If I said i was an atheist and that i could tell you how the theory of evolution (or something like it) proved the existence of no god or supreme being what would you say to me in terms of no dont be that way god will smite you or ya im an atheist too?

What started the big bang?

If you could actually prove it (Which I personally don't believe you can) than it wouldn't really matter what anyone said, would it?

Yeah I'm an atheist too, Don't be a moron by giving people bad information about evolution and atheists. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Evolution can't be used to prove God doesn't exist, only how the diversity of life came about.

God supposably exists in some sort of alternate dimension, able to see all of our universe but is "beyond it" (whatever that means). So no matter what you say, it could Always be said that God was beyond it and created it.

Fuck what other people think, live for yourself.

people try to find a beginning and end to things, and be all "spiritual."

the argument that "god can not be disproven or proven" is bullshit, I have heard it many times, and my rebuttal is:

The Invisible Pink Unicorn, blessed be her holy hooves, exists. You can not disprove her or prove her, therefore she exists.

Before you say "that's ridiculou sand obviously untrue," it follows the same logic as god does.

Sure, the second you inject the meme into society you can say, "well you cant prove evolution." But you can. The world is linear, and people who try to see it otherwise are dreamers.

If you want to dream, drop acid. If you want reality, don't believe in god.

why should the world be linear? people thought the earth was flat at one point.

and if you have a choice between dreaming and reality, why don't you explain to us why it's better to choose reality. what's wrong with dreaming?

do people dream? yes. then dreams exist in reality.

is there any reality to dreams? yes. then there is the chance that a dreamer may have a better grasp on it than you.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_acid:

people try to find a beginning and end to things, and be all "spiritual."

the argument that "god can not be disproven or proven" is bullshit, I have heard it many times, and my rebuttal is:

The Invisible Pink Unicorn, blessed be her holy hooves, exists. You can not disprove her or prove her, therefore she exists.

Before you say "that's ridiculou sand obviously untrue," it follows the same logic as god does.

Sure, the second you inject the meme into society you can say, "well you cant prove evolution." But you can. The world is linear, and people who try to see it otherwise are dreamers.

If you want to dream, drop acid. If you want reality, don't believe in god.

You're right, though you are using solely logic and not accounting for personal experience. Many people have experienced god or godly presences, so to discount millions of people's own experiences based on logic seems a bit naive.

Also can you change your username? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Try as you might there is no way to prove Darwinism, creationism, evolution, the existence of god, is real or isn't real. Someone will always have a point against you.

That's why it's called believing and not knowing, and why it requires faith.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:why should the world be linear? people thought the earth was flat at one point.

I hear this point in my philosopy class every time I go. The difference between our current knowledge and flat earth knowledge? Flat earth knowledge, like all knowledge of its time, was based purely and solely on conjecture with virtually no scientific method. Science has come a long way.

quote:and if you have a choice between dreaming and reality, why don't you explain to us why it's better to choose reality. what's wrong with dreaming?

There is NOTHING wrong with dreaming. If you must know, I myself was tripping on dxm earlier today (lesse if someone can use this against me). Dreaming is wonderful. Even confusing the dream with reality is fine--but when you start believing it is where I believe one is being naive. You (general term here) can believe in the chupacabra all you want, insist that it's real, insist that you are misunderstood, but the sad fact is that you are factually wrong.

quote:do people dream? yes. then dreams exist in reality.

this...has no meaning. are you talking about literal dreams or desires? either way im not sure i understand your point.

quote:is there any reality to dreams? yes. then there is the chance that a dreamer may have a better grasp on it than you.

Again, is this some sort of reference to lucid dreaming or something?

quote:Many people have experienced god or godly presences, so to discount millions of people's own experiences based on logic seems a bit naive.

Ooh, I love this one. The anecdotal evidence theory! So many people have "witnessed" it, it's naive to deny it, right?

Once again I direct you to my wonderful friend, the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I will tell you right now that the IPU is an invented meme.

Now that I have that settled, I alone witnessed an apparition in the shape of the Invisible Pink Unicorn last night. Bam! Make that one more of the millions.

Paranormalists are naive. They are not misunderstood. Believing that a ouija board does anything is naive. Believing one can talk to the dead is naive. Knowing that scam artists and the mentally ill have perpetrated "supernatural" memes for centuries is not.

quote:Try as you might there is no way to prove Darwinism, creationism, evolution, the existence of god, is real or isn't real. Someone will always have a point against you.

Let's create a fictional emotion. We'll call it Blooky. When you feel blooky, you are absolutely positive that you are the opposite gender. However, when you stop feeling blooky, you know you are not. Does htis make it true? People try to justify faith by calling it a "feeling" as if there was some sort of ethereal "chi" flowing between everyone (extreme example, i know).

And that's the wonderful hole in the religious argument--"it's believing and not knowing." You said it yourself. People say this ambiguously, but if you analyze what you're saying, this is the quintessential example of the definition of the word "naiveté."

I could go all night with the ridiculous examples, folks--I can believe with all my utmost faith in IPU that green gnomes power my keyboard, but it's too bad that they don't.

Sure, it sounds great to be this philosophical, monk-like person. If it makes you happy, so be it. I think of all religions Daoism is a great way to do it right--it barely acknowledges god in the traditional sense. But people in history have been notoriously pretentious with their religion and their philosophy; perpetrating proverbs for the sake of perpetrating proverbs. So a little non-chalant snippet about "faith" I, personally, don't believe explains anything.

Santa is real.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_acid:

Ooh, I love this one. The anecdotal evidence theory! So many people have "witnessed" it, it's naive to deny it, right?

To deny it outright would indeed be naive.

quote:Once again I direct you to my wonderful friend, the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I will tell you right now that the IPU is an invented meme.

Now that I have that settled, I alone witnessed an apparition in the shape of the Invisible Pink Unicorn last night. Bam! Make that one more of the millions.



But god has much more credibility than a pink unicorn. Billions of people have believed in god, while this may not signify his existence, it definitely shows how god is a very 'real' possibility to many people. You're comparing apples and oranges right now. While there are a few similarites, there are also many differences.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_acid:



And that's the wonderful hole in the religious argument--"it's believing and not knowing." You said it yourself. People say this ambiguously, but if you analyze what you're saying, this is the quintessential example of the definition of the word "naiveté."



great post. i underestimated your intelligence when you invoked the old 'pink unicorn' argument previously and seemed to pass it off as your own.

the reason you didn't get the point of my prior post is because i intentionally made it vague... and i'm glad i did. you're further along then i initially surmised, but you're not quite ready for that lesson yet.

ease up on the dxm, do shrooms two or three more times (at most), then ask.

welcome, btw. i'm looking forward to your posts.

quote:But god has much more credibility than a pink unicorn. Billions of people have believed in god, while this may not signify his existence, it definitely shows how god is a very 'real' possibility to many people. You're comparing apples and oranges right now. While there are a few similarites, there are also many differences.

that inherently happens with an analogy. we can argue semantics if you'd like, but I'd rather not.

the immediate response to this, especially on wikipedia (where the portrait of the IPU is a blank canvas), is, "God has more credibility." You are drawing the wrong conclusion from the analogy. Christianity began just like anything else did, with few followers.

Millions of people believe Iraq had any sort of direct connection with 9/11. Are they correct? No, in fact, they are not.

Belief != Truth

As for the IPU, I thought it was obvious--there's no need to pass it off as my own. Anyone who has the internet and a keyboard can use google to easily find any alt.atheism FAQ. Hell, it's on wikipedia for gosh darned sakes.

Vagaries are only valid in gothic poetry :3

thanks for the welcome, too.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_acid:



As for the IPU, I thought it was obvious--there's no need to pass it off as my own. Anyone who has the internet and a keyboard can use google to easily find any alt.atheism FAQ. Hell, it's on wikipedia for gosh darned sakes.



eh, the limitations of typing. without hearing your tone, i suspected self-satisfaction. i agree that it definitely should be obvious, but as you haven't been on totse long, i don't expect you to understand my suspicion. basically, there are a lot of 'original' thinkers 'round these parts.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_acid:

Vagaries are only valid in gothic poetry :3



now you're starting to get it! ;p

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 12-05-2004).]

Look, no one can prove or disprove any of it. The only right answer at the moment is Agnosticism. Maybe a pink unicorn does exist somewhere, who knows.

When someone can really PROVE that god exists or doesn't I will believe what they say. Until then, it's all bullshit.

Why wouldn't I believe one if he could proove god doesn't exists?

quote:Look, no one can prove or disprove any of it. The only right answer at the moment is Agnosticism. Maybe a pink unicorn does exist somewhere, who knows.

I dont buy into that. I do not identify with a doctrine, but I do call myself an atheist. Emotions are subjective, opinions are subjective, beauty is subjective, but the world isn't. No matter how much you will a rock to move it won't. The world as it scientifically works, I consider the only exception to the rule. Not everything has to be agnostic.

"maybe there's a pink unicorn somewhere..." but you do not say that seriously. You and I know that that is a placating statement, as you and I both know that it is a lie. As with the IPU I believe God can easily be disproven. If it all boils down to "you cant prove it," "yes you can," then I'll quit while I'm ahead. I just simply do not agree that the universe is a matter of opinion.

The difference between God and a pink unicorn.....Okay ready?.....



God = Our attempt to describe everything around us.

A pink Unicorn = A pink fucking unicorn.

Now if you can make your own conclusions of this comparison. Yaaaaaaaay for you!