and the start of Modern Philosophy.



I like philosophy from a theoretical standpoint, but when it comes to real-world application, a lot of it doesn't fare too well.



[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 05-27-2003).]

"The simplest explanation is that we have legs in that scenario"

Following this point of view, then believing in God is the simplest explanation. Seeing as evolution, the big bang, and Science it self, is very complex.

Simple is relative, what's simple to you is complex so someone else.

Even so, why is it more simplistic, because you THINK you were born with legs? Because you THINK you even have legs?

Some people THINK there is a God, so there must be one.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

"The simplest explanation is that we have legs in that scenario"

Following this point of view, then believing in God is the simplest explanation. Seeing as evolution, the big bang, and Science it self, is very complex.



That's rather inconsistent. That follows along the line of "The universe had to have had a creator because it is so complex. God, however, has always existed.". Wouldn't God, being even more complex than the universe, need a designer as well?

Even simpler, one could cut the fat like so:

http://www.boomspeed.com/dark_magneto/orazor.gif (http://www.boomspeed.com/dark_magneto/orazor.gif)

quote:

Some people THINK there is a God, so there must be one.

http://www.boomspeed.com/dark_magneto/donut.JPG (http://www.boomspeed.com/dark_magneto/donut.JPG)



[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 05-29-2003).]

"That's rather inconsistent. That follows along the line of "The universe had to have had a creator because it is so complex. God, however, has always existed.". Wouldn't God, being even more complex than the universe, need a designer as well"

Dark_Magneto...

1. Those are not my beliefs.

2. My point was, that is rather stupid to believe something is true because it is the simplest answer. Something you tried to do when explaining that having legs would be the best answer. And I quote YOU:

"The simplest explanation is that we have legs in that scenario. Sure, they could all be products of some highly sophisticated virtual reality dreamworld, but lets not get caught up in ad-hoc rationalizations and use the simple naturalistic ones first,"

3. Wouldn't it be simple to believe that God has always been, and always will be and that he exists? Than to believe that the Big Bang happened, then evolution, etc.

Again, I’m just showing how wrong your argument was.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Wouldn't it be simple to believe that God has always been, and always will be and that he exists? Than to believe that the Big Bang happened, then evolution, etc.



Actually, even simpler than that, one could resort to the steady-state universe scenario and say the universe has always been.

Occam's razor is a logical principle. The jist of it is, you work from the simplest hypothesys, and work your way up from there.

"Goddidit", being an untestable assertion, and incapable of validation or falsification, will not suffice in the scientific community to say the least.

"Actually, even simpler than that, one could resort to the steady-state universe scenario and say the universe has always been."

Wow even more simpler? Too bad I just proved that believing something was true because it was simple was stupid. Something you did a few posts ago...

""Goddidit", being an untestable assertion, and incapable of validation or falsification, will not suffice in the scientific community to say the least."

'The universe has always been', being an untestable assertion and incapable of validation or falsification, will not suffice in the scientific community to say the least.

Same thing.



"Occam's razor is a logical principle."

-------------------

John is a great guy.

He is not a faggot.

-------------------

Now magicaly with "Occams razor" bullshit, we have:

----------------------

John is a great faggot.

----------------------

Wow ! ... I fail to see how it is a logical principle.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



'The universe has always been', being an untestable assertion and incapable of validation or falsification, will not suffice in the scientific community to say the least.

Same thing.



Yeah, that's why it was abandoned as a credible theory a long time ago.

Well if science ever manages to locate the centre of the universe, some people will be surprised to learn they're not it.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

"Occam's razor is a logical principle."

-------------------

John is a great guy.

He is not a faggot.

-------------------

Now magicaly with "Occams razor" bullshit, we have:

----------------------

John is a great faggot.

----------------------

Wow ! ... I fail to see how it is a logical principle.

It would help if youknew what it was...

Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=occam%27s+razor) is a miracle worker!

"It would help if you knew what it was..."

'when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better.'



Ok let’s go back to my example, the one Iod couldn't understand.

----------------------

John is a great friend.

He is not a faggot.

----------------------

----------------------

John is a great friend.

He is superman.

----------------------

Both say the same thing, "he is a great friend"

Now the problems arise. Which is simpler? Simple is relative, who dictates which of those 2 theories is the simplest?

If you choose the 1st one as the simplest, then how do would you know if he is a faggot or not?

If you choose the second one as the simplest, how would you know if he is or is not superman?

If both have unproven elements (being or not being: a faggot or superman) then which one is better?

You see, you have yet again, proven my point.

Nice reply isn’t it? Considering I “don’t know what it means”.

^ Braindamage resulting in radical extreme fanatical logic dependancy, withdrawal syndrom and high risk.

Putting logic into a topic that doesn't require it since it is by nature unanswerable, results in assleak syllogical diarrhea, symptom of withdrawal. Heck, I can't prove this, so I need one more logic shot. But the logic of it doesn't comply with sick 21th century modern western mind. Pathetic.

Just forget about answers, it's a field with questions only, sickoes.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

"It would help if you knew what it was..."

'when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better.'



Ok let’s go back to my example, the one Iod couldn't understand.

----------------------

John is a great friend.

He is not a faggot.

----------------------

----------------------

John is a great friend.

He is superman.

----------------------

Both say the same thing, "he is a great friend"

Now the problems arise. Which is simpler? Simple is relative, who dictates which of those 2 theories is the simplest?

If you choose the 1st one as the simplest, then how do would you know if he is a faggot or not?

If you choose the second one as the simplest, how would you know if he is or is not superman?

If both have unproven elements (being or not being: a faggot or superman) then which one is better?

You see, you have yet again, proven my point.

Nice reply isn’t it? Considering I “don’t know what it means”.

... You are the stupidest creature I have ever encountered.

And no, you don't seem to have any fucking clue what occam's razor is or what it entails.

Please kill yourself.

ocam razor unveiled:

1 God is a hypothesis

2 There is no proof God exists (although it would comply with cause/effect universal law).

3 No proof of God is to be taken as proof for nogod. This is our dogma.

4 Trespassers will be excommunicated from our rationalist church.

"You are the stupidest creature I have ever encountered.

And no, you don't seem to have any fucking clue what occam's razor is or what it entails."

I don' know what it "entails"?

"If you have two theories which both explain the observed facts then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"

This is taken from a website explaning what it "entails" http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/General/occam.html

Now let me make you a list and show you how dumb you really are.

1. The whole Occam's Razor thing in came about (in this thread) when Dark_Magneto said that it would be better to choose , the idea that you have legs, over not having them.

2. Please keep that in mind and keep any of your stupid, ignorant and moronic replies out of here if they do not fall in this context.

3. If both ideas, having legs or not having them, include unproven statements, then how would you know which is the simplest?

4. "Simple" is relative, this idea alone disproves any bullshit brought foward by Occam's Razor.

6. Please Iod take your own advice and kill yourself.

This is my theory:

Occam's Razor is bullshit.

Which is simpler?

Its such a good idea, it even disproves itself!

How do you not fall on your head and bleed to death?

^^^^^^^^^^

Another trademark Iod post.

Just crap, with no real reply!

Look Iod, just prove to us, that "having legs" is the "best" choice.

That WAS what me a Dark were discussing until you came along and intruded with your moronic post.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-02-2003).]

This is a public BBS. You can't "intrude" on it.

As for legs being the best choice, Go read Dark_Magneto's post again. Then read it four more times. Then read that great explanation of Occam's razor again. Then read it four more times. Then go and read the previous thirteen more times. Repeat as needed until you understand.

iod your so gay, why dont you answer the man fagot

to magneto,

im alot like you, not atheist or christian. I go to church every sunday mainly because im forced by my parents. I go to nazarene church. Most people make the mistake that christian=catholics, but not so. Catholics=gay homos actually, i say this mainly because catholics believe in buying salvation and other gay shit. I have found one thing that all religions are based, just like someone said earlier, faith. you then said that the person would apply this to EVERYONE, lolololol, the whole point is that your not trusting in another person, dumbass, sorry but you seem so intelligent on the subject. you also said something about if god could create the world why is he imcapable of leaving proof. Its not that he's imcapable its more of a finding who really does love him. I offer this analogy

if you were on one side of a meadow and on the other side there was something that you always dreamed of having is on the other say a car or beautiful girl was on the other. you also had a best freind there with you. your friend told you that if you crossed the meadow you would be killed by the crazy guys with uzis on the other side. you look and there right there with there scopes on you. How hard is it to trust your friend that they will kill you? Now what if your freind told you the same thing but you couldn't see anyone. So you would prolly say wat r u talking about, but you friend said no more just that you'll be killed. No u know if you really trust your friend right. Its your choice no one but your own.

Much like with god as your friend. He asks you to love but leaves it up to you. This kinda seems like a stretch but have seen bruce almighty. There is this one seen where jim carry asks god how he can make someone love him without affecting free will,

God replies know you see my predicament, or something. But you say god loves us so why do it. Much like a parent may leave you to your choice and still love you yet be dissapointed.

Hopefully this made since. Go see Bruce Almighty funny movie with some good god points as well, and guess what you dont have to go church to hear them, yeah yeah

p.s. i actually enjoy reading magnetos post's because you actually know your shit and make sense unlike retarded fags like iod.

quote:Originally posted by bigtmoney:

iod your so gay

what are you really? i was just using it as an insult meaning like stupid and not worth anything. Huh, that's funny.

"This is a public BBS. You can't "intrude" on it."

Lets define "Intrude" for the people like Iod:

Intrude: To come in rudely or inappropriately; enter as an improper or unwanted element

Does that qualify Iod? Yes.

Does it matter if its was in a public setting? No

That alone proves how much of an ignorant person you are, Iod. What the hell were you thinking when you made that stupid statement?

"As for legs being the best choice, Go read Dark_Magneto's post again. Then read it four more times. Then read that great explanation of Occam's razor again. Then read it four more times. Then go and read the previous thirteen more times. Repeat as needed until you understand."

You mean this explanation?:

"The simplest explanation is that we have legs in that scenario. Sure, they could all be products of some highly sophisticated virtual reality dreamworld, but lets not get caught up in ad-hoc rationalizations and use the simple naturalistic ones first, working our way up."

Yet AGAIN, Simple is relative, thus this

whole argument crumbles to the floor.

Now you try Iod, stop hiding behind Dark_Magneto. Please prove that we have legs, Please do Iod.



-----------------------------

"iod your so gay, why dont you answer the man fagot"

Don't worry, that's Iod's only means of defense. I can quote numerous instances of Iod using it when he can't reply with anything meaningful.

I jumped on the wagon but there was no band. Just some crazy fanatics from opposite sides, blind to the middle pillar truth.

A there is a god

B there is no god

C there are several gods

D every man and every woman is a star

E there are as many gods as there are free humans.

F Set yourself freeee: learn with an open mind, forget fanatical camps, wether theists or atheists...

quote:Originally posted by bigtmoney:

...if you were on one side of a meadow and on the other side there was something that you always dreamed of having is on the other say a car or beautiful girl was on the other. you also had a best freind there with you. your friend told you that if you crossed the meadow you would be killed by the crazy guys with uzis on the other side. you look and there right there with there scopes on you. How hard is it to trust your friend that they will kill you? Now what if your freind told you the same thing but you couldn't see anyone. So you would prolly say wat r u talking about, but you friend said no more just that you'll be killed. No u know if you really trust your friend right. Its your choice no one but your own.

Much like with god as your friend...

Umm, yeah, great analogy and everything, there's just one problem with it: I know, as much as any person can know, that my friend exists.

It would have been a better analogy if you had replaced the word "friend" with "strangely dressed fanatic who claims to represent a friend you didn't even know existed".



Oh, and the catholic church hasn't sold salvation in several hundred years. Get a clue.

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 06-04-2003).]

are you kidding me about the catholics. That is why one of the ways to join the church is to give large amounts of money. May not be labeled as selling salvation, but it sounds like it to me. Oh and yeah dumb ass, friend is right, because the whole point of the analogy is going along if god was real *which im not saying*, but if you wont to replace it with your gay shit, go for it.

If someone said there were snipers in the bushes that had me scoped out that were stopping me from achieving my greatest desires, I would get suited up in full bulletproof gear and go check for myself.

Your analogy is rather flawed since your comparing a claim of some supernatural invisible undetectable genie of the sky with something as simple as a down-to-earth scenario.

Either way you cut it, if I was in that scenario you proposed, I would find a real-world solution to the problem.

The problem with supernatural deities, however, is there is no real-world explanation to them and, if considered from a completely neutral standpoint, it's impossible to tell if the claim is manmade bullshit or the real deal.

The way I see it, if there is some big powerful God up in the sky that wants everyone of these insignifigant ants (in comparison) to worship it, to feed and stroke it's ego, then it would make it readily apparent that this was the case.

I really don't see why something as awesome as a God would give a shit about what a colony of ants on an ant mound in a mindboggling huge cosmos were doing, but that's besides the point.

I've always been a stickler for the "put up or shut up" mentality. If I'm going to believe in something, I'm going to have to justify the belief to myself. If an omnipotent exists, it knows this. It knew that this certain genetic material would combine to make a person, which is me, and this persons brain would be skeptical after going through certain things throughout life and being exposed to certain stimuli.

I really can't see how an omnipotent being can hold someone in contempt for doing what it knew for a fact they would do all along.

quote:Originally posted by bigtmoney:

are you kidding me about the catholics. That is why one of the ways to join the church is to give large amounts of money. May not be labeled as selling salvation, but it sounds like it to me.

Sure, that's one way. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Another is to go to a chruch, find a priest and ask to join. They have you take some bible study classes n' stuff, but that's about it. NO MONETARY TRANSACTIONS NECESSARY.

You really should check your information instead of listening to second- and third-hand propaganda. I was raised catholic, so perhaps you ought to consider, before ranting out of your ass, that the person with whom you're arguing might be armed with facts, dumbass.

quote:Originally posted by bigtmoney:Oh and yeah dumb ass, friend is right, because the whole point of the analogy is going along if god was real *which im not saying*, but if you wont to replace it with your gay shit, go for it.

I'm glad you told me what the point of that analogy was, because it wasn't very clear in your post. It's always appreciated when tools like yourself help me flame them with greater accuracy.

You posted an analogy that presupposes the existence of god in a thread about agnosticism, you fucking supercilious moron. How did you expect people to interpret it? Keep your grandma's stupid little anecdotes to yourself.

And you might want to do put a little more effort into your insults. Using names like "gay" is pathetically tired.

Remember, the thesaurus is your friend, ok?

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 06-05-2003).]

Magneto,

the point of the analogy was that god doesnt leave proof so that you will have to put FAITH in him. How can he hold a being in contempt for something it does naturally? Having sex in high school might be natural, but if you got pregnant or got someone pregnant, loving parents may be dissapionted and in contempt, but still love you. Or if a cat where to jump into a fish bowl and eat your fish (natural) im sure youd be very contempt and angry with it. You may be skeptical and not believing, but god left no proof so that if you ever did have some unmistakable experience, you would believe. But most dont have these experiences and they rely on FAITH. You may want proof but God wants FAITH.

Tesseract

Here is an interesting facts about catholics. They add books to the bible. There are like 7 extra books in the catholics bible. Not to mention much of what catholics do is contradictory to the bible. Let me see if this is the right forgiveness chain for catholics, Person tells Priest, Priest tells Mary or Paul or some prophet, Mary/paul/prophet tells jesus, your sins are forgiven, and then you do hail marys. LOL The bible clearly states that all you have to do is pray to god yourself and ask for forgiveness, no hail marys or anything. O yeah, and i forgot one other step in there, Priest molests young boy. Sorry about your childhood Tesseract.

There's nothing wrong with that statement, except for the last part, and your fixation with homosexuality.

I didn't take the time to read other posts so sorry if someone already said this.

I think that everyone should be allowed to believe in whatever they want without being criticised. Just because you don't agree with the way another person feels doesn't mean that that person is wrong.

I am agnostic. I don't think it's right that you only bashed Christianity without even looking at other religions. Agnosticism means something different for each person. So the way I look at it may not be the way you look at it. I know that I can't know and that's enough for me.

You can't just tell other people that agnosticism is the best and expect them to believe you.

I find trying to find the perfect religion or concept is a journey one must do on their own. The questions of how and why should arise on their own with little help from others. That way you'll know it's your decision.

I'm not agnostic because it's the cool thing to do. In fact, it's a very uncool thing to do from where I come from. I've paid the consequences. Things that cannot be undone.

So if you're agnostic, fine. If you can't stand the way other people praise a 'god' then just look away.

You can think in your head that they're all wrong but please don't go around saying other religions suck. Who are you to say that. You don't know, remember? You also give a bad name to other agnostics.

However, I do understand that this is a forum where you debate, so cary on.

quote:Originally posted by AmericanJap89:

My title says it all.No one knows what the fuck is up there.Be like me.An agnostic I dont know kinda guy.Atleast all give all religions that much instead of saying I dont believe.So Ill be square with all the gods and fucked up religions like christianity.I definately though dont believe in the christian god.That seems fucking impossible and exagerated.The story was probably Mary had sex and didnt tell anyone in the fear she

would be stones like I am right now.She gave birth to some fucking con artist called christ.He was crucified for his crime and the disciples were in so much shock that they went senial and saw hallucinations of christ.Thats the end of the story.Period

fuck thats a good way of puttin things

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The fact that there is no proof of the non-existance of God, is reason enough to be a theist. There's no proof of the infinity of the universe, but people generally believe in it. If you want to make me, not believe in God, it's your job to prove his non-existence. If you don't do that, then there's no reason not to believe in him.



If you ask a theist to prove the existence of God, the burden of proof is on him.

If you ask an atheist to prove the non-existence of God, the burden of proof is on him.



I have an invisible friend bob. He is sitting right beside me, looking up porn on the Invisible Internet. Do you believe me? I assume you don't. However, does that mean that the burden is on you to prove this? It doesn't. You have to start off by believing that God doesn't exist, you have to start off by believing that everything doesn't exist until you have evidence otherwise. I'm not sure whether there's proof of an infinite universe, I don't really know anything about it. However, I assume there is some reason for the Big Bang theory etc, which is why I believe in it. There is no evidence for God. So I don't believe in it

"Do you believe me? I assume you don't. However, does that mean that the burden is on you to prove this? It doesn't."

It has nothing to do with me believing you or not. I do not have to prove I believe in what you say. YOU have to prove that what YOU say is right.

If someone has a belief, and I question it, then the burden is on that "Someone" to prove me wrong.

If you believe that your friend exists, then the burden is on you to prove his existence, if someone were to question that.

So it is with atheists and theists. They have the burden to prove God's non-existence or existence.

"I assume there is some reason for the Big Bang theory etc, which is why I believe in it."

You ASSUME that there is SOME reason for the Big Bang, so the believe in it?

That really is an ignorant reason for believing in things.

quote:Originally posted by bigtmoney:

Magneto,

the point of the analogy was that god doesnt leave proof so that you will have to put FAITH in him. How can he hold a being in contempt for something it does naturally? Having sex in high school might be natural, but if you got pregnant or got someone pregnant, loving parents may be dissapionted and in contempt, but still love you. Or if a cat where to jump into a fish bowl and eat your fish (natural) im sure youd be very contempt and angry with it. You may be skeptical and not believing, but god left no proof so that if you ever did have some unmistakable experience, you would believe. But most dont have these experiences and they rely on FAITH. You may want proof but God wants FAITH.

All the faith in the world isn't going to make a falsehood real. Faith is overglorified wishful thinking. If you're wrong, you're wrong and nothing, not a single thing you think or believe or have faith in, will make it otherwise.

Billions of people have faith in complete boldface lying religio s everyday. They are decieved but do not know it. Their faith and personal experience is as [powerful as any born again Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or what ave you, and yet, they are still wrong.

I find it hard to think that a God would remove all evidence of it's existence, design the dynamics of reason and logic and give it's subjects logical brains, but demand that it be believed in through blind faith alone (thus killing logic, reason, and rational discourse).

I think Douglas Adams summed up the whole faith thing rather nicely:

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful as the Babel fish could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."

-Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

your story completely confused me. Sorry man i dont get it at all.

Fuckeney Buddy! Agnostic all the way!

Religion, the opiate of the masses. Who are you to take it away from the people?



quote:Originally posted by Justarius:

Since every culture found any kind of religion, mostly to explain natural phenomenoms they couldnt explain, i am starting to think if in our age of science religions isnt needed anymore...... but u are a lame sucker anyway

One does not have had to seen god to be aware of his existence.There are two possibilities that I can think of right now off the top of my head.

1) Descartes' way of proving God.

Descartes, as a result of the principles already established in his method, had first of all to seek out a solid starting point (a clear and distinct concrete idea), and from this opens his deductive process. To arrive at this solid starting point, he begins with methodical doubt, that is, a doubt which will be the means of arriving at certitude. This differs from the systematic doubt of the Skeptics, who doubt in order to remain in doubt.

I can doubt all the impressions that exist within my knowing faculties, whether they be those impressions which come to me through the senses or through the intellect. Indeed, I may doubt even mathematical truths, in so far as it could be that the human intelligence is under the influence of a malignant genius which takes sport in making what is objectively irrational appear to me as rational.

Doubt is thus carried to its extreme form. But notwithstanding this fact, doubt causes to rise in me the most luminous and indisputable certainty. Even presupposing that the entire content of my thought is false, the incontestable truth is that I think: one cannot doubt without thinking; and if I think, I exist: "Cogito ergo sum."

It is to be observed that for Descartes the validity of "Cogito ergo sum" rests in this, that the doubt presents intuitively to the mind the subject who doubts, that is, the thinking substance. In this, Cartesian doubt differs from that of St. Augustine ("Si fallor, sum"), which embodies a truth sufficiently strong to overcome the position of Skepticism. In Descartes, "Cogito ergo sum" is assumed, not only in order to overcome the Skeptic position but as a foundation for the primary reality (the existence of the "res cogitans"), from which the way to further research is to be taken.

This is the point which distinguishes the classic realistic philosophy from Cartesian and modern philosophy. With Descartes, philosophy ceases to be the science of being, and becomes the science of thought (epistemology). Whereas, at first, being conditioned thought, now it is thought that conditions being. This principle, more or less realized by the philosophers immediately following Descartes, was to reach its full consciousness in Kant and modern Idealism.

The "cogito" reveals the existence of the subject, limited and imperfect because liable to doubt. It is necessary to arrive at an objective and perfect reality, i.e., to prove the existence of God.

Descartes makes use of three arguments which can be summarized thus:

"Cogito" has given me a consciousness of my own limited and imperfect being. This proves that I have not given existence to myself, for in such a case I would have given myself a perfect nature and not the one I have, which is subject to doubt.

I have the idea of the perfect: If I did not possess it, I could never know that I am imperfect. Now, whence comes this idea of the perfect? Not from myself, for I am imperfect, and the perfect cannot arise from the imperfect. Hence it comes from a Perfect Being, that is, from God.

The very analysis of the idea of the perfect includes the existence of the perfect being, for just as the valley is included in the idea of a mountain, so also existence is included in the idea of the perfect. (the argument of St. Anselm). (See: Meditations on First Philosophy, V; Discourse on Method, IV.)

Regarding the nature of God, Descartes ascribes to it more or less the same attributes as does traditional Christian theistic thought. In Descartes, however, these attributes assume a different significance and value. God, above all, is absolute substance: the only substance, properly so-called (hence the way is open to the pantheism of Spinoza). An attribute which has great value for Descartes is the veracity of God.

God, the most perfect being, cannot be deceived and cannot deceive. Thus the veracity of God serves as a guarantee for the entire series of clear and distinct ideas. They are true because if they are not true, I, having proved the existence of God, would have to say that He is deceiving by creating a rational creature who is deceived even in the apprehension of clear and distinct ideas. Thus, with the proof of the existence of God, the hypothesis of a malignant genius falls of its own weight.

-------------------------------------------

2)Pascal's Wager

"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is ... you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is."



quote:Originally posted by AmericanJap89:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

There are many of us who know "for sure whats up" with god. The term for us is

gnostic.

So you have seen god.You have had a actually physical conversation.I mean since you know "for sure whats up" with god you must have talked and seen him right.Im sure you have.

Shut the hell up.You fucking cristians have no fucking idead.Anything that happens thats good its a miracle.Anything bad its the work of satan.The only reason theres so many christians is all the great kingdoms chose it.France(Charlemange),Byzantium(Justinan), and England(Alfred The Great) are only a few examples of kings who chose christianity as the ONLY RELIGION IN THEIR KINGDOM.So all these people were maid to be christian and their children were maid to be christian and their children were maid to be christian but somewhere along the way they start wanting christianity so from then on millions were dedicated christians.Then came the inquisitions and more people were maid to be christians.Here we are today with fucking hypocrites.

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

Religion, the opiate of the masses. Who are you to take it away from the people?

Some people can take opium peacefully. Some will kill for it. Religion has got to be kept under the law. State has got to be the decider when they seem to be in contradiction. Or you will find yourself under inquisition scrutiny & stake, no later than tomorrow...

Bullshit.

Form an arguement and we may be able to hold an intelligent discussion



quote:Originally posted by Beany:



Sure did. But since Language has many limitations, it's impossible to prove it to someone else, but you can help them on the right path to proving for themselves.

It's impossible to acurately communicate most of your thoughts through spoken laguage without the other person misunderstanding to a degree.

Do not try to subvert his argument with your stupidity.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Before you say that you can prove it with

"The Principle of Sufficient Reason", take in consideration that Leibniz himself believed in God.

Think about what you just said.



One does not have to agree with everything a person believes if they wish to quote them.

Perhaps you are under the influence of the shrooms?



quote:Originally posted by Rust:



First of all, you quote Leibniz, yet you dont agree with him? The quote that I posted (it was a quote, not something I said) talks about "On the Ultimate Origination of Things" Leibniz's essay on his beliefs. He believes in God.

The very same man you quote on the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

"Faith" is not a ready argument.



quote:Originally posted by UrbnTbone:

No proof is transmissible, so it's a matter of personal choice.

Bend over and assume the position. What Pascal's wager comes down to is that (1/infinity) is greater than (0/infinity)

In grade school/high school/uni you learn that anything over infinity equals zero.

However, modern discrete mathematics proves that the case is not so. One of the many ramifications is that Pascal's wager suddenly becomes valid again. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

I hope your not suggesting what I think you are, because pascal's sucker bet logic isn't going to convince anyone with half a brain.

The chance of any specific god factually existing is *statistically* impossible since there are an infinite number of possible gods.

A god that rewards those who do not believe in him? Ha!

"Lord what fools these mortals be."

quote:Originally posted by iod:

There are an infinite number of possible gods that would only grant atheists entrance to heaven because he respects skepticism and free thought. So, pascal's wager is still bullshit.

Ever read any Kant?



quote:Originally posted by UrbnTbone:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

[b] OK, but to the same extent, none ever proved this reality is 'the' reality

Beautiful.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by UrbnTbone:

[b]

Until then, such notions are only mental masturbation excercises.

I thought you were skeptical?

Belief in "Cogito Ergo Sum" entails the belief in God.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Tell that to Descartes.

Plus, you can't demostrate you dont't exist:

"Cogito ergo sum"

quote:Belief in "Cogito Ergo Sum" entails the belief in God.How so?

Ok, do you even know what agnostic means? Anyways, why be agnostic when you can worship the same god i do, the same god millions worship. This god is feared by even more. My god has an arsenal that speaks louder than words, my god has more riches than any other god; to worship my god is to be an american.

Read my second post in this topic.

quote:Originally posted by I am Weasel:

Belief in "Cogito Ergo Sum" entails the belief in God.How so?

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

Ever read any Kant? Nope but I highly critical of logical-absolutist pathological reasoning.

Pure reason means harmony between rational and higher self. Excess of rationality is a severe contagious illness. It has been destroying Mankind and the planet for a bit more than a century.

Excess of rationality?



There is no such thing.



Or perhaps you fear it because it destroys your God.

[This message has been edited by CesareBorgia (edited 06-11-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:



One of the many ramifications is that Pascal's wager suddenly becomes valid again. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



Pascal's wager (http://www.jhuger.com/pascal.mv) still isn't valid for a plethora of reasons, one being that it doesn't say which god to believe in.

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

How so?



Why, from bastardized Descartes, of course!

Argument from Bastardized Descartes

1. I think.

2. Therefore, God am.

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

Excess of rationality?

There is no such thing.

Yeap there is a whole lot of it. Go to a modern art museum, and you'll find many dumboes rationalizing why the artist did this/that, instead of just enjoying the view and letting its power acting. Or so many people unable to take a breath and appreciate a landscape without analyzing something. It's a sickness. But it is widely encouraged because it is globally productive for the capitalist. People should be integrist rationalists, so the only way they will be able to live is with a 'purpose', with some productive reason. Some believe in God, some in their minds, under the blessings and absolution of the scientists, high priests of 'modernity'.

The result: big brother is watching you, even with a greater scrutiny since you are watching yourself for any trace of non-productive train of thought. Even your 'vacations' are monitored, there is only that much freedom allowed, you change some of your habits and conditioning for a few days, but are always stuck in consumerism system anyway...

Yes, rationality has its limits. Did you ever think of watching your life as if it was a quiet river, sometimes? Just for a break? No. You most probably oscillate between being productive, and enjoying other people's productivity (being a consumer).

So, from that rat race point of view, of course, nothing needs to escape rationalism. Because it's a rat race, and you need to be rational in order to win it. But a winner is a loser. Big brother told you you're a winner. Ford wanted you to get a car, so you feel capitalist society is good for you. But you are a loser, capitalist society is good for capital owners. Whatever you can reach in that race, is always a lose/lose. BTW that's probably one chief reason why weed is forbidden: it lets people think differently, and eventually choose wether they want to get involved in any activity before they do.

So many will work just what is needed to get what they are really interested in, not run as rats after all kinds of mind-altering consumer madness. They will feel the taste of life, relax, and sit back whenever they are not working. They won't be lazy, that is propaganda, just the opposite, they will do no less than what is needed, but no more either.

Well by now weed got more or less integrated into the cycle of productivity so most probably it will become legal at some point.

Unless the gv"t want its servant citizens even more mindless and brainwashed, thereby, even more enslaved and productive.

BTW I'm not advocating weed, just showing the hypocrisy behind modern time crime-generating, corrupt-official-profitable, prohibition. I don't like weed. I prefer a good beer once in a while.

It doesn't say which God to believe in; this is true. So you pick one. You might as well make up your own friggin religion, because it has as much chance of being right as Catholicism, Protestanism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

The point is that the religion you choose has a more likely(infinitely more actually) chance of being the case than the non-existance of God.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Pascal's wager (http://www.jhuger.com/pascal.mv) still isn't valid for a plethora of reasons, one being that it doesn't say which god to believe in.

Where were you during the Enlightenment? You have the same mindset as the leading philosophers in the middle ages. Perhaps this indicates something?

quote:Originally posted by UrbnTbone:

Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

Excess of rationality?

There is no such thing.

Yeap there is a whole lot of it.

"One does not have to agree with everything a person believes if they wish to quote them.

Perhaps you are under the influence of the shrooms?"

Where did I say he had to agree with him, in orde to quote him?? PLEASE tell me....

HE used that "theory" to try and "prove/discredit" god'existance, I only said that the same man that created that "theory" believed in God and used that same reasoning to believe in him.

"I thought you were skeptical?

Belief in "Cogito Ergo Sum" entails the belief in God."

AGAIN, where did I say otherwise. I just said you can't prove you DON'T exist, nothing about God, nothing. Secondly it Doest NOT entail a belief in God. It only proves "you" exist, not ,how/by whom, you were created.

And who the fuck are you to say I'm "skeptical"?

quote:Originally posted by AmericanJap89:

My title says it all.No one knows what the fuck is up there.Be like me.An agnostic I dont know kinda guy.Atleast all give all religions that much instead of saying I dont believe.So Ill be square with all the gods and fucked up religions like christianity.I definately though dont believe in the christian god.That seems fucking impossible and exagerated.The story was probably Mary had sex and didnt tell anyone in the fear she

would be stones like I am right now.She gave birth to some fucking con artist called christ.He was crucified for his crime and the disciples were in so much shock that they went senial and saw hallucinations of christ.Thats the end of the story.Period

People that make decisions aren't (always) full of shit, however... agnostics tend to be (but not always - ex. ArmsMerchant ISNT AmericanJap IS)

im agnostic and have several friends who are too. why did i post this? i dont know.

Skipping through 5 pages of (what is likely to be) complete crap, didnt anyone make the argument that George Smith does in "The Case Against God"??

Atheism= With No Belief

Theism= With Belief

How is there a middle ground? Its a two-sided question; thats why agnosticism doesnt exist.

"How is there a middle ground? Its a two-sided question; thats why agnosticism doesnt exist."

how is it just a two sided question?

does god exist? yes, no, i don't know.

in the late 1800's when people spoke of large furry man-like creatures that were up to 10 feet tall. the ridiculed answer was to believe in them.

nowadays, the zoos the world over are full of gorillas.

galileo was imprisoned for saying the earth is not the center of the universe, today flat-earthers are ridiculed.

atom is a greek term for indivisible, now we know there are many things that make up an atom.

did all of these things not exist until their discovery, or were they not known.

until a thing is proven one way or the other, i don't know is perfectly legitimate answer.

I didnt ask you if you had knowledge of god. Thats a whole different argument (gnosticism v. agnosticism) Id care to not hack out right now. The ideas are centering around belief in god; its simple. Either you have a belief (which includes "I dont know if he/she/it's there but Im looking") or not (atheists and nihilists etc.).

It is not "is there a god?", it is simply "do you believe in god?". On or off, there is no half-power in the field of terms for theological positions.

Almost forgot; agnosticism (grk.--without knowledge) is not a chosen position; it is the starting point for all humankind in any field. Once you gain knowledge, you are gnostic. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. However, simply "agnostic" does not denote any true theological stance.

I still like Bertrand Russell though...

your so fuckin stupid.

People who are agnostic (speaking from observation, im a satanist) do not beive in a god, budda, karma etc... Maybe they will one day, but that time is not now.

no, you're "so fuckin stupid", my friend.

The point is, the term "agnostic" does not mean what most of the pussy "i cant say Im an atheist, its scary" crowd wants it to. Its literal meaning is simply "without knowledge". Therefore, you cd believe or not believe in god, and have no real knowledge of the being.

How are you not understanding the distinction? A/Theism and A/Gnosticism are apples and oranges. Agnosticism has nothing to do with believing in god. Its all about "KNOWING" about god.

[This message has been edited by PirateWhistle (edited 06-17-2003).]

Who are you? Have you read anything published about religion post-George Smith? Obviously not, because Smith has been debunked ten times over.

Perhaps you should think before onpening your mouth?



quote:Originally posted by PirateWhistle:

Skipping through 5 pages of (what is likely to be) complete crap, didnt anyone make the argument that George Smith does in "The Case Against God"??

Atheism= With No Belief

Theism= With Belief

How is there a middle ground? Its a two-sided question; thats why agnosticism doesnt exist.

After reading those four pages I skipped over, I must say, Cesare, that I most definitely respect your philosophical prowess. I mean no offense to people who are making extremely well-thought-out and factually-based statements. I dont like being called "fuckin stupid" simply because I dont post in this board every day though; thus my harsh tone.

But...who am I? What the shit does that matter? Am I supposed to be someone you know, or someone who is constantly posting here? I am what I am, to quote the sailor.

Unfortunately, I haven't read too much of Philosophy of religion/theology lately. The last book I read was LePoidevin's "Arguing for Atheism" which cited a similar incongruency in the basic assumption of agnosticism as a theological stance. I'd be happy to hear some arguments to counter Smith's, if you'd be oh-so kind enough to throw me a link or title to look up.