The Dink Network

Religion

August 29th 2009, 12:53 AM
burntree.gif
Fireball5
Peasant He/Him Australia
Let me heat that up for you... 
Who here has ever been insulted by a religious text, video, or person?

Either directly or indirectly?
August 29th 2009, 01:20 AM
custom_carrie2004.gif
carrie2004
Peasant She/Her Canada
*chomp* 
*raises hand*
August 29th 2009, 01:27 AM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
*shakes head, then throws a banana at a chipmunk.* Stupid chipmunk!
August 29th 2009, 04:02 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
Hey, Fireball is back!
August 29th 2009, 04:45 AM
knightgl.gif
zeddexx
Peasant He/Him New Zealand
I'm pretty sure I'm worth atleast SIX goats... 
i seem to recall someone calling him a spambot, or was that someone else? bty why do they call it spam? i love spam! its really yummy!
August 29th 2009, 04:51 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
I think you confused spam to *something* else now.
August 29th 2009, 05:51 AM
wizardg.gif
schnapper
Peasant He/Him Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
Let us save our effort and just lie down and die. 
Not really. Mainly just people knocking Hitler.
August 29th 2009, 05:04 PM
dinkdead.gif
*also raises hand*
August 29th 2009, 05:17 PM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
I hate religion! Lets ban religion forever! But do we need to ban religion? Lets not ban religion.
August 29th 2009, 06:03 PM
pillbug.gif
pillbug
Peasant He/Him United States
Love! True love! 
Spam: Stupid pointless annoying messages.

Welcome back FB5
August 29th 2009, 06:27 PM
dragon.gif
Patrunjelu
Peasant He/Him Romania
Rawr! 
Atheism ftw.
August 29th 2009, 06:55 PM
wizardg.gif
schnapper
Peasant He/Him Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
Let us save our effort and just lie down and die. 
Hmmm. I've tried out a number of religions and philosophies, but none of them have left me content that I've found the truth. I just want to know for sure what's the deal before I die.
August 29th 2009, 07:39 PM
bonca.gif
Christiaan
Bard They/Them Netherlands
Lazy bum 
Usually I feel a kind of substitute annoyance caused by certain political figures, even though I myself do not follow any sort of religion. But people should NEVER feel or act superior over another (religious) group/race. Come on people, let's all be flower-picking bunny-loving friends ^^
August 29th 2009, 07:50 PM
pig.gif
Okay, thas last post of Chrizum, that was me. We share the same IP-adress, and I forgot to check if I was logged in instead of him.
Sorry for the confusion!
August 29th 2009, 09:46 PM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
Wait, you're serious? That really sounded like Chris!
August 29th 2009, 10:15 PM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
What's an IP adress?
August 29th 2009, 11:24 PM
bonca.gif
Christiaan
Bard They/Them Netherlands
Lazy bum 
Identity theft is not a joke, Joyce! Millions of families suffer from it every year!
August 30th 2009, 01:18 AM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
She made a mistake, she even admitted to it! as long as she didn't slander ur name, it's pretty much okay.
August 30th 2009, 08:58 AM
pig.gif
Yay! Thank you krisknox
*sticks out tongue to chris*
August 30th 2009, 09:14 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
Hmmm... I like where this is going. Mwhahahahahahaaaa!!

August 30th 2009, 05:07 PM
anon.gif
SkeleTony
Ghost They/Them
 
Just a note from a non-religious atheist:

Atheism itself does NOT mean 'Without religion'. It means 'Without GODS'(for whatever reason including critical thinking, brain damage, being a newborn baby etc.). There are many religious atheists(i.e. most Buddhists) and also many NON-religious THEISTS(i.e. many pantheists).

I myself am an a-religious strong agnostic and strong atheist, meaning that I am without any religious beliefs, am certain that knowledge of transcendent deities would be impossible for non-transcendent entities to have, am certain that SOME gods cannot possibly exist because of reasons of logic(specifically the Law of Non-contradiction with respect to the various Abrahamic gods. Re: One cannot be both free willed(itself) AND omniscient for example) and am a weak atheist to the rest(meaning that a 'Somethingness that might possibly do something in some other aspect of a potential reality...' is quite too ambiguous for me to give assent to and for natural objects, including Divine Emperors(re: Kim Jong Il, Gaius Caesar etc.) like the sun, I simply do not worship such things as gods. Worship is a bad and immoral idea. No being worthy of worship would want to be worshiped and worshiping ANYTHING is demeaning to the worshiper.

Tony
August 30th 2009, 05:38 PM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
A rather unexpected post, and a rather off-topic one too actually.

As to your reasoning, I always thought that religions without gods (say Buddhism) where called non-theistic and that atheism is the rejection of religions in general. Though one may argue that atheism is a religion in itself... (I have to say that I agree with that evaluation a lot of the time.)

Most people think you can still believe in the supernatural when you're an atheist. So I guess the borders between an atheist and an non-theist can be very vague. Still I feel I have to make a distinction between the two...

As to the question that got this thread started:

I think I was insulted quite a few times, but I tend to forget things like that. It's usually not worth bothering about, I'm not going to be any better off if I feel insulted all day.
August 31st 2009, 02:47 AM
wizardg.gif
schnapper
Peasant He/Him Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
Let us save our effort and just lie down and die. 
I was once told by a street-corner bible-basher that I was going to hell for not claiming to be "saved". when I tried to prove him wrong from his own bible, he told me i was the devil's agent XD
August 31st 2009, 04:49 AM
knightgl.gif
zeddexx
Peasant He/Him New Zealand
I'm pretty sure I'm worth atleast SIX goats... 
i really think evo is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. its just so dang impossible. hey shnapps! lots of catholics are always being proved wrong from theyre own bible. lol. catholics rape kids. sickos...
August 31st 2009, 06:15 AM
dinkdead.gif
In the end, there is no way to 100% prove or disprove the existence of a God or other divine whatever. It will always boil down to belief or opinion and that last statement of yours cannot be stated as fact:
"Worship is a bad and immoral idea. No being worthy of worship would want to be worshiped and worshiping ANYTHING is demeaning to the worshiper."
That's an opinion...
August 31st 2009, 06:23 AM
knightgl.gif
zeddexx
Peasant He/Him New Zealand
I'm pretty sure I'm worth atleast SIX goats... 
lets not make a religion thread again ok?
August 31st 2009, 06:45 AM
wizardg.gif
schnapper
Peasant He/Him Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
Let us save our effort and just lie down and die. 
"Worship is a bad and immoral idea. No being worthy of worship would want to be worshiped and worshiping ANYTHING is demeaning to the worshiper."
I like that! We could start a cult based on self-degradation, BDSM, kinkiness, chaos and general goat-slaughter!
August 31st 2009, 07:57 AM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
Everything you are speaking of is from either your own mind, or most likely another, SkeleTony. You believe that there is no God and you want to 'prove religious people wrong' by trying to give them a few pretty words that mean nothing to someone who puts their faith in something that they believe will help them in the long run. Without religon, we would have no moral values, no respect for those around us, and alot of people who found their religon after trying to get off of narcotics would still be addicted. so Think before you act. it makes you smarter. not bashing something that alot of people are a part of.
August 31st 2009, 08:01 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
Everybody has right to believe what they want. But everybody should also consider to believe what other people believe.
August 31st 2009, 08:32 AM
bonca.gif
Christiaan
Bard They/Them Netherlands
Lazy bum 
Without religion we would have no moral values? There's no way you can defend that statement, because it is utter bullcrap. Moral values have nothing to do with religion.
August 31st 2009, 09:55 AM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
That's utter bullcrap too. Sure we would have moral values without region, but to say that moral values have nothing to do with religion is just not true.
August 31st 2009, 09:59 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
This network is seriously coming too serious.
August 31st 2009, 10:10 AM
bonca.gif
Christiaan
Bard They/Them Netherlands
Lazy bum 
Actually, I meant it backwards, religion has nothing to do with moral values. Ofcourse, all religions have their own set of moral values, but moral values (should) act independently of religion.
August 31st 2009, 02:43 PM
knightgl.gif
zeddexx
Peasant He/Him New Zealand
I'm pretty sure I'm worth atleast SIX goats... 
i think chris means that people should be able to learn how to be good people without religion having to spoon feed it to them.
lets end this thread. its way to serious.
August 31st 2009, 05:29 PM
spike.gif
This reminds me of a funny conversation on a religious TV channel, where the interviewer was talking with a preacher about morality and religion. I'm paraphrasing, but it went something like this:

Preacher: Why would atheists have morals? They don't need them.
Interviewer: Umm...
Preacher: I mean, I'm not saying that atheists DON'T have morals, just that they don't have any REASON to, y'know? Because they don't believe in god. In their mind there's nothing waiting after death, so why would they care about being good?
Interviewer: Umm...


The only reason to have morals is fear of punishment in the afterlife.
August 31st 2009, 06:53 PM
anon.gif
???
Ghost They/Them
 
guess who i am...
August 31st 2009, 07:17 PM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
Godley? Skorn? well, i guess i was wrong about the moral values thing.
September 1st 2009, 04:28 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
Godley is away, so it probably isn't him. Unless...

TO BE CONTINUED.
September 1st 2009, 04:46 PM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
Unless he recently visited a library.
September 2nd 2009, 07:17 PM
slimeb.gif
DaVince
Peasant He/Him Netherlands
Olde Time Dinkere 
I can't remember ever being insulted by anyone or anything religious... Well, I'm occasionally angry at the denseheads who think other religions, or a religion in itself, suck, but that's no insult to me personally.

Oh, and the people who haven't done enough research to understand that communism as described by Marx actually could have worked, but that it's just implemented wrong because people are weak against corruption.
September 3rd 2009, 07:01 PM
anon.gif
SkeleTony
Ghost They/Them
 
Metatarsal:

You wrote(sorry...do not know if these forums have a 'quote' function):

"A rather unexpected post, and a rather off-topic one too actually."

To which I respond:

The OP asked if anyone had been offended by God and several people then chimed in with their proclamations of theism or atheism and my post was in direct response to those who had erroneously equated "atheism" with "not religious".

You continued:

"As to your reasoning, I always thought that religions without gods (say Buddhism) where called non-theistic and that atheism is the rejection of religions in general."

My response:

You would be wrong on that count. "Nontheism"/"non-theistic" is a synonym for "atheism"/"atheistic" and atheism quite literally means "without gods". The term for being without religion is 'areligious'. The prefix 'a' in both cases means "without".

[quote]Though one may argue that atheism is a religion in itself... (I have to say that I agree with that evaluation a lot of the time.)[/quote]

Not successfully they cannot. NO ONE can make that argument because it does not exist and leads to absurdities which even YOU would not grant. For example, is THEISM "a religion"? Of course it is not. Like "atheism" theism only pertains to belief in gods, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

[quote]Most people think you can still believe in the supernatural when you're an atheist.[/quote]

You can. I myself do not because I am a critical atheist and skeptic but there is nothing preventing an atheist who is NOT a skeptic from believing in pixies, the tooth fairy or ghosts or what have you.


You continued with with:

"So I guess the borders between an atheist and an non-theist can be very vague.[/quote]

Nonexistent actually. IIRC the term "nontheist" was first proposed by Dr. Michael Shermer(an atheist and founder of the Skeptics Society) as an alternative to "atheist" so that non-believers would not have to deal with as much prejudice and negative baggage associated with the term "atheist".

Still I feel I have to make a distinction between the two...

September 3rd 2009, 07:06 PM
anon.gif
SkeleTony
Ghost They/Them
 
Zeddexx:

Evolution is only "stupid" to you because you have no idea what it is and are getting your science education from anti-scientists. This is the wrong forum for such an education but if you would like to know where your errors lie you can send me an email to captain_skeptic(AT)yahoo(DOT)com.
September 3rd 2009, 07:17 PM
anon.gif
SkeleTony
Ghost They/Them
 
Sparrowhawk:

You wrote:

"In the end, there is no way to 100% prove or disprove the existence of a God or other divine whatever."

False. The only gods which CANNOT be disproven are gods of ambiguity. 'The spiritual somethingness that is beyond something else and might be doing something' type gods. To those gods I am, as I stated previously, a weak atheist. To gods which CAN be proven to not exist(such as the Judeo-Christian god) I am a strong atheist because I can do so using logic. The classic example being that the Judeo-Christian god is said to be both free willed AND omniscient which is an impossibility due to the Law of non-contradiction. There are more...

[quote]It will always boil down to belief or opinion and that last statement of yours cannot be stated as fact:
"Worship is a bad and immoral idea. No being worthy of worship would want to be worshiped and worshiping ANYTHING is demeaning to the worshiper."
That's an opinion...[/quote]

You are correct that it is an opinion but I thought that was kind of obvious?! But it is an opinion that most/all rational people would agree with or would be danged hard pressed to come up with an argument that a being deserving of worship would want to BE worshiped! The only time we EVER disagree with this is when it is turned back on our gods. We do not say "Terrel Owens is deserving of worship" or that America(a very powerful entity) is deserving of worship and anyone coming out and saying "Worship me!" would be laughed at by most of us.
September 3rd 2009, 07:33 PM
anon.gif
SkeleTony
Ghost They/Them
 
Krisknox:

Oh dear...

You wrote:

"Everything you are speaking of is from either your own mind, or most likely another, SkeleTony.[/quote]

Both actually and the "other" is actually MANY other skeptics who came before me. Not sure what your point with that was...?

[quote] You believe that there is no God and you want to 'prove religious people wrong' by trying to give them a few pretty words that mean nothing to someone who puts their faith in something that they believe will help them in the long run.[/quote]

I can barely parse that sentence. I do not "believe there is no God". That is like saying that someone who does not believe their own mother is an intergalactic vampire is "believing that his mother is not a vampire and trying to impose that belief on all the people who DO believe there mothers are vampires!

[quote]Without religon, we would have no moral values, no respect for those around us, and alot of people who found their religon after trying to get off of narcotics would still be addicted.[/quote]

False all around. The most successful recovery program for addicts is by FAR Jack Trimpe's Rational Recovery which replaces AA's model with something more sensible and is unapologetic in it's atheism.

And no...morals do not come from religion. They are wired into us biologically through evolution. The fossil of tyranosaurus rex named "Sue" bears unmistakable evidence that this dinosaur suffered a broken leg but recovered from it and eventually died of other causes. The reason being that pack members nursed her back to health(or she could not have survived) and THERE is where the origins of morality lie. We even see it in animals today such as apes and wolves whose packs/families have strict penalties for various actions that go against their rules(such as allowing the alpha male to eat first in the case of wolves and not bashing another ape over the head to get his food in the case of primates.

This is the wrong forum for this but you can email me if you want to continued the discussion.

so Think before you act. it makes you smarter. not bashing something that alot of people are a part of.
September 4th 2009, 02:14 AM
peasantmb.gif
yeoldetoast
Peasant They/Them Australia
LOOK UPON MY DEFORMED FACE! 
Wahhh boo hoo. Different people have different beliefs. Save that crap for a religious forum, or Church. You Atheist types are just as bad as the people who believe that evolution is wrong, and that we're going to Hell. Don't think that because you believe something, it's right.
Of course this then brings in the fact that people who score higher on IQ tests are less likely to follow organised religion.
But really, just STFU.
September 4th 2009, 02:26 AM
dragon.gif
Quiztis
Peasant He/Him Sweden bloop
Life? What's that? Can I download it?! 
My head hurts.
September 4th 2009, 02:50 AM
bonca.gif
Erwin
Peasant He/Him Netherlands
Friendship is magic 
Wow, I like reading all this. It's an interesting discussion though I don't really see the point of getting involved myself (except for pointing out that there are people who read this and aren't scared by a wall of text.).
September 4th 2009, 03:46 AM
wizardg.gif
schnapper
Peasant He/Him Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
Let us save our effort and just lie down and die. 
Skeletony reminded schnapper about a certain gatling-type gun lolling about his house somewhere, not seen since the godley coldwar
Oh, and tony mate, to quote just type <,i,> text here <,/,i,> Minus the commas

Oh, and having re-read your' posts, you know your' biz - that's good. I think saying you're a atheist or a theist is like saying you're a bird or a fish - ultimately you may be one or the other, but you may also be a sparrow, falcon, ostrich, herring, shark, bass or a sperm waiting to happen. I, though brought up as a Seventh Day Advemtist find it impossible to believe the Judeo-Xtian God can both give man freedom of choice and maintain omniscience. That's one of my big god-dilemmas.
As you also said, every being deserves to worship whatsoever they please. Most laws and morals are for the protection of the interest of that which we value, be that sex, family, ideas, bias or the Holy Land.
September 4th 2009, 03:51 AM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
Don't think that because you believe something, it's right.

Agreed with that.

Still, I'd like to write a little reply to mr. SkeleTony. (A lot of text coming up...)

The OP asked if anyone had been offended by God and several people then chimed in with their proclamations of theism or atheism and my post was in direct response to those who had erroneously equated "atheism" with "not religious".

Fair enough.

You wrote to my point that there was a difference between atheists and non-theists:

You would be wrong on that count. "Nontheism"/"non-theistic" is a synonym for "atheism"/"atheistic" and atheism quite literally means "without gods". The term for being without religion is 'areligious'. The prefix 'a' in both cases means "without".

You might be right theoretically, but in practice this just doesn't work. If a person tells me he is an atheist he would be like WTF if I asked him if he was a Buddhist. If he told me he was a non-theist I might still ask. In practice there is a difference, even though theoretically there is not. And now we're at it are you a Buddhist?

To my point that I think that often atheism can be called a religion you wrote:

Not successfully they cannot. NO ONE can make that argument because it does not exist and leads to absurdities which even YOU would not grant. For example, is THEISM "a religion"? Of course it is not. Like "atheism" theism only pertains to belief in gods, regardless of religion or lack thereof.


It's all a matter of scale. When is a religion still a religion? You're trying to make an arbitrary border. Being Christian is a religion? Or is being Roman Catholic a religion? Or is Theism a religion? One can be all three at a time... Usually you can just say that being Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu is the level that you identify with, but this doesn't always really work, especially with sects that are disregarded by mainstream religion as not belonging to that religion. So in that case you need to define religion on a denominational basis. So yes, I think one can defend that theism is a religion given the right conditions. Though I must admit that it is a bit awkward most of the time. Especially when living in a country with a significant percentage of theists, as the term is then a bit non-descriptive.

On the other hand defending atheism is a religion is much easier than defending that theism is a religion if you define atheism like I did. It features many common elements between people that can be called religious for some of them. If you define atheism your way than you are correct.

Peace!
September 4th 2009, 09:08 AM
dinkdead.gif
I find it hard to believe that anything can be proven, mainly because of the millions of intelligent people who are religous. If proof was as obvious as it would seem to be from that example you give then how could anyone realistically believe in God? Same goes for the other way around.

I have heard good answers to that question (well similar: if God knows evrything that's going to happen how can we humans have free will) but can't think of any right now... so this falls a bit flat I suppose

Anyway, my point is that anyone can find very strong arguments either way but real proof, in my opinion, is impossible because there is always a way to answer it.

That worship bit just seemed to me a very definite statement on the end of your paragraph, that's all. Like 'worship is immoral full stop'.
September 4th 2009, 12:22 PM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
I have only one thing to say:
Get a dang account! Would be nice to know a bit more about the Discusser (not a word but meh) via looking at your profile here or something.

As to the many points that derive from either the original topic discussion or as a response to the statements provided, I shall keep out of it and remain an observer to this debate with interest for now.
September 4th 2009, 04:38 PM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
Hey Skeletony, my first words "Everything you are speaking of is from either your own mind, or most likely another, SkeleTony." was typed with the assumption that you would understand that i have no idea who or what you are. i had to guess whether or not you had notions from your own mind or from somewhere else. It would be extremely stupid for me to think 'This guy's obviously using ideas from his own thoughts and someone elses!' I could only guess. Secondly, I can barely parse that sentence. I do not "believe there is no God". That is like saying that someone who does not believe their own mother is an intergalactic vampire is "believing that his mother is not a vampire and trying to impose that belief on all the people who DO believe there mothers are vampires! what the hell?!? i cannot begin to fathom how stupid that explanation is, Intergalactic vampires my ass! Thridly, I do have to admit i was wrong about the addiction thing, but Evolution is just a theory, like Quantum physics and the boogeyman. we cannot prove, or disprove, Evolution without further evidence.
-Kris
September 4th 2009, 05:12 PM
burntree.gif
Striker
Noble She/Her United States
Daniel, there are clowns. 
Personally, I'm apatheist. The existence of a God is neither meaningful nor relevant, though the debate can be interesting.

@schnapper- I like that! We could start a cult based on self-degradation, BDSM, kinkiness, chaos and general goat-slaughter!
Hey! I resent the implication that what I do on the weekends is in any form religious.

@yeoldetoast
Oh no, people are discussing something you don't like in the off-topic forum. To use the vernacular, get over yourself.

@DaVince- Oh, and the people who haven't done enough research to understand that communism as described by Marx actually could have worked, but that it's just implemented wrong because people are weak against corruption.
Yeah, it's those darn people... always getting in the way of a perfect form of government. If only every single person did what they were supposed to.
September 4th 2009, 07:50 PM
anon.gif
SkeleTony
Ghost They/Them
 
Re: "Wall of Text"

The 'Wall of Text' occurs when someone posts a VERY long, meandering piece without fixed point or reference. I have NEVER done this. You might as well be accusing me of posting nude porn stars here. Just because you do not understand something written does not make it a 'wall of text'. Just ask about anything you are not sure about and I will happily explain it.

Schnapper:

I have already been using the italics function when quoting here since my second post. I know html I just was not sure(in my first post) which html tags(if any) the board would allow.

As for this:

"I think saying you're a atheist or a theist is like saying you're a bird or a fish - ultimately you may be one or the other, but you may also be a sparrow, falcon, ostrich, herring, shark, bass or a sperm waiting to happen."

What is your point? I am many things besides being an atheist and atheism is FAR from being that important(my being a reader, gamer, a comic book collector, a Liberal etc. are more important.). The only time my atheism becomes important is when people are posting ignorant attacks or misapprehensions of me or atheism from a theistic viewpoint.

And this:

"I, though brought up as a Seventh Day Advemtist find it impossible to believe the Judeo-Xtian God can both give man freedom of choice and maintain omniscience."

It's not just that he grant GRANT free will to people...he cannot even HAVE free will himself. If he is omniscient then he is like a robot in that he cannot do anything to contradict what omniscience tells him.

One of those logical things that proves him to be an imaginary thing(not ALL gods...just the ones who are defined as having these two traits.).

"As you also said, every being deserves to worship whatsoever they please."

I never said any such thing. What I said was that No being worthy of worship would want to be worshiped.

And just to let all of you know, I am not some yahoo looking for a religious debate to get into or start and deciding on the DinkNetwork forums as the place to do it. I have been coming here(and playing Dink) for years. I may have made one or two posts before(years ago) asking about something Dink-related but I will remind you that this 'religious thread' was started by someone else and I only chimed in to correct a few things I happen to know a lot about.
September 4th 2009, 08:11 PM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
Then why did you decide to 'correct' us when we were having a greatly heated discussion?
September 4th 2009, 08:12 PM
anon.gif
SkeleTony
Ghost They/Them
 
Metatarsal:

"You might be right theoretically, but in practice this just doesn't work. If a person tells me he is an atheist he would be like WTF if I asked him if he was a Buddhist. If he told me he was a non-theist I might still ask. In practice there is a difference, even though theoretically there is not. And now we're at it are you a Buddhist?"

This is due to your own ignorance of the terms. And of course a Buddhist(even an atheist one which most of them ARE) would be like "WTF?". Just like if someone said he was a mechanic and you said "Are you fabulous?". What I think you are mixed up on here is that the fact that people can possess traits such as atheism and Buddhism at the same time does not mean that they put each on the same 'rung' for self-description. I myself am an atheist and an artist. But if someone is checking out my artwork and asking "You don't do conte crayons do you?" I will not answer "No...I am an atheist".

And the fact that the term itself is not well understood, even by many if not most atheists, does not help. Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein(very smart people) also fell victim to such a poor understanding at times even though THEY were atheists. They both, like Bill Maher recently, were under the mistaken impression that atheism implied some greater degree of 'certainty' about whether any gods might exist.

"[i]It's all a matter of scale. When is a religion still a religion? You're trying to make an arbitrary border."

False. That is like saying that a tree can be a rainbow. This can only happen for the guy who is trying to redefine the words for his own agenda.

"Religion" has a pretty specific meaning and involves ritual, a belief in something transcendent, a hierarchy of appointed(even self-appointed) clergy/holymen, doctrine etc.

Atheism cannot be "a religion" for the same reason THEISM cannot be "a religion". Think about it. What church or dogma is specific to the religion of "theism"? None, because there is no such religion.

Atheism ONLY pertains to BELIEF in gods. Can there be atheistic religions? Sure! As I have already explained, Buddhism, Scientology etc. But the only way to make atheism "a religion" is to re-define these words som that no one else can understand what you are trying to say.
September 4th 2009, 08:34 PM
anon.gif
SkeleTony
Ghost They/Them
 
A note regarding my above reply to KrisKnox:

I am used to posting at forums that use the BBCode quote tags and in that one reply above I forgot where I was posting long enough to revert to old habits. That is why I used the non-working "[quote]" and "[/quote] stuff.

Sparrowhawk:

Proof is not obvious to most people and being able to prove something does not depend on masses of people recognizing that proof. But unless someone can post a rational argument from premise to conclusion which counters said proof, the proof stands nonetheless. Greek Fellow named Erastothones proved that the world was a globe around 2,500 years ago IIRC. He did so using two sticks. But it was several centuries before anyone outside of ancient Greece caught up with him and.

And the question is NOT "If God knows all(the future as well as the past) how can HUMANS have free will?" When the question gets phrased that way then we end up in a mess because it is much simpler than that. God HIMSELF cannot have to free will to create ANYTHING or do ANYTHING if he is omniscient. And THAT is where theistic religionists run off throwing rocks and threats of Hellfire back at me because there is not way out of that predicament.

And it is not true that we are all on even footing with good arguments on both sides. That is 100% false!. Real "proof" can be ignored and rationalized away by the fearful or non-understanding but it cannot be "answered". This will have little effect on who believes what but my point was that there are many things which CAN be proven(one way or the other) and God's nonexistence is one of them.

The ONLY things which CANNOT be proven to exist are imaginary things so saying that God cannot be proven to exist is no different than saying "God is imaginary".

And finally, if worship were moral then why don't most of us worship everyday people who do impressive things? And when those great people, like the Gahndi's of the world see others seeming to worship them, they reject it outright. The reason being that such conceit is not a trait of a respectable person.

No being worthy of worship would want to be worshiped.
September 4th 2009, 08:50 PM
anon.gif
SkeleTony
Ghost They/Them
 
Krisknox:

Oh dear again...

"Hey Skeletony, my first words "Everything you are speaking of is from either your own mind, or most likely another, SkeleTony." was typed with the assumption that you would understand that i have no idea who or what you are. i had to guess whether or not you had notions from your own mind or from somewhere else"

You also added "probably" to your bit. AS if a)It was somehow wrong to post anything that was not out of complete ignorance of all other ideas that anyone else ever had and B)You implied that I was just lifting other people's work...copy/pasting someone else' thoughts here.

Secondly, the "intergalactic vampire-mother' is an appropriate analogy(as evidenced by your inability to answer it). You were saying that lack of belief was instead a full fledged belief itself and on par with religious beliefs. MY point is that if you do not happen to believe your own mother is an intergalactic vampire, that does not make you as 'guilty' as the Raeliens(a cult of people who believe that aliens seeded all life ion our planet, founded by a gent calling himself "Rael") of believing something kooky!

Finally, this nonsense that "evolution is just a theory" reveals a great ignorance on your part of what "theory" means. In science "theory" is an explanation of a FACT or observed phenomenon. It is NOT any of the following:

'An unproven idea'

A best guess

A wild hunch

etc.

Theories in science are NOT rungs on a ladder falling somewhere between "Wild guess"(at the bottom) and "absolute law"(at the top). If I had a nickel everytime I had to correct this silly notion I would be a millionaire!
September 4th 2009, 11:12 PM
spike.gif
Proof is not obvious to most people and being able to prove something does not depend on masses of people recognizing that proof. But unless someone can post a rational argument from premise to conclusion which counters said proof, the proof stands nonetheless.

And your proof that a christian god cannot exist is that it's contradictory? This seems pretty flimsy to me. It's also impossible to disprove the existence of pixies, ghosts, and the tooth fairy, though. There's no way to do it, besides, what's considered "existence" anyway? If something exists in your mind, it exists on some level. Saying that SOMETHING CAN'T EXIST PERIOD is just really obnoxious. Are you sure you didn't use to post quite a lot around here under the name DraconicDink? The keen attention to semantics and black-and-white logic bear an uncanny resemblance.

And the question is NOT "If God knows all(the future as well as the past) how can HUMANS have free will?" When the question gets phrased that way then we end up in a mess because it is much simpler than that. God HIMSELF cannot have to free will to create ANYTHING or do ANYTHING if he is omniscient. And THAT is where theistic religionists run off throwing rocks and threats of Hellfire back at me because there is not way out of that predicament.

Perhaps the people you talked to just sucked? I don't know what free will means to YOU, but to me it just means being able to choose to do whatever you will. How does knowing what you will do cancel that out? Of course, if you know what the future brings, you might do stuff differently than you would have done if you didn't know. But then you would know what you will ultimately choose to do, not what you'd have done if you didn't know. "Duck, I can't do what I want to do because omniscience tells me I do this other thing!" is obviously contradictory to free will, but omniscience doesn't need to mean that. Nothing is forcing anyone to do something they don't want to do.

Omnipotence is a much more difficult trait to have, I think. But anyone can just cop out of answering that question by saying that it's beyond your (or if you want to play safe, beyond anyone's) grasp. Just because YOU find it impossible doesn't mean it actually has to be impossible. God can make it make sense by being awesome.

And it is not true that we are all on even footing with good arguments on both sides. That is 100% false!. Real "proof" can be ignored and rationalized away by the fearful or non-understanding but it cannot be "answered". This will have little effect on who believes what but my point was that there are many things which CAN be proven(one way or the other) and God's nonexistence is one of them.

What is real proof? Back in the day, plenty of proof existed to support the theory that the earth is flat. Any well-spoken and intelligent believer can give you proof as to why their deity must exist. Clearly Mister E's two sticks weren't very good proof since no one believed him. It's only in retrospect that we can say his proof was "real".

The ONLY things which CANNOT be proven to exist are imaginary things so saying that God cannot be proven to exist is no different than saying "God is imaginary".

And that proves god exists... at least in peoples' minds. Even if he has to be a physical, omniscient entity with mass-murdering tendencies, lack of proof of him existing doesn't prove he doesn't exist. An imagined contradiction of his character certainly doesn't.

I'm not trying to say that believing something exists because it can't be disproven isn't ridiculous, just that it can't. And that logic and proof aren't absolute.
September 5th 2009, 12:00 AM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
I didn't imply that you copy/pasted something, I was saying that you could have just as easily read a book on the subject and reworded a few things from it to back your perception of said subject. Theories aren't an absolute fact. let me explain it the best way i can. Let's say a scientist looks into something extrordinary for his time. let's say said scientist sets up a controlled experiment with every variable he thought of in place. the scientist could keep doing the experiment changing the variables every time. Soon, he has a pretty solid theory. an ex amount of years later (let's say fifty for arguments sake) a group of scientists do the same experiments, and end up with some new information. The theory gets changed and more scientific knowledge is added to school textbooks.

You said that a theory is: an explanation of a FACT or observed phenomenon. It is NOT any of the following:
'An unproven idea'
A best guess
A wild hunch
etc.

Theories aren't facts, though you're right about them not being a best guess or a wild hunch, an assumption is a wild hunch/best guess. A theory is an idea that isn't concrete.
-Kris
September 5th 2009, 01:14 AM
custom_robj.png
Robj
Jester He/Him Australia
You feed the madness, and it feeds on you. 
My belief is that this thread is going nowhere.
Might as well go and resurrect the bomb iraq thread and laugh at that.
I don't believe in god, but I have nothing against anyone that does.
I swear to my dog that he should chew this thread up, burn it over a fire with a pair of holy tongs and eat the holy ashes. Then my godlike dog can contact the almighty mods and get them to lock whatever is left of this crispy, french fry tasting, flame vault.
Or not, in which case I'll just grab a deck chair, a pair of sunglasses, some popcorn and watch how this goes, and not get involved. If people start flaming each other, I'll keep my flame thrower in my closet, as fuel prices are getting pretty steep. I could use hellfire though, but it just takes so dang long to build up enough energy to use it.

*Pulls out a cookie tin stolen from kris, containing stolen cookies from many dinkers. Aims a 4-10 shotgun at the cookie tin.*
*Shouts in a deep, godlike voice - "Now nobody move or I'll splatter it's grains all over the footpath."*


September 5th 2009, 01:40 AM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
*stole the tin from Tal, who stole it from other dinkers.* MY cookies!
September 5th 2009, 01:49 AM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
Seriously; get an account, Skeletony.
Become one with the Almighty Dead Dragon Carcass, join the sept that caused such a discussion thread to exist.
September 5th 2009, 02:44 AM
wizardg.gif
schnapper
Peasant He/Him Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
Let us save our effort and just lie down and die. 
@S.Tony: "You might as well be accusing me of posting nude porn stars here." More like thanking you XD
"I have already been using the italics function" Ahh - I overlooked that.
"What is your point? I am many things besides being an atheist and atheism is FAR from being that important + bla-bla-bla" My point is that you can be a Deist (that's like being an animal), a Christian (that's like being a bird), an Adventist (that's like being an owl), one of the many subdivisions or breakaways ie.Dravidian, Reformed, Conference, Self-supporting/ C.B. etc (that's like being a Boobook owl, a Sooty owl, a Powerful owl etc). DISCLAIMER: I like analogies and similes. Also, the animals I have used are neither significant nor symbolic - they could apply to any other religion or philosophy.
"It's not just that he grant GRANT free will to people...he cannot even HAVE free will himself + bla-bla-bla" No sh!t.
"I never said any such thing. What I said was that No being worthy of worship would want to be worshiped." Ever heard of paraphrasing?
"And just to let all of you know, I am not some yahoo + bla-bla-bla" I connotated that you were a noob for triple posting, although (before you get all defensive) I see now that it provides order to your' replies, similar to a chapter in a book.

ED. "And the question is NOT "If God knows all(the future as well as the past) how can HUMANS have free will?" When the question gets phrased that way then we end up in a mess because it is much simpler than that. God HIMSELF cannot have to free will to create ANYTHING or do ANYTHING if he is omniscient" Tell me, how does being omniscient prevent you from doing or creating things?
Also, Tony, go easy on Krisnox - he's only, what, 14?

ED#2. Scratcher said: "And that proves god exists... at least in peoples' minds." I totally agree. Consider the Mythology/ religions of the ancient people - all of their' gods were reflections of what they deemed desirable or commendable, even if they worshipped them with mild disgust (Baccharus, Kali etc).
Robj said: "I could use hellfire though, but it just takes so dang long to build up enough energy to use it." Better not, Rob - Tony said: "bla-bla-bla + THAT is where theistic religionists run off throwing rocks and threats of Hellfire back at me because there is not way out of that predicament. + bla-bla-bla"
September 5th 2009, 11:44 AM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
Yes, I am fourteen, but i don't write/type like it. I write/type in a more advanced fashion than the kids at my school because i read alot of books.
September 6th 2009, 05:56 AM
anon.gif
SkeleTony
Ghost They/Them
 
Scratcher:

"And your proof that a christian god cannot exist is that it's contradictory?"

That it violates the LAW of NON-CONTRADICTION. A thing cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A' at the same time. It is impossible. A guy who says things like "Everyone should be treated fairly" but then randomly cuts innocent peoples' brake lines or poisons their food is 'contradictory' but he does not violate any principles of logic doing so. But a cheetah which gets further away from you as it moves TOWARDS you or a God which somehow knows the future with 100% certainty and yet is able to ponder and make decisions...those things cannot exist because they are inherently contradictory by their very nature.

"This seems pretty flimsy to me."

Can't wait for you to get to college and try to pass that "being contradictory is flimsy evidence against existence' line. *chuckle*

"It's also impossible to disprove the existence of pixies, ghosts, and the tooth fairy, though."

Yes, in MOST cases it is impossible to prove a negative. Santa Claus, giant radioactive dinosaurs etc. would all apply here. But there IS one exception and that is in things which are logically contradictory. To those the 'Can't prove a negative' rule does not apply.

"There's no way to do it, besides, what's considered "existence" anyway? If something exists in your mind, it exists on some level."

There are two principle types of "existence" relevant here.

Independent existence - These are things which exist independently of what we think or believe about them. A blind man who believes he is walking on clear, smooth ground will still trip over a rock in his path regardless of what he believes about that rock because the rock exists independently of human thinking or belief.

and the second type is of course:

Dependent existence - These are things which only exist within our minds and if no brained creatures existed, neither would the ideas and imaginings we conjure up in our heads. You cannot trip over a rock in my head no matter what you believe because the rock only exists as an idea/thought.

Which brings us to 'God'. Which type of existence does one suppose him to have?
I say he is an imaginary thing. One in a long line of similar imaginary things created in human imaginations for specific purposes. We have NO concurrent observation of such an entity which is an earmark of an imaginary thing.

"Saying that SOMETHING CAN'T EXIST PERIOD is just really obnoxious."

Okay if you are going to raise a fit over some semantic nonsense then please, whenever you see me say that something which cannot exist for reasons of logic, assume I mean that it cannot exist as an independent entity. God may well 'exist' in a sense inside your head and millions of other imaginations but I do not concern myself with such since your imaginations cannot cause me any harm or grant me any benefit.

"Are you sure you didn't use to post quite a lot around here under the name DraconicDink? The keen attention to semantics and black-and-white logic bear an uncanny resemblance."

Positive. I do not ever recall seeing any of his or her posts either. We're not going to start playing the 'Let's assume Tony is some other poster we didn't like and ran off' game are we?

"Perhaps the people you talked to just sucked? I don't know what free will means to YOU, but to me it just means being able to choose to do whatever you will."

Close enough I suppose but for simplicity's sake let's just say it is the ability to ponder a decision.

"How does knowing what you will do cancel that out?"

Okay listen up; let's say you are God, sitting around 50 gazilllion years ago. At this point since you are omniscient you already KNOW with absolute certainty that Adam & Eve(or humans in general) will exist and live on Earth.

Now...at what point could you ponder a decision to create humans?

No matter how far you go back the omniscience applies and you are without the capability to ponder anything. This is so unless or until you are somehow stripped of your omniscience and that cannot happen without you knowing it would.

"Of course, if you know what the future brings, you might do stuff differently than you would have done if you didn't know."

Not at all. You could not do ANYTHING but what you KNEW you would do. You would be as a robot following programming only without the possibility of a malfunction or bug occurring in the coding because any action you took which violated your omniscience would of course render your omniscience null and void.

"But then you would know what you will ultimately choose to do, not what you'd have done if you didn't know. "Duck, I can't do what I want to do because omniscience tells me I do this other thing!" is obviously contradictory to free will, but omniscience doesn't need to mean that. Nothing is forcing anyone to do something they don't want to do."

Then you are seeking to re-define omniscience to mean something less contradictory. You are free to do that but such a re-definition is at odds with the definition found in the Bible/Qur' an/Torah.

"Omnipotence is a much more difficult trait to have, I think."

Not really. One reason I never use the "Can God create a rock so heavy...?" argument is because it does not really apply. "All powerful" does not mean "Able to do the logically impossible". A 'rock' by definition MUST be 'lift-able' or it is not a rock and if it is lift-able then an all powerful being can lift it.

[i]"But anyone can just cop out of answering that question by saying that it's beyond your (or if you want to play safe, beyond anyone's) grasp. Just because YOU find it impossible doesn't mean it actually has to be impossible. God can make it make sense by being awesome."


Nope...that does not work and no one in the world would accept that sort of reasoning for any other claim. For example:

"Ted Bundy was a saint and should be given a martyr's burial. Just because YOU are unable to comprehend the true humanitarianism of his actions does not means he was not a saint!"

"A fall from 50 stories up cannot kill you. Such perceived deaths are illusory and brought on by our too-limited sensory capabilities. When you take a swan dive off a skyscraper you actually bounce right into a parallel universe!"

And so on...

"What is real proof? Back in the day, plenty of proof existed to support the theory that the earth is flat."

There was no "theory" that the earth was flat and certainly no "proof" of such. It was an understandable assumption and one that even modern children have to be talked out of. There was PROOF that the earth was a globe though, even 250-500 B.C.E. but like I said...having proof available does NOT mean that everyone will unanimously be aware of and understand such.

"Any well-spoken and intelligent believer can give you proof as to why their deity must exist."

This is absolutely FALSE. The absolute MOST intelligent of believers cannot even provide good EVIDENCE, let alone proof. What happens is that such believers have ONE standard for what constitutes good evidence when it comes to things they do not believe. For those things they by and large agree with skeptical criteria. They will not believe in fairies or other gods based on the evidence that believers in those things present.

But for THEIR god(s) they have a much lighter criteria and it is as nonsensical as things get. Typically a God-believer who is otherwise intelligent will make special exceptions for his own god, allowing for anecdotal evidence and such to constitute "proof" for him while disallowing anecdote for other extraordinary claims(for good reason).

"Clearly Mister E's two sticks weren't very good proof since no one believed him. It's only in retrospect that we can say his proof was "real"

False. Everyone who knew of and understood his "proof" acknowledged it as such(which amounted to a tiny population of Greeks at the time). The error you are making here is a fallacy called argumentum ad populum. It is an error in reasoning which presumes that the popularity of an idea or claim is directly tied to the validity of said claim or idea.

"And that proves god exists... at least in peoples' minds. Even if he has to be a physical, omniscient entity with mass-murdering tendencies, lack of proof of him existing doesn't prove he doesn't exist. An imagined contradiction of his character certainly doesn't."

Anyone claiming that God only exists as an imaginary thing will get no argument from atheists. In fact you probably would not hear a word from us again ion the matter if such were the case all around.

Lack of evidence is some of the strongest evidence AGAINST a thing's existence you can find, contrary to some common assertions to the contrary. And those holding the negative position NEVER have the burden of proof so if the positive claimant's of God's existence absolutely lack proof(or even evidence) then our position is the default.

"I'm not trying to say that believing something exists because it can't be disproven isn't ridiculous, just that it can't. And that logic and proof aren't absolute."

This last sentence is too ambiguous for me to make sense of.
September 6th 2009, 06:35 AM
custom_robj.png
Robj
Jester He/Him Australia
You feed the madness, and it feeds on you. 
According to Tony's avatar, he's a ghost.

Ghosts don't exist <insert some extensive jibberish weird supporting evidence here that takes up 500 pages>

There's this button you should check out, it's called "Create new account", very useful. Use it.

You don't want to see innocent cookies grains splattered all over the footpath do you?
September 6th 2009, 08:45 AM
bonca.gif
Christiaan
Bard They/Them Netherlands
Lazy bum 
I'm pretty sure SkeleTony is not DraconicDink. Think about it, DraconicDink was a moron, he didn't know how to discuss and basically said everyone disagreeing with his ideals were wrong.

SkeleTony may word his arguments a tad harsh, but at least he provides good arguments. He needs to create an account though!
September 6th 2009, 10:27 AM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
I'm surprised noone has tried to get at Tony by pretending to be him, I know some people did that to me when i became a nuisance a few years back.
September 6th 2009, 01:41 PM
spike.gif
Can't wait for you to get to college and try to pass that "being contradictory is flimsy evidence against existence' line. *chuckle*

I never generalized it like that. I said that it's flimsy as proof that god can't exist (as an aside, even if they disagreed they're way too scared to offend your religion to say anything against that in college). You're the one trying to apply my reasoning to everyday situations.

From that perspective, I don't think we disagree too much. If we're watching cheetahs running on the savannah, I'm sure we both agree they're not suddenly going to start moving backwards as they're running forth. The difference is that you think it's simply not possible for that to ever happen, while I'm only 99.99~infinity sure.

When talking of highly theoretical concepts, god, the universe, how can you be so certain your logic and laws will always be absolute and flawless? Doesn't the birth of the world itself go against the law of non-contradiction? Something can't just start existing from nothingness, this also means it couldn't have always existed. That's just one thing among many the human mind can't understand. In that light, how can you say with absolute certainty that a judeo-christian god could never exist?

Yes, in MOST cases it is impossible to prove a negative. Santa Claus, giant radioactive dinosaurs etc. would all apply here. But there IS one exception and that is in things which are logically contradictory. To those the 'Can't prove a negative' rule does not apply.

You think logic is always absolute, I'm not that sure. If taken far enough, I guess it could be said that I think "anything is possible" and you don't. It is a really semantic difference most of the time, but if something that contradicts the law of non-contradiction really did happen once, I wouldn't have to change my mind.

Independent existence - These are things which exist independently of what we think or believe about them. A blind man who believes he is walking on clear, smooth ground will still trip over a rock in his path regardless of what he believes about that rock because the rock exists independently of human thinking or belief.

Okay if you are going to raise a fit over some semantic nonsense then please, whenever you see me say that something which cannot exist for reasons of logic, assume I mean that it cannot exist as an independent entity. God may well 'exist' in a sense inside your head and millions of other imaginations but I do not concern myself with such since your imaginations cannot cause me any harm or grant me any benefit.

Okay, thanks for clearing up what you're talking of, I wasn't just referring to an imaginary god with that though. If you told to me that a three-tailed invisible slayer is standing in front of me, I couldn't know it isn't there with 100% certainty.

Positive. I do not ever recall seeing any of his or her posts either. We're not going to start playing the 'Let's assume Tony is some other poster we didn't like and ran off' game are we?

I was joking; something you dang vulcans often struggle with!

Close enough I suppose but for simplicity's sake let's just say it is the ability to ponder a decision.

Not really, there's a huge difference. You're right in that an omniscient being can't ponder things. However, that doesn't negate having a personality.

Okay listen up; let's say you are God, sitting around 50 gazilllion years ago. At this point since you are omniscient you already KNOW with absolute certainty that Adam & Eve(or humans in general) will exist and live on Earth.

Now...at what point could you ponder a decision to create humans?

No matter how far you go back the omniscience applies and you are without the capability to ponder anything. This is so unless or until you are somehow stripped of your omniscience and that cannot happen without you knowing it would.


If you know that there is free beer in the pub, and that you will definitely go there (based on the type of person you are), do you ponder about it? You would never choose not to go because you are you. If god didn't want to create humans it wouldn't have happened. He may not spend time wondering what to do, but since what happens is based on who he is and not someone forcing him to do contrary to his will, I don't think that undermines "free will". Isn't pondering just a way to find out what you want to do? An omniscient being would know that by default.

Not at all. You could not do ANYTHING but what you KNEW you would do. You would be as a robot following programming only without the possibility of a malfunction or bug occurring in the coding because any action you took which violated your omniscience would of course render your omniscience null and void.

Right, but that's how people are anyway. If I lived my life again without previous knowledge about having lived it before, everything would go exactly as it goes now, we would be having this exact same conversation. That's of course under the assumption being omniscient is possible; there are no random chances and such. This is not something I believe, but I'm humble enough to NOT be absolutely certain my beliefs are the only possible truth.

Then you are seeking to re-define omniscience to mean something less contradictory. You are free to do that but such a re-definition is at odds with the definition found in the Bible/Qur' an/Torah.

Meh, I think I just worded that badly.

Not really. One reason I never use the "Can God create a rock so heavy...?" argument is because it does not really apply. "All powerful" does not mean "Able to do the logically impossible". A 'rock' by definition MUST be 'lift-able' or it is not a rock and if it is lift-able then an all powerful being can lift it.

I don't really agree, but I don't want to add even more points to an already dastardly long quote fest.

Nope...that does not work and no one in the world would accept that sort of reasoning for any other claim. For example:

"Ted Bundy was a saint and should be given a martyr's burial. Just because YOU are unable to comprehend the true humanitarianism of his actions does not means he was not a saint!"

"A fall from 50 stories up cannot kill you. Such perceived deaths are illusory and brought on by our too-limited sensory capabilities. When you take a swan dive off a skyscraper you actually bounce right into a parallel universe!"

And so on...


I can't know they aren't right with complete certainty. There's no difference at all as to how I would treat people claiming such things... but there's always the possibility.

This is absolutely FALSE. The absolute MOST intelligent of believers cannot even provide good EVIDENCE, let alone proof.

They can provide "proof" on par with your claim that god cannot exist beucase he contradicts the law of non-contradiction. To use the creation of the world as an example again, since the universe couldn't have just sprung up from nothingness, god must exist. They use a higher power to explain stuff that is otherwise unexplainable. Can you logically explain how or why the world came to be?

Really though, I agree much more with your points than the points made by most religionists. But until logic and science can completely explain everything, how can you say they're definitely wrong?

There was no "theory" that the earth was flat and certainly no "proof" of such. It was an understandable assumption and one that even modern children have to be talked out of. There was PROOF that the earth was a globe though, even 250-500 B.C.E. but like I said...having proof available does NOT mean that everyone will unanimously be aware of and understand such.

False. Everyone who knew of and understood his "proof" acknowledged it as such(which amounted to a tiny population of Greeks at the time). The error you are making here is a fallacy called argumentum ad populum. It is an error in reasoning which presumes that the popularity of an idea or claim is directly tied to the validity of said claim or idea.

That may have been a bad example. I don't really know anything about Erastothones and friends and how solid his proof may have been. But there's plenty of evidence brought forth by different scientists favouring this theory and other evidence favouring that theory. It's only after overwhelming evidence supporting one theory is found that we can safely say these folks had it right, and these other folks had it wrong. Meanwhile, everyone uses the evidence to prove their own theory, and it's not a simple matter to determine who is right.

Lack of evidence is some of the strongest evidence AGAINST a thing's existence you can find, contrary to some common assertions to the contrary. And those holding the negative position NEVER have the burden of proof so if the positive claimant's of God's existence absolutely lack proof(or even evidence) then our position is the default.

In some cases. For example, if you were asked to determine if a mogwai is inside this box, and you couldn't find it, lack of evidence would be a very strong point for it not being there. Since we haven't found any life outside of earth in the universe, though, is it logical to assume that it doesn't exist?

I'd think the default position would be neutrality, not denial.

This last sentence is too ambiguous for me to make sense of.

I was just trying to sum up my stance. Based on the knowledge you, me, or anyone has, I don't think there is any way to be certain of anything. This is what Sparrowhawk was saying also, and what I have repeated over and over in this post. :} Also, I'll quote something you said from the Psychic Powers thread, since it's relevant to this point:

There is this common misconception of skeptics that we are dour, hard-nosed people who recoil at the very idea that such things could be true. Most of us are connoisseurs of science fiction, fantasy, comic books etc., myself included.

We just don't confuse that desire and open mindedness we have with a rational assessment of reality. Unfortunately we do not live in an 'Anything is possible' reality. We live in a finite reality. Like it or not, some things are not real, no matter how much they entertain or inspire us creatively.


On the flipside, thinking that "anything is possible" in no way hinders being skeptical or assessing reality rationally. It's not living in a dreamworld, merely accepting the fact that there are no certainties. Reality may or may not be finite but as a subjective fleshbag you can't possibly be asolutely sure you're perceiving it correctly.
September 6th 2009, 04:41 PM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
I like to add just a little bit to this discussion. I'll probably get out of this discussion after a few posts because:

A) An internet forum really isn't the place for very deep discussions as reading too much makes my head hurt and constantly quoting each other makes my head hurt even more with such a time span between posts.

B) I'm afraid SkeleTony and me are mostly talking about semantics and we'll probably just not agree on them. Me taking the meaning closest to every day use and SkeleTony taking a more fundamental meaning.

But for now another yet another reaction:

A) You state that "the fact that people can possess traits such as atheism and Buddhism at the same time does not mean that they put each on the same 'rung' for self-description." I agree entirely. This is exactly what I'm talking about that I take a meaning closer to what the word 'atheist' means for most people. Your meaning might be more suitable for an academic discussion, I like to keep the meaning closer to what most people feel with the term. (Yes I know most is very vague, and it might have to do with my feeling for language.)

False. That is like saying that a tree can be a rainbow. This can only happen for the guy who is trying to redefine the words for his own agenda.

A christian is a type of theist.
A tree is a type of rainbow.

Proof by analogy is fraud, proven once again.

We no longer live in a time when people simply would say "I'm christian and I am member of this and this congregation." Nowadays there are many people who believe in life after death and in a caring God but not in Jesus or Mohamed, what's their religion? I could describe it with either 'theist' or 'somethingist' in which case I prefer the former as a description of their religion. Which brings me to your next point:

"Religion" has a pretty specific meaning and involves ritual, a belief in something transcendent, a hierarchy of appointed(even self-appointed) clergy/holymen, doctrine etc.

I have great difficulty with this explanation of religion, I'll tell you why. I know of people around me who are what they call 'home preachers'. These are often people who think that every church in existence isn't strict enough in their stances, so they hold small church service in their own house, usually with only their family. They're usually reading the writings of 17th and 18th century pietism leaders in their service. According to your definition they are not member of a religion as they (often)don't have a hierarchy. But they're clearly christians to me, and christianity, for me, is a religion.

I just like to take a slightly different meaning, not because it fits my agenda best, but because it explains life around me better. If you like to take a different meaning: More power to you. You might even be more right from a fundamental point of view.

My conclusion? This sentence in my first reaction:

Though one may argue that atheism is a religion in itself...

Should have been written as:

Though one may argue that what most people call atheism can be a religion in itself...

This is closer to what I meant. Though some people I know will replace 'can be' with 'is'. All boils down to the definition of religion I suppose. I could ramble on for a couple of pages. As it is right now my argumentation has still got quite a few holes in it, but getting them all straight will cost more text than I'm willing to type right now.

I also have something else to add that I've been noting in this thread:

You state that you think that the judeo-christian god can be logically disproved. I have two fundamental problems with this:

A) It assumes that the laws of logic are applicable, not only to the natural world but to the supernatural world as well. I can't see why you can be 100% sure about this. If you don't believe a supernatural world exists, this makes sense. But that really is a believe if you can't apply logic to this world.

B) Your application of logic might not be the correct one. The ancient Greek used their logic to make conclusions about how the universe worked. Sometimes they were right, more often they were wrong. Does that mean that logic is not applicable to this world? Of course not, it means that you have to check with experiments if the logic you applied was applied correctly. As doing experiments on supernatural beings is a bit difficult (they tend not to cooperate) you just can't know. You can only hope you don't end up having used the wrong assumptions. Which is essentially the same as for people who do believe in the supernatural.
September 6th 2009, 05:24 PM
slimeb.gif
DaVince
Peasant He/Him Netherlands
Olde Time Dinkere 
Striker:

To be honest, that's how I got the history on communism in school. Fairly neutral, but after all explanation our teacher did give us a strong opinion on how a lot of Americans watch communism in a much more negative light - mostly because they were the ones to have to compete with the corrupt as heck USSR.
September 6th 2009, 10:55 PM
burntree.gif
Striker
Noble She/Her United States
Daniel, there are clowns. 
Well, people are the problem with all forms of government, not just Communism. Even Feudalism would work if everyone would do what they were supposed to, instead of leading to a bloody, inefficient, and oppressive way for most to live. Some systems are better at holding off corruption than others. So far, Communism does not seem to be one of them.

Granted, with the right group of people, it may... but that seems very unlikely on a large scale.
September 6th 2009, 11:39 PM
peasantmb.gif
yeoldetoast
Peasant They/Them Australia
LOOK UPON MY DEFORMED FACE! 
OHAI GUISE WHY SO SRS?
September 7th 2009, 03:53 AM
wizardg.gif
schnapper
Peasant He/Him Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
Let us save our effort and just lie down and die. 
We must not let science diminish our ability to think outside the square, to rob us of art and imagination!
September 7th 2009, 04:42 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
3 THINGS FOR ALL WHO LOVE TO WRITE LONG MESSAGES:

1) Okay, I know this is gonna be a long post aswell, but forget about that for now.

2) Don't write long, uninteresting posts (Long AND interesting posts would be: Gaming, Dinking, Worshipping DDC, eating a banana and beheading ducks) because they are just waste of time and space. About 1% of Dinkers are interested in reading them and 0.0000003% are going to read them.

3) Now, since only 000... or so few people would read them, nobody is gonna get your point in your post, so nobody can comment on that. So again, we come to 2; it's just a waste of time and space.
September 7th 2009, 05:03 AM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
Uh, so?

If I like writing long posts why do you care if you don't even read them? Ignore this thread.
September 7th 2009, 05:22 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
I'm actually telling it to save your time and the forum space as I said. There's no point in writing long messages if nobody's gonna read them. Just like I said, it's just gonna be a waste of this forum's space and waste of YOUR time. But sure, it's not my problem if you want to waste your time on long posts.
September 7th 2009, 12:11 PM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
.llukS fo ysetruoC
September 7th 2009, 06:54 PM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
Anyone notice that everyone is at eachother's throats? I mean, seriously! Cool down everyone! Let's all go to the nearest convenience store, buy some pop, (Or n Schnapper's case, a bottle of schnapps) A bag of your favorite chips, (Not potatoe sticks, like they call it in some places, but Pringles or something like that.) A bag of Skittles and a bottle of chill pills and come back after the pent up steam is released. Maybe we all can play an Xbox game or something too, just for something to yell at.
September 8th 2009, 01:19 AM
anon.gif
SkeleTony
Ghost They/Them
 
Scratcher:

"I never generalized it like that. I said that it's flimsy as proof that god can't exist (as an aside, even if they disagreed they're way too scared to offend your religion to say anything against that in college). You're the one trying to apply my reasoning to everyday situations."

That is exactly what I was addressing. I simply cannot for the life of me understand why you think this is so?! As Sagan used to point out with some regularity, we do not live in an "anything is possible" reality. We just don't! If we did then you would have no grounds to believe you were doing anything you thought you were doing on a daily basis. When you thought you were feeding the kids you would have no grounds to not think you were murdering them with 'mind beams'. and simultaneously replacing them with dopplegangers you constructed with your own mind.

To me there is no significant difference between being 'impossible' and being '99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%' unlikely and to even dwell on such is far beyond splitting hairs...it is madness!

I say that God is impossible. You say he is just 99.999999999999999999999999999% unlikely. If I see some evidence that he is not impossible, I will change my mind and say he is...to whatever degree probable.

So you are again just hiding behind semantics here. Neither of us are going to live our lives with the consideration that there may be such a thing in existence so this is a rather moot point.

"When talking of highly theoretical concepts, god, the universe, how can you be so certain your logic and laws will always be absolute and flawless?"

Straw man.

You cannot hide nonsensical postulations behind the constructed straw man of some self-important guy who thinks his ideas are "flawless" and such because that has no bearing on MY case. And either the case you are("You" in general, not you specifically) putting forth(or halfheartedly defending) is rational or it is IRRATIONAL. If it is irrational then dodging behind the above straw man does not make your case any more rational than it was when you started.

Like it or not, the universe operates by certain laws and some things are just not possible. By the evidence and knowledge we have I feel I can safely say that SOME specific claims are impossible. Cheetahs that get further away as they move towards you, automobiles made entirely of fog and the Judeo-Christian God are some of these.

I will happily eat crow if you can make a contrary case but until you do, I stand by these.

" Doesn't the birth of the world itself go against the law of non-contradiction?"

Not at all. You are trying to assign a probability to an event retroactively and that is a no-no. To illustrate why this is I implore you to perform a little controlled test for me:

Take a deck of cards and shuffle them.

Next throw them up in the air and let them hit the floor.

Now take note of each 'face up' card, it's value/suit and the precise distance it is from each other card.

Now tell me what the odds are you would achieve THAT specific result from a random toss of a shuffled deck?

See the problem? The correct answer is that the deck was 100% certain to come up as they did because they HAD to come up in SOME sort of configuration!

Same goes for how the cosmos formed, the way life on earth evolved etc.

"Something can't just start existing from nothingness, this also means it couldn't have always existed."

Wrong on the second count. Existence DOES happen in infinite regress. There was no 'beginning' to existence itself(only to our specific universe at best). Think about it...your first assertion above is what proves your second assertion false! You correctly ascertain that an existence of complete 'nothingness' cannot at any point produce 'something' and this means that there always had to be 'something'(whether some sort of sub-atomic nano-existence or what have you) in order for 'other things' to come about.

" That's just one thing among many the human mind can't understand. In that light, how can you say with absolute certainty that a judeo-christian god could never exist?

See above.

Long answer made short: That which exists STILL must do so in a way that makes sense. Reality cannot be if every time you add 2+2 you are able to get a random answer ranging from '4' to '9,376' to 'spaghetti sauce'.

"...but if something that contradicts the law of non-contradiction really did happen once, I wouldn't have to change my mind. "

Yep. Let me know when that occurs. I think we both know it will not.

"Not really, there's a huge difference. You're right in that an omniscient being can't ponder things. However, that doesn't negate having a personality"

Objection! Relevance...?

"If you know that there is free beer in the pub, and that you will definitely go there (based on the type of person you are), do you ponder about it?"

False analogy. I am not omniscient. AM omniscient personality could not ponder or make any decision. He either KNOWS with his Godly certainty that he will drink free beer at a pub(and does so) or he is not omniscient. There are no other options here.

"You would never choose not to go because you are you. If god didn't want to create humans it wouldn't have happened."

Not relevant. Either he can make a decision to create humans(or not) OR he knows, one way or the other whether he does or not. The mistake you are making is you keep limiting "God" to HUMAN(non-omniscient) limitations. Of course a HUMAN can make decisions and not be a robot. But for God this would be impossible.

"He may not spend time wondering what to do, but since what happens is based on who he is and not someone forcing him to do contrary to his will, I don't think that undermines "free will". Isn't pondering just a way to find out what you want to do? An omniscient being would know that by default."

EXACTLY! And therefore he could not make such a choice. In order for his previous omniscient knowledge to remain 'True' he MUST do as said foreknowledge dictates. You are trying to fudge the decision to occur before the omniscience but that cannot be for an omniscient and eternally existent being. No matter how far you go back to place that decision, his knowledge supersedes.

"Right, but that's how people are anyway. If I lived my life again without previous knowledge about having lived it before, everything would go exactly as it goes now, we would be having this exact same conversation. That's of course under the assumption being omniscient is possible; there are no random chances and such. This is not something I believe, but I'm humble enough to NOT be absolutely certain my beliefs are the only possible truth."

You are welcome to your beliefs. I have no use for such in my life but I certainly do not go around trying to discourage or bar others from such.

But I will drag out Gould's Contingency theory here to point out that it is not necessarily so that you, being able to hypothetically rewind the tape of life would do exactly as you have done this life. In fact it is highly unlikely.
To complex for this thread but there are just too many variables that go into creating 'Butterfly effects' in such a hypothetical.

And being "humble" has nothing to do with this. You seem to be taking unwarranted jabs at me here. I am as humble as they come but I have noticed that when someone holds a view that most common folk disagree with(be it about belief in God, time travel, ghosts etc.), it is almost guaranteed they will be attacked as being 'conceited' or 'not humble'.

"They can provide "proof" on par with your claim that god cannot exist beucase he contradicts the law of non-contradiction."

False. You are welcome to go try and find one of these though(good luck with that!)!

"To use the creation of the world as an example again, since the universe couldn't have just sprung up from nothingness, god must exist. They use a higher power to explain stuff that is otherwise unexplainable. Can you logically explain how or why the world came to be?"

A good rule of thumb to have when considering the worth of evidence: If that same evidence could be offered in support of uncountable claims you yourself would NOT assent to, then that evidence is worthless. Saying that existence itself is evidence of God is right up there with saying it is evidence of 'world fairies', 'genies', That we are all just figments in the imagination of a sleeping child, ad infinitum.

In order for evidence to be worthwhile for a claim it must DIRECTLY infer said claim's veracity and we must be able to apply Ockham's razor to the whole thing. Someone allegedly witnessing someone else telekinetically lift a couch and spin it in the air is, by itself worthless. Someone telekinetically lifting and spinning a couch under proper controlled conditions while scientists observe and record the event DOES count as good evidence.

Really though, I agree much more with your points than the points made by most religionists. But until logic and science can completely explain everything, how can you say they're definitely wrong?

I have no grounds to say that logic and science CANNOT explain everything(remember that "has not yet" does NOT = "CAN NOT EVER").
September 8th 2009, 01:32 AM
duckdie.gif
I have created an account now folks.
September 8th 2009, 01:42 AM
dragon.gif
Quiztis
Peasant He/Him Sweden bloop
Life? What's that? Can I download it?! 
Kewl, welcome to the DN SkeleTony. I guess you alredy welcomed yourself to the forums.
September 8th 2009, 02:10 AM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
Well, someone started impersonating you in this thread. So having an account should make that impossible. Though other people can still post as a ghost with your name, we now know that it is likely not you then.

EDIT: If this is you of course... Bleh, you never know something 100% sure...
September 8th 2009, 03:04 AM
wizardg.gif
schnapper
Peasant He/Him Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
Let us save our effort and just lie down and die. 
Oooo - have you tried chilli Skittles? They blaze like a forum flamer pretending to be SkeleTony. Or Fireball5 in general.
ED. Welcome SkeleTony. Have some schnapps on me, mate.
September 8th 2009, 05:49 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
Welcome, SkeleTony. Sorry, it was me who impersonated you. I just got tired of you spreading information that hasn't been proved, and saying other people are wrong. So yeah, sorry.

What I don't get though, is that other Dinkers have started calling it impersonating. It has been a joke in TDN for ages, and never ever before has it been called impersonating. In fact, if you read some older posts, this "impersonating" has been called funny and Redink even once impersonated Dukie and told he was gonna leave, as an april fools. So WTF, why are we calling it "impersonating" and think it's SO serious nowadays?
September 8th 2009, 07:14 AM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
You are now a Permanent Resident until death. Welcome to your Jail cell.

Feel free to change things on your account arround, it makes you more individual. That, I won't constantly nag-post about as I had about you making an account.

As for the Impersonating thing, I think the original source of that problem was Godley's arrival, if not Skorn. I remember it had something to do with one of the recent newbs here at any rate. It may have been one before either of those two that I've forgotten, I have a short term memory at times.

EDIT: Wait, I think that was Skull's fault... I do recall someone bringing up that he was using multiple accounts
September 8th 2009, 07:47 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
I was using multiple accounts yes. But there were dozens of people who had been using multiple accounts before me and there have been another dozen of people who have been using multiple accounts after me. So, I don't see it as my fault, besides, that was over 2 years ago, and the "impersonating" has become so "horrible" in only the last few months.
September 8th 2009, 12:45 PM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
What I don't get though, is that other Dinkers have started calling it impersonating. It has been a joke in TDN for ages, and never ever before has it been called impersonating. In fact, if you read some older posts, this "impersonating" has been called funny and Redink even once impersonated Dukie and told he was gonna leave, as an april fools. So WTF, why are we calling it "impersonating" and think it's SO serious nowadays?

Because it isn't funny? Really if you have to impersonate someone do it in a funny way, for April's fools for example. This was just lame.

Besides if you have to take someone to impersonate, do not take a newcomer. Try impersonating someone who's been here for a while and has an account (so he can defend himself).
September 8th 2009, 01:08 PM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
Hmmm... if I recall correctly there was another thread just a while ago where someone impersonated another guy and said "I suck" or something like that. People thought that was funny (INCLUDING YOU) but of course when I do something like that everybody just gives me the same old crap.

It is just part of the humour of TDN, since you are able to do so. So if I were the new staff, I would stop taking everything so dang seriously.

Last words: THIS NETWORK IS BECOMING TOO SERIOUS!
September 8th 2009, 01:22 PM
knightgl.gif
zeddexx
Peasant He/Him New Zealand
I'm pretty sure I'm worth atleast SIX goats... 
im baaaaaack!! and im welcomed by this!!?? listen, respect other peoples beliefs and leave it at that.
im getting really scared of this topic...
its to serious, WC might come back and blast us all with the n00b cannon! anyone who trys to actually rubbish someone elses religion is just a plain jerk. of course you can voice your own opinion but do it more tactfully. bty my grammer and spelling are bad on purpose because im using a psp and i can be botherd.
September 8th 2009, 01:32 PM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
Isn't your spelling always like that?
September 8th 2009, 01:44 PM
dragon.gif
Quiztis
Peasant He/Him Sweden bloop
Life? What's that? Can I download it?! 
Can a staff member close/delete this topic now? It kinda went tha wrong way due to seriousness like the dinkers now state.
(Religion is a very serious subject, too serious for some (me) dinkers to handle) Noticed that the topic starter hasn't posted anything since the start on this one.
September 8th 2009, 04:40 PM
dinkdead.gif
I don't see why there's so many complaints about the DN getting all serious and boring... many people find this interesting believe it or not. And what's wrong with serious anyway?

SkeleTony:

"And the question is NOT "If God knows all(the future as well as the past) how can HUMANS have free will?" When the question gets phrased that way then we end up in a mess because it is much simpler than that."

I know that's not the question here, just I had heard possible answers to it that way.

"And it is not true that we are all on even footing with good arguments on both sides. That is 100% false!. Real "proof" can be ignored and rationalized away by the fearful or non-understanding but it cannot be "answered". This will have little effect on who believes what but my point was that there are many things which CAN be proven(one way or the other) and God's nonexistence is one of them."

Here you seem to be saying that anyone who actually believes in God must be doing so through blind faith alone, ignoring logic and using some sort of double-think. I'm not sure it's so simple as that, or that all religious people are so naive.

To me this is getting a little like when one of those missionaries comes knocking at the door: they've trained and prepared for discussion so anything you can say they have an answer for, and even though there seems to be holes in their pitch it's hard to pinpoint them. Not that I'm calling you a missionary , just saying I find it hard to argue because you have obviously gone into the subject matter a lot more than I have.
September 8th 2009, 04:41 PM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
I'll let a few things roll off my back to say this, but Welcome to The Dink Network.
September 8th 2009, 06:15 PM
duckdie.gif
Well I did not see the 'impersonation' so I don't know just how disrespectful you got Skull but that is pretty childish and dumb.

If you find a flaw in someone's reasoning or can quote where they have typed a falsehood(as you are claiming as an excuse) then your reaction should be to point out the flaw or falsehood and explain why it is so. Otherwise you are just mad about my conclusions and that you can find no flaw in my reasoning and no one is taking up your call for ignorance(of this thread). You keep posting here to tell other people that they should not be interested/too much reading/too serious/etc. and the only thing we seem to be ignoring is you.

If you take no interest in such discussions that is absolutely FINE. I promise I will not chase you around from thread to thread to try and change your mind. But be consistent kiddo. Don't post over and over again these silly,bald assertions and tripe.
September 8th 2009, 06:49 PM
duckdie.gif
Kris:

re: Theories

I will use an analogy to try and explain the scientific usage of this term to you.

You possess a computer, no?

You also have access to books and manuals on computer engineering(public library etc.), correct?

To put this in a scientific context, your computer is an existent 'thing'. It is absolutely NOT a theory but it is a real, verifiable entity.

A manual on computer engineering would be the "theory" here. The manual will NEVER "become a computer" and that manual will continually revised over time as new data becomes available to the authors.

Do you see the difference? THAT is the scientific usage of this term. The theory of evolution by Natural Selection is a mechanistic explanation of how organisms biologically diversify.
September 8th 2009, 07:02 PM
slayer.gif
MadStalker
Peasant He/Him Finland
tag line 
This thread is almost as funny as Bomb Iraq

Seriously. What's the point in this?
September 8th 2009, 07:04 PM
bonca.gif
Christiaan
Bard They/Them Netherlands
Lazy bum 
There's a place for serious topics here at the Dink Network. More often than not, they're a great source for pure comedy gold.

If you don't like the thread, don't enter it. It's that simple.
September 8th 2009, 09:23 PM
spike.gif
To me there is no significant difference between being 'impossible' and being '99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%' unlikely and to even dwell on such is far beyond splitting hairs...it is madness!

There's a HUUUUUGE difference. Impossible is impossible, 99.~~ is possible.

I say that God is impossible. You say he is just 99.999999999999999999999999999% unlikely. If I see some evidence that he is not impossible, I will change my mind and say he is...to whatever degree probable.

If you're ready to change your mind then you're not completely sure to begin with, right?

So you are again just hiding behind semantics here. Neither of us are going to live our lives with the consideration that there may be such a thing in existence so this is a rather moot point.

I'm not "hiding behind semantics", that's just the point I've been trying to make! A fair amount of text on a single word, but at least that miscommunication seems to be clear now.

Straw man.

You cannot hide nonsensical postulations behind the constructed straw man of some self-important guy who thinks his ideas are "flawless" and such because that has no bearing on MY case.

That is what you've been coming across as.

And either the case you are("You" in general, not you specifically) putting forth(or halfheartedly defending) is rational or it is IRRATIONAL. If it is irrational then dodging behind the above straw man does not make your case any more rational than it was when you started.

I haven't argued that god's existence is a rational thing to believe in, just that it's not impossible.

Like it or not, the universe operates by certain laws and some things are just not possible. By the evidence and knowledge we have I feel I can safely say that SOME specific claims are impossible. Cheetahs that get further away as they move towards you, automobiles made entirely of fog and the Judeo-Christian God are some of these.

I will happily eat crow if you can make a contrary case but until you do, I stand by these.

Knowing that you're at least open to possibilities, I have no objection with that.

Not at all. You are trying to assign a probability to an event retroactively and that is a no-no.

I said: "Doesn't the birth of the world itself go against the law of non-contradiction? Something can't just start existing from nothingness, this also means it couldn't have always existed." The previous sentece was there to support the latter, I didn't say anything about probabilities.

Wrong on the second count. Existence DOES happen in infinite regress. There was no 'beginning' to existence itself(only to our specific universe at best). Think about it...your first assertion above is what proves your second assertion false! You correctly ascertain that an existence of complete 'nothingness' cannot at any point produce 'something' and this means that there always had to be 'something'(whether some sort of sub-atomic nano-existence or what have you) in order for 'other things' to come about.

I figured those assertions would contradict each other, but you're right on this one. So, either the egg or the chicken must have always existed.

Long answer made short: That which exists STILL must do so in a way that makes sense. Reality cannot be if every time you add 2+2 you are able to get a random answer ranging from '4' to '9,376' to 'spaghetti sauce'.

I'm just not sure the logic you can apply to every day life will apply everywhere.

Yep. Let me know when that occurs. I think we both know it will not.

Stay tuned!

Objection! Relevance...?

Free will doesn't necessitate ability to ponder.

False analogy. I am not omniscient. AM omniscient personality could not ponder or make any decision. He either KNOWS with his Godly certainty that he will drink free beer at a pub(and does so) or he is not omniscient. There are no other options here.

I used that analogy to drive the point that you don't even need to be omniscient to not ponder things. There's free beer, dawg! At no point do you ponder "to go or not to go", you just go. If you know enough (it doesn't even need to be all) of the variables, you don't weigh different possibilities, you know what you will do. You can't do contrary to what you will do either because that would go against your character. To use another example, you could take a knife and stab the first person you walk by on the street. But having the option to do that is an illusion, because you're not someone who randomly stabs people.

Not relevant. Either he can make a decision to create humans(or not) OR he knows, one way or the other whether he does or not. The mistake you are making is you keep limiting "God" to HUMAN(non-omniscient) limitations. Of course a HUMAN can make decisions and not be a robot. But for God this would be impossible.

Pondering is a non-omniscient limitation. It's just a tool to determine the best course of action when the amount of known variables is limited. What we do is hard-wired to our personality, character, ego, whatever.

EXACTLY! And therefore he could not make such a choice. In order for his previous omniscient knowledge to remain 'True' he MUST do as said foreknowledge dictates. You are trying to fudge the decision to occur before the omniscience but that cannot be for an omniscient and eternally existent being. No matter how far you go back to place that decision, his knowledge supersedes.

Are you arguing that he can't have free will because he has always been omniscient? If I suddenly attained omniscience, for example, that would not strip me of free will? Or just that in order to have free will you need to make a superficial choice at some point?

You are welcome to your beliefs. I have no use for such in my life but I certainly do not go around trying to discourage or bar others from such.

But I will drag out Gould's Contingency theory here to point out that it is not necessarily so that you, being able to hypothetically rewind the tape of life would do exactly as you have done this life. In fact it is highly unlikely.
To complex for this thread but there are just too many variables that go into creating 'Butterfly effects' in such a hypothetical.

I said: "That's of course under the assumption being omniscient is possible; there are no random chances and such." For things to go exactly as they go now would necessitate these variables to be fixed. I even went out of my way to say this is not my belief.

And being "humble" has nothing to do with this. You seem to be taking unwarranted jabs at me here. I am as humble as they come but I have noticed that when someone holds a view that most common folk disagree with(be it about belief in God, time travel, ghosts etc.), it is almost guaranteed they will be attacked as being 'conceited' or 'not humble'.

Being too humble isn't a good thing. Like if you were sure you must be wrong because others disagree with your opinion. But being so sure that you don't even consider the possibility they MIGHT be right isn't a good thing either. You have explained that isn't really the case, but it's how your posts, at least and especially the first few, came through.

False. You are welcome to go try and find one of these though(good luck with that!)!

I didn't say they have good proof, just proof on par with "god can't exist because omniscience cancels free will." A large part of my posts has gone into contesting that statement, so by disproving your proof, that's what I have been doing by proxy.

A good rule of thumb to have when considering the worth of evidence: If that same evidence could be offered in support of uncountable claims you yourself would NOT assent to, then that evidence is worthless. Saying that existence itself is evidence of God is right up there with saying it is evidence of 'world fairies', 'genies', That we are all just figments in the imagination of a sleeping child, ad infinitum.

And your "proof by contradiction" is right down there with "god can't exist because there is evil in the world! If he is all-powerful and good, how could he let this happen?"

In order for evidence to be worthwhile for a claim it must DIRECTLY infer said claim's veracity and we must be able to apply Ockham's razor to the whole thing.

Right, right. About Occam's razor, though, while it's a nice principle, even if you CAN'T apply it to a theory that doesn't mean the theory must be wrong.

Someone allegedly witnessing someone else telekinetically lift a couch and spin it in the air is, by itself worthless. Someone telekinetically lifting and spinning a couch under proper controlled conditions while scientists observe and record the event DOES count as good evidence.

Not that good though. If someone suddenly did that, a lot of scientists would be seeking "logical explanations" for how it was done for decades to come, even if the experiment was reproduced multiple times.

With good reason too, since there are records of scientists having been fooled by common parlor tricks, until another magician came along and showed how the trick is done. Just saying again that truth isn't simple to distinguish.

I have no grounds to say that logic and science CANNOT explain everything(remember that "has not yet" does NOT = "CAN NOT EVER").
[/i]
I agree, but as I said in the part of my post that you didn't quote, the default position should be neutral, not negative. You may be as open-minded as you say but plenty of skeptics, scientists and researchers wouldn't accept proof at odds with their opinions if it was branded into their foreheads.
September 8th 2009, 10:02 PM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
I said I would let a few things roll off my back, Not that I would allow you to give me crap that has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. I know that a computer isn't a theory, and your analogy is a very poor one! the theory of evolution. key word, THEORY! where in the world does it say the law of evolution? as far as me, my school, and the whole entire dang world are concerned, Evolution is a theory. a plausible one, but a theory nonetheless.
September 9th 2009, 03:02 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
Can someone please close this thread? It's like bomb iraq 2. In fact, the whole network is now like bomb iraq, and I'm not surprised why the recent newcomers want to leave. If we flame eachother this much, we maybe flame them a little too much, including me.
September 9th 2009, 03:29 AM
knightgl.gif
zeddexx
Peasant He/Him New Zealand
I'm pretty sure I'm worth atleast SIX goats... 
i agree with my friend skull, this might be a little funny but its also a flaming stupid topic that gets every one fighting!
September 9th 2009, 03:40 AM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
There's a HUUUUUGE difference. Impossible is impossible, 99.~~ is possible.

No, not really. Mathematical proof: (Sort of)

x = 99.9999999~
10x = 999.9999999~
10x - x = 900
9x = 900
x = 100

(Stolen from Wikipedia)

infinitely unlikely equals impossible. Otherwise the word impossible would also have no meaning anymore.

September 9th 2009, 08:22 AM
slimeb.gif
DaVince
Peasant He/Him Netherlands
Olde Time Dinkere 
Skull: wow, people are still bringing up that old multiple accounts crap?
September 9th 2009, 08:25 AM
slimeb.gif
DaVince
Peasant He/Him Netherlands
Olde Time Dinkere 
Good point. After all, there can be no perfect system if there are people who are supposed to work with that system.
September 9th 2009, 02:46 PM
spike.gif
I concur, I shouldn't have used ~infinity in my post. The point still stands when it's changed to 99.(varying amounts of extra 9s), though.
September 9th 2009, 03:16 PM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
How the hell did we get from Religion to infinity?!?
September 9th 2009, 06:42 PM
knights.gif
DinkKiller
Peasant He/Him United States
The world could always use more heroes 
How the hell did we get from Religion to infinity?!?

Welcome to the Dink Network, which is well known for changing subjects every 5 seconds!
September 9th 2009, 07:54 PM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
*Glare* Well. it took a few weeks, technically, that's not five seconds.
September 9th 2009, 08:13 PM
knights.gif
DinkKiller
Peasant He/Him United States
The world could always use more heroes 
i exaggerated, okay?
September 10th 2009, 01:45 AM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
All hail the Digested Bunny corpse, spawn of the stomach to the Dead Dragon Carcass of Teletubby Land!
September 10th 2009, 03:52 AM
peasantmb.gif
yeoldetoast
Peasant They/Them Australia
LOOK UPON MY DEFORMED FACE! 
I think it's pretty clear SkeleTony beat everyone. If Redink ever reads this, I hope he implements a rule that prevents people from replying to threads after 100 replies, to promote original discussion.
September 10th 2009, 06:19 AM
wizardg.gif
schnapper
Peasant He/Him Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
Let us save our effort and just lie down and die. 
Aims GAU-8 at Yeoldetoast
September 10th 2009, 06:23 AM
custom_robj.png
Robj
Jester He/Him Australia
You feed the madness, and it feeds on you. 
Steals Yeoldetoast's cookies and replaces them with some toast, hoping he won't notice. Pulls out a flamethrower and shouts "Now you really will be toast! Lick my fire balls!"
September 10th 2009, 06:47 AM
burntree.gif
Fireball5
Peasant He/Him Australia
Let me heat that up for you... 
LOL I can't believe I actually read 80% of this huge epic post, let alone to have started it!

Don't get me wrong, I like things like these but yeah it has gone too far and all I really wanted were anecdotes and comments on the evil side of religion. I haven't really gotten many of these.

schnapper:
"Oooo - have you tried chilli Skittles? They blaze like a forum flamer pretending to be SkeleTony. Or Fireball5 in general."

Thanks!

quiztis:
"Can a staff member close/delete this topic now? It kinda went tha wrong way due to seriousness like the dinkers now state.
(Religion is a very serious subject, too serious for some (me) dinkers to handle) Noticed that the topic starter hasn't posted anything since the start on this one."

Two things:
A) It has gotten too serious but I don't think it needs to be deleted

B) I wanted to watch what happened as I thought I originally said what needed to be said. But I obviously havn't.

Even though I read most of this, I'm not a fan of epic posts, so I'll just say one more thing here, for bragging rights that I contributed to a super massive discusssion (As starting one isn't already good enough?)

If any one entity at any one time is ever omniescent (or whatever the term is) then it is impossibly for any entity mortal or not to have free will of any kind.

If something already knows what we are going to do, and it must be true, then we can't break that without them not being omniscient therefore they aren't omniscient.

There, I said what I have to!
September 10th 2009, 10:41 AM
dragon.gif
Quiztis
Peasant He/Him Sweden bloop
Life? What's that? Can I download it?! 
Congratulations! Your topic has earned the title 'Epic'.

I haven't contributed a lot on the subject. Guess I believe too much on the science side.
September 10th 2009, 12:38 PM
custom_marpro.png
Marpro
Peasant He/Him bloop
 
*yawn*
September 10th 2009, 01:02 PM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
C'mon, lets all chant:

KILL THIS THREAD! KILL THIS THREAD!
September 10th 2009, 01:44 PM
dinkdead.gif
I think it's already dead.

Next discussion: is there an afterlife?
September 10th 2009, 01:48 PM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
There is one of that kind already. The ghost thread.
September 10th 2009, 04:22 PM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
This topic has died and is descending deeper and deeper into the bowel movements of the devil himself.

(Translation: This thread is dead and roasting in hell.)
September 10th 2009, 04:33 PM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
A let's keep it alive then, for enhanced suffering.
September 10th 2009, 07:21 PM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
*sings*
September 10th 2009, 08:29 PM
burntree.gif
Fireball5
Peasant He/Him Australia
Let me heat that up for you... 
*burns*
September 11th 2009, 02:56 AM
wizardg.gif
schnapper
Peasant He/Him Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
Let us save our effort and just lie down and die. 
Fire! mwa-ha-ha. I can feel my testicles shrinking closer and closer to my pubic bone in an effort to stay cool and preserve my seed(s).
September 11th 2009, 10:53 AM
burntree.gif
Striker
Noble She/Her United States
Daniel, there are clowns. 
(Translation: This thread is dead and roasting in hell.)
It has become nonexistent? No... it's still here.
September 11th 2009, 04:11 PM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
no, it's just burning more and more.
September 11th 2009, 07:55 PM
burntree.gif
Fireball5
Peasant He/Him Australia
Let me heat that up for you... 
What did you expect, it was made by a fireball!
September 14th 2009, 10:12 AM
duckdie.gif
Scratcher:

Sorry...been busy lately.

"There's a HUUUUUGE difference. Impossible is impossible, 99.~~ is possible."

That is hard to say and also of little import here because unless you can establish that God is NOT impossible we have no grounds to say that it is at all possible or how probable it is. Right now this 'God' is no more possible than a square shaped circle.

"If you're ready to change your mind then you're not completely sure to begin with, right? "

False. That I WOULD change my mind if I found out I weas somehow wrong only means that I am not dogmatic. I stand by the fact that God, as defined by most monotheisms, is impossible and I have even gone so far as to prove this with sound argument.

"That is what you've been coming across as."

Again, this is STILL a straw man fallacy. Reiterating that you happen to believe this or not realize that it is a straw man does not change the fact. If I were to go after you by saying "I don't think you should be defending child molestation!" then it does not matter whether I believe you are "coming across as..." a child molester. I am still beating down a position you do not actually hold adn one that is far easier to beat down than your actual argument/position.

"I haven't argued that god's existence is a rational thing to believe in, just that it's not impossible."

If it is not rational then how do you ascertain it being "possible"?! That does not make any sense. The only way to establish that soemthing is possible is through rationality.

"Knowing that you're at least open to possibilities, I have no objection with that."

Ah but I am also open to the fact that many things are NOT possible. Open mindedness is a double edged sword and most people are not aware of this and hypocritically seem to think that open mindedness entails believing that ALL things are possible.

"I said: "Doesn't the birth of the world itself go against the law of non-contradiction? Something can't just start existing from nothingness, this also means it couldn't have always existed." The previous sentece was there to support the latter, I didn't say anything about probabilities."

When you say "Doesn't the birth of the world itself go against the law of non-contradiction?" you are making the assertion or strong implication that the "birth of the world" is somehow, at the very least improbable. AS if there were some way we could retroactively assign any likelihood other than 100% to the "birth of the world". And while it is not true that the "world" has always existed, you seem to be ignoring the fact that existence ITSELF has always been. Something has ALWAYS existed and given rise to other things in an endless chain of cause and effect.

"I'm just not sure the logic you can apply to every day life will apply everywhere."

Well, as soon as you are able to find this other aspect of reality where logic does not apply then we can examine this and try to determine whether God is possible in this 'other reality' but until then you are just offering an appeal to ignorance here. It is even worse than the infamous 'God of the gaps' argument because you are not even referring to an actual 'gap' but rather to a 'potential gap' for which you have no grounds to even think is real.

"Free will doesn't necessitate ability to ponder."

False. The very definition of free will necessitates such. If you are NOT pondering decisions then you are merely acting according to your 'programming'/predestination.

"I used that analogy to drive the point that you don't even need to be omniscient to not ponder things. There's free beer, dawg! At no point do you ponder "to go or not to go", you just go."

First of all, the analogy is STILL a false one regardless of your above. It is false because it does not bear relation to the matter we are discussing. People are NOT omniscient so pointing out that we may or may not always ponder things to your satisfaction is irrelevant. My point remains that omniscience ITSELF is contradictory to free will and therefore a being which is said to posess BOTH of these at once cannot possibly exist.

Secondly, yes...we DO ponder decisions such as whether to go drink free beer or not and even in the extreme case of someone forcing us at gun point to go drink beer, we still have free will because our minds still work even in that extreme case. If guns had the magical ability to cause us to only ACT without contemplation then maybe we would lose our free will in that ridiculous case but as it stands...

"Pondering is a non-omniscient limitation. It's just a tool to determine the best course of action when the amount of known variables is limited. What we do is hard-wired to our personality, character, ego, whatever."

So you agree that God could not have both free will and omniscience then? That is my only point here. That a being so defined as having both of these traits cannot exist.

"Are you arguing that he can't have free will because he has always been omniscient? If I suddenly attained omniscience, for example, that would not strip me of free will? Or just that in order to have free will you need to make a superficial choice at some point?"

False. You WOULD lose your free will for the very reasons I have repeatedly outlined for you. If you became omniscient tomorrow then at that point you would KNOW whether or not you walked to the pub for free beer night on Tuesday. Therefore you CANNOT make a decision to do other than what you KNOW you are to do. The future becomes indistinguishable from the past for an omniscient being and you can no more decide on a future course of action than you can decide to un-eat the bowl of cereal you had for breakfast and instead have pancakes yesterday.
Even worse for God since he is defined as being ETERNALLY omniscient. There is NO point in his history when he did not know exactly every detail that would come to pass.

In order to have free will you do not need to make a "superficial choice". You have to be able to make a CHOICE. To ponder multiple courses of action and chose one(or more). If you KNOW with absolute certainty that you WILL do *THIS* then you CANNOT choose to do *THAT*.

"I didn't say they have good proof, just proof on par with "god can't exist because omniscience cancels free will." A large part of my posts has gone into contesting that statement, so by disproving your proof, that's what I have been doing by proxy."

But that is exactly what I am contesting here. You are asserting that they have "proof"(which is itself absurd!) and going so far to put their poor evidence on equal footing with the rational arguments against God's existence and thus far you only offer the bald assertion fallacy to support this. You are basically saying "Your(meaning MY) argument is just as bad as their arguments!" without showing this to be so.

And I wish you luck with disproving my argument. A few have tried over the years...

"And your "proof by contradiction" is right down there with "god can't exist because there is evil in the world! If he is all-powerful and good, how could he let this happen?"

Wow. I will take that as a compliment since Epicurus' famous 'Riddle'(now commonly known as "The Problem of Evil") remains a sound argument against omnibenevolent gods. But you are again trying a straw man here by painting the "Problem of Evil" in a simplistic light(but you have not done so badly that this is worth getting into).

Both the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Problem of Evil are sound arguments against specific God-concepts being possible. Simply asserting that you don't like them without being able to show them to be flawed does nothing to help your case.

"Right, right. About Occam's razor, though, while it's a nice principle, even if you CAN'T apply it to a theory that doesn't mean the theory must be wrong.

Yes, it does! It cannot even BER a "theory" without adhering to the principle of Parsimony/Occam's razor. At best it can only be a groundless hypothetical speculation.

"Not that good though. If someone suddenly did that, a lot of scientists would be seeking "logical explanations" for how it was done for decades to come, even if the experiment was reproduced multiple times."

Yes and no(and I am perplexed that you think scientists looking for rational/understandable explanations is a BAD thing?!). Science is basically the study of that which exists, regardless of how it exists. Science does not deal with groundless speculations of things which, by definition could not be understood. When making assertions about the nature of reality, there are a few types of assertions relevant here.

1)Sensible/understandable assertions: These may or may not be ultimately true or false and they ultimately fall under the jurisdiction of science.

2)Nonsense statements: These cannot be understood...only asserted. Science deals with nonsense by dropping it in a bucket labeled "Nonsense" and ignoring it.

There are no se4nsible statements that are "beyond" the reach of science and there are no nonsense statements which science is able to confirm as true.

The default status of an existential claim(barring actual evidence supporting said claim's veracity) is FALSE. Look up "Rules of Inference" sometime for a better understanding of this.

If scientists discover a vampire they will label it Homo Nocturnus and classify it as "a non-reflecting hemoglobin dependent nocturnal humanoid with an aversion to garlic" and then study it to figure out how it operates/works.
They will not just look at it and go "Hmmm...must be supernatural and we can never hope to understand it. Let's move on...".

"I agree, but as I said in the part of my post that you didn't quote, the default position should be neutral, not negative. You may be as open-minded as you say but plenty of skeptics, scientists and researchers wouldn't accept proof at odds with their opinions if it was branded into their foreheads."

But 'Neutrality' does NOT mean we should believe ALL claims are possible. What you consider "negative" I believe IS the 'neutral' stance of science. We get fooled by the semantics here into believing that the "neutral" stance is to grant an undeserved "possibility" to all manner of silly claims and this is not only false but an absurd way to go about the study of reality.
September 14th 2009, 10:31 AM
duckdie.gif
Krisknox:

"I said I would let a few things roll off my back, Not that I would allow you to give me crap that has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. I know that a computer isn't a theory, and your analogy is a very poor one! the theory of evolution. key word, THEORY! where in the world does it say the law of evolution? as far as me, my school, and the whole entire dang world are concerned, Evolution is a theory. a plausible one, but a theory nonetheless."

Amazing! I went to all the trouble to explain in great detail why the above is a completely wrong understanding of the word "theory" and you responded by re-stating your grade school misunderstanding as if no one explained anything to you.
I understand you are young kiddo but at some point you will have to quit using that as an excuse for poor reading comprehension.

"Theories" NEVER become LAWS. Your error here is that you are imagining the whole thing like a ladder with rungs labeled(from the bottom) "Wild guess!", "Theory", etc. all the way up to the top where the rungs are "Law", "absolute fact" etc.

THIS IS FALSE! A "theory" in science means "explanation of a fact or observed phenomena". A theory in science IS analogous to a manual on computer engineering and a "law" is simply observed behaviors and a "fact" would be analogous to a computer itself.

I understand that you are unaware of scientific definitions and are simply falling under a common misunderstanding of the term, hence your "The key word is THEORY..." nonsense where you presume your conclusion in a feat of circular reasoning.
But either go to a scientific site and read up or ask questions here and I will be happy to answer them for you. But cease this childish ranting because you are embarrassing yourself here.

"Theory" is not something that is lacking evidence to be a fact. It is an EXPLANATION OF A FACT. The 'how's' and 'why's'. We have the FACT of gravitation and the THEORY of special relativity AND the theory of gravitation to explain the force of gravity. We have the FACT of evolution and the THEORY of Natural Selection and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium that explains HOW organisms evolve and diversify.
September 14th 2009, 10:34 AM
duckdie.gif
One final note in regards to the "close this thread" stuff.

Why?

I mean do some of you have a medical condition preventing you from ignoring threads you are not interested in(and if you are not interested then why do you keep posting here?!)?!

I also find it curious that the loudest voices protesting "serious" threads come from those who tried to participate and got "pwned"(as the kids say).
September 14th 2009, 10:55 AM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
Some of the 'close this thread' arguments might come from people who have seen a certain dinker in the past who was discussing his beliefs in a lot of threads. At a certain moment he was posting like a third of all the messages on the board. Some people might be remembered of him when they hear you defend your points.

On the other hand I think most people calling for this thread to be taken down weren't even there at that time... I guess it's just a case of limited taste along with the unstoppable desire to read all posts on the forum.
September 14th 2009, 11:00 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
No, it is because of people don't want to see other people flaming another one.

Here's how flaming goes:
1) 2 guys flame eachother
2) Other dudes try to make them stop
3)When they (usually) don't stop, other people start flaming THEM
4)Then more and more people join the flaming
5)Go back to 2

So, yeah. CLOSE THIS THREAD!
September 14th 2009, 11:10 AM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
There is no flaming, just discussion. Which is something different. As condition 1) has not been met this thread cannot be closed.

You sound like a fireman who tries to find a fire.
September 14th 2009, 11:24 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
I don't know about you, since you seem to be the guy (at the moment) who doesn't agree with me on anything I say, but I'm getting tired of Scratcher and SkeleTony writing all those long messages and arguing and then they try to prove eachother wrong and saying that others are wrong about things. The messages are pointless if they can't agree in ONE thing with eachother.

Now, some people come and say that the messages are pointless and that this network is becoming too serious because of these posts (yes, i'm one of those), but then some other people (you for example) come and say that they're NOT pointless and that this network is NOT becoming too serious, which is the complete opposite what some others said.

Now, other people become a little mad for this and start to argue, and then the others start to argue and thus we have a flame war.

Just what I told in the last message but with less text. I still don't know about you, but this "fireman" has found the fire a long time ago.
September 14th 2009, 11:53 AM
dragon.gif
Quiztis
Peasant He/Him Sweden bloop
Life? What's that? Can I download it?! 
On a scale of 1-10, how frustrated/angry are those who seriously post on this topic?
September 14th 2009, 12:40 PM
spike.gif
The messages are pointless if they can't agree in ONE thing with eachother.

Hey, that's just not true, for instance, I'm sure we both agree that you should just stop reading this topic. =] I have ignored all the she doging and moaning so far since I'm directly involved but it's getting rather tiresome. A thread will not get closed because someone does not like it; the absolute most you can accomplish by trying to enforce that is getting your own posts deleted.

Ironically, you and the others opposed to discussion are actually being much more frustrated/angry than me, SkeleTony, or anyone else who is "posting seriously".
September 14th 2009, 12:48 PM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
I second that.

If I would get frustrated or angry with this topic I would just let it be. Let others discuss it then, fine with me. I, for one, often don't even read file discussion topics if I haven't played that DMOD yet...

It is not unlikely that I'll eventually will get bored and walk away (I announced that a couple of posts back. But I don't feel the need to tell others not to have fun anymore because I don't like it.
September 14th 2009, 12:50 PM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
"Theory" is not something that is lacking evidence to be a fact. It is an EXPLANATION OF A FACT. The 'how's' and 'why's'. We have the FACT of gravitation and the THEORY of special relativity AND the theory of gravitation to explain the force of gravity. We have the FACT of evolution and the THEORY of Natural Selection and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium that explains HOW organisms evolve and diversify.

EDIT: I just realized I was wrong when I typed the first paragraph. But let me still keep the rest of the post to give examples about the difference between theories and facts:

Let's assume I hold an apple in my hand, then I may have the theory that it will fall when I release it. That's a theory, not a fact, it comes from my mind, not from the apple actually falling. Now when I release it it will fall, so it is no longer a theory but a fact. Until it hits the ground that is, then I can have the theory that it fell and the fact that it fell. Both are really similar, but still distinct. Now it is worth noting that there is no way to know for sure that the apple didn't somehow supernaturally warp itself to the ground. (Though I think most people would probably accept that theory.)

Evolution is very similar to the falling of the apple. We can study gravity, and we can ask the person who released the apple to tell us what happened. We even can study the brownish spots that appear after a while when you drop an apple. In the same way we can study all kinds of things related to evolution, for example you could study fossils and similarities in proteins and genetic material between species, you could even study evolutionary processes that occur within the human timespan if you'd like. All of this is supporting evidence for the theory of evolution.

This is not to say that the fact of evolution does not exist. It is to say that there is also the theory of evolution, they aren't mutually exclusive. Let me write a couple of theories:

- Gravity pulls things down, not up.
- Animals have evolved from single celled organisms.
- Round wheels are more efficient than hexagonal ones.

All of these theories have pretty good evidence to support them. Also note that I do not have to rewrite them to say: 'Let me write a couple of facts:'

When I followed a course in physical chemistry a couple of years ago I was actually surprised to hear the teacher explain that the laws of thermodynamics have never been proven, they are postulated. And since nobody has ever given good evidence that they're wrong we accept this. At least I laugh when somebody proposes to make a perpetuum mobile...

I agree with most of your post. The idea that calling something a theory means that it is less true is not correct. The theory that dropping an apple will make it fall is quite likely indeed.

EDIT: Me is nitpicking, I know. All I wanted to say is that technically speaking you can call 'evolution' a theory if you state it like a theory. So just saying 'evolution' does not a theory make as it doesn't propose anything, but the statement 'animals have evolved from single celled organisms' is a theory. EDIT2: And likely a fact too.
September 14th 2009, 12:57 PM
dragon.gif
Quiztis
Peasant He/Him Sweden bloop
Life? What's that? Can I download it?! 
ok, glhf with this thread then everyone.
September 14th 2009, 01:11 PM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
I have the right to be on this thread as much as anyone. If I do not have the right to say things on this thread what makes you think you have?

Also, Scratcher, that's exactly what I meant. The messages beetwen you and SkeleTony are pointless because you don't come to an agreement. Always when other one tries to prove the other one wrong, the other one comes back trying to prove the other guy wrong. That's just pointless arguing. You are talking about so big things that they are impossible to prove right or wrong, so in that case YOU should stop posting on this thread, not me.

And why I still want this thread closed is because the relationship with some Dinkers may get worse because of the unimportant flaming. It is just gonna continue on forever if someone doesn't close this thread.
September 14th 2009, 02:04 PM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
I have the right to be on this thread as much as anyone. If I do not have the right to say things on this thread what makes you think you have?

Alas, the dinknetwork is not a democracy, it's a benevolent dictatorship.

Also, Scratcher, that's exactly what I meant. The messages beetwen you and SkeleTony are pointless because you don't come to an agreement. Always when other one tries to prove the other one wrong, the other one comes back trying to prove the other guy wrong. That's just pointless arguing. You are talking about so big things that they are impossible to prove right or wrong, so in that case YOU should stop posting on this thread, not me.

Who said we're trying to agree? What we do is not pointless arguing, it's a debate. I do not post here to come to an agreement, but I love the fact that this discussion lets me think about things I would not have thought about otherwise. And how you can defend an opinion to other people, that's a useful skill...

And why I still want this thread closed is because the relationship with some Dinkers may get worse because of the unimportant flaming. It is just gonna continue on forever if someone doesn't close this thread.

Right now I think your relation with Dinkers is getting worse, not mine. I don't feel offended by anything in this thread, so I'm happy about it staying open.

Just remember that it's not your responsibility to care for the relationships between dinkers, we can do that ourselves.
September 14th 2009, 04:27 PM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
i have a great reading comp. i've read and understood books that most of my teachers would be baffled by! Let's just delete this thread before someone gets carpal tunnel from flaming too much.
September 14th 2009, 04:54 PM
bonca.gif
Christiaan
Bard They/Them Netherlands
Lazy bum 
For the last time, no one is flaming in this thread, and the thread will not be deleted. If you don't like the thread, then just don't click on it!
September 14th 2009, 07:47 PM
burntree.gif
Fireball5
Peasant He/Him Australia
Let me heat that up for you... 
As I am the original poster, this has gone too far, but I don't mind a debate every now and then. This post is kinda getting huge and I only found these posts after my second parse.

I leave this thread for a week and it gets over 100 posts. I think that has got to be close to the record on this forum.

If you don't like it, don't read it. I don't read topics I'm not interested in, I rarely ever read file discussions.

Unless something really bad becomes of this thread it should be able to stay.

I wouldn't say there are flame wars, either. Just heated discussion.
September 15th 2009, 02:43 AM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
<angry voice>There is no flaming here dang it!</angry voice>

September 15th 2009, 03:39 AM
duckdie.gif
Metatarsal:

Thanks for your comments in regards to the "Close this thread" request. I agree with you 110% on that.

As for your take on "theory":

"Let's assume I hold an apple in my hand, then I may have the theory that it will fall when I release it."

That is NOT a THEORY. I keep trying to explain this and people keep somehow missing it. If you OBSERVED that appkles fall from your hand when you release them THAT is not a theory either. The 'theory' would be Isaac Newton's explanation of gravitational force being exerted between objects of varying mass. A theory is NOT an 'unproven idea', an assumption that is not a fact(but would be if only it had more evidence), a belief, a wild guess etc.

A theory in science is EXACTLY analogous to a manual on computer engineering. The manual NEVER becomes a computer. It is not something that would gbe a computer if only it had more evidence/substance/whatever. The manual merely explains HOW computers work.
Likewise a "theory" explains how something factual works.

Sorry if I sound a bit miffed discussing this but of all the facets of science I have to repeatedly explain to people online this mis-definition of "theory" is the one I am forced to deal with the most.

"That's a theory, not a fact, it comes from my mind, not from the apple actually falling."

That is NOT a theory. An observation? Sure. Possibly even an educated guess, assuming you did not actively observe the apple to fall. But it is NOT a theory.

" Now when I release it it will fall, so it is no longer a theory but a fact."

AGAIN, theories do not EVER 'become facts'. This is an all too common misunderstanding of science by laypersons. A theory is an entirely different ani9mal than a fact. Theories EXPLAIN facts. Without the pre-existent facts, there is no need for a theory. If there were no computers then a manual on computer engineering would be a book of gibberish talking about silicon chips, terrabytes, processors etc.

" Until it hits the ground that is, then I can have the theory that it fell and the fact that it fell. Both are really similar, but still distinct. Now it is worth noting that there is no way to know for sure that the apple didn't somehow supernaturally warp itself to the ground. (Though I think most people would probably accept that theory.)"

Again this is 100% wrong. You seem to be under the impression that hypothesis and theory mean the same thing(and if this is so then you are also somewhat wrong about the definition of "hypothesis"). What you are referring to above is the NON-SCIENTIFIC common usage of "theory" which is a lot like the common usage of "agnostic" as compared to the actual definition put forth by Huxley 150 years ago(hint: it does NOT mean "Undecided" or "somewhere between "theist" and "atheist").

"Evolution is very similar to the falling of the apple. We can study gravity, and we can ask the person who released the apple to tell us what happened. We even can study the brownish spots that appear after a while when you drop an apple. In the same way we can study all kinds of things related to evolution, for example you could study fossils and similarities in proteins and genetic material between species, you could even study evolutionary processes that occur within the human timespan if you'd like. All of this is supporting evidence for the theory of evolution."

You are mostly correct here but I would point out that there is no "theory of evolution". There are SEVERAL theories(re: Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium etc.) that explain the FACT of evolution. Evolution itself is a fact. Natural selection is the primary THEORY explaining how it(evolution/bio-diversity) works.

"This is not to say that the fact of evolution does not exist. It is to say that there is also the theory of evolution, they aren't mutually exclusive. Let me write a couple of theories:"

Again, mostly correct. They are two different things altogether. The fact of evolution does not vanish due to new evidence or lacking evidence and the theory of Natural selection does not EVER become a "fact" in the same way that an instruction manual on how to ride a bike never becomes a bicycle.

"Let me write a couple of theories:

- Gravity pulls things down, not up.
- Animals have evolved from single celled organisms.
- Round wheels are more efficient than hexagonal ones."


None of those are theories though. The "gravity" and "animals" ones come closest but as you have stated it it is merely a groundless assertion with no explanatory power at all. A "theory" goes into great detail explaining exactly HOW these things occur and work. Theories CAN be overturned adn are constantly revised with the influx of new data but this does not change the facts they explain anymore than the discovery that the earth is elliptical caused our planet to become a cube or a giant marshmallow.

"When I followed a course in physical chemistry a couple of years ago I was actually surprised to hear the teacher explain that the laws of thermodynamics have never been proven, they are postulated. And since nobody has ever given good evidence that they're wrong we accept this. At least I laugh when somebody proposes to make a perpetuum mobile...

I agree with most of your post. The idea that calling something a theory means that it is less true is not correct. The theory that dropping an apple will make it fall is quite likely indeed.

EDIT: Me is nitpicking, I know. All I wanted to say is that technically speaking you can call 'evolution' a theory if you state it like a theory. So just saying 'evolution' does not a theory make as it doesn't propose anything, but the statement 'animals have evolved from single celled organisms' is a theory. EDIT2: And likely a fact too."


Yeah, I am a nitpicky dink when it comes to this stuff. "Laws" are not so much "proven"(or DIS-proven for that matter) as they are just (concurrent)observations(explained by theories).

My only real issue with your above(about "theories") is that a simple statement that "Animals evolved from single celled organisms" does not a theory make. The theory of evolution by Natural Selection encompasses thousands of pages of explanation of how bio-diversity occurs, from singled celled organisms to everything we see today. In any case my issue was with Krisknox's gross mis-definition of "theory". I am not even sure you and I disagree all that much as the more I re-read your post the more I am thinking we are getting tangled in semantics.
September 15th 2009, 04:08 AM
spike.gif
That is hard to say and also of little import here because unless you can establish that God is NOT impossible we have no grounds to say that it is at all possible or how probable it is. Right now this 'God' is no more possible than a square shaped circle.

...because he can't be both omniscient and have free will. On some different argument about why he can't exist, I might agree, but this one is just crappy.

False. That I WOULD change my mind if I found out I weas somehow wrong only means that I am not dogmatic. I stand by the fact that God, as defined by most monotheisms, is impossible and I have even gone so far as to prove this with sound argument.

Meh, it's just a minor semantic difference again.

Again, this is STILL a straw man fallacy. Reiterating that you happen to believe this or not realize that it is a straw man does not change the fact. If I were to go after you by saying "I don't think you should be defending child molestation!" then it does not matter whether I believe you are "coming across as..." a child molester. I am still beating down a position you do not actually hold adn one that is far easier to beat down than your actual argument/position.

An Ad hominem argument may not diminish the validity of the original argument itself, but it can be used to show that the opposition is biased to holding their position because they are this and that. A criminal defending criminal acts is not very credible even if their logic is sound.

If it is not rational then how do you ascertain it being "possible"?! That does not make any sense. The only way to establish that soemthing is possible is through rationality.

It's possible because it's not impossible, duh. As you yourself put it:

Yes, in MOST cases it is impossible to prove a negative. Santa Claus, giant radioactive dinosaurs etc. would all apply here. But there IS one exception and that is in things which are logically contradictory. To those the 'Can't prove a negative' rule does not apply.

I don't think "omniscience - free will" proves the point that god is logically contradictory. (Furthermore, even if you could prove that, it's still not convincing enough to bury the whole possibility, but that was the "anything is possible" argument.)

When you say "Doesn't the birth of the world itself go against the law of non-contradiction?" you are making the assertion or strong implication that the "birth of the world" is somehow, at the very least improbable. AS if there were some way we could retroactively assign any likelihood other than 100% to the "birth of the world".

I think you're confused by me wording it as "birth of the world". I was talking about the beginning of existence itself and that only.

And while it is not true that the "world" has always existed, you seem to be ignoring the fact that existence ITSELF has always been. Something has ALWAYS existed and given rise to other things in an endless chain of cause and effect.

I haven't ignored that, on the contrary, I conceded it's the most likely explanation.

Well, as soon as you are able to find this other aspect of reality where logic does not apply then we can examine this and try to determine whether God is possible in this 'other reality' but until then you are just offering an appeal to ignorance here. It is even worse than the infamous 'God of the gaps' argument because you are not even referring to an actual 'gap' but rather to a 'potential gap' for which you have no grounds to even think is real.

It's a valid argument for god not being impossible. Not for god existing, but that's not what I've ever said. Appeal to ignorance works both ways too, you can't know that common logic will always apply everywhere/under all conditions with certainty because a large chunk of "everywhere" is still unknown.

False. The very definition of free will necessitates such. If you are NOT pondering decisions then you are merely acting according to your 'programming'/predestination.

The nature of free will is very much a contested subject in itself. I don't think it exists in the sense you think it must, which I have been trying to explain.

So you agree that God could not have both free will and omniscience then? That is my only point here. That a being so defined as having both of these traits cannot exist.

Cannot actively think and decide stuff, no. But free will is a fallacy to an extent anyway.

False. You WOULD lose your free will for the very reasons I have repeatedly outlined for you. If you became omniscient tomorrow then at that point you would KNOW whether or not you walked to the pub for free beer night on Tuesday. Therefore you CANNOT make a decision to do other than what you KNOW you are to do. The future becomes indistinguishable from the past for an omniscient being and you can no more decide on a future course of action than you can decide to un-eat the bowl of cereal you had for breakfast and instead have pancakes yesterday.
Even worse for God since he is defined as being ETERNALLY omniscient. There is NO point in his history when he did not know exactly every detail that would come to pass.


I did understand you correctly then, I thought perhaps we were having a miscommunication somewhere. You certainly don't seem to be getting my view since you have repeatedly outlined something I haven't denied (save for making it sound like that in my first post).

In order to have free will you do not need to make a "superficial choice". You have to be able to make a CHOICE. To ponder multiple courses of action and chose one(or more). If you KNOW with absolute certainty that you WILL do *THIS* then you CANNOT choose to do *THAT*.

Think of it from a different angle. Yes, he knows with absolute certainty what he will do, but what is that foreknowledge based on? Who decides the future? If some kind of preordained fate exists, THAT would undermine free will. If the knowledge is based on his own personality, however, he would never be forced to go against his will. Consciously thinking and deciding on what to do then would be superficial, something he would not need to do even if he could.

But that is exactly what I am contesting here. You are asserting that they have "proof"(which is itself absurd!) and going so far to put their poor evidence on equal footing with the rational arguments against God's existence and thus far you only offer the bald assertion fallacy to support this. You are basically saying "Your(meaning MY) argument is just as bad as their arguments!" without showing this to be so.

Proof by contradiction itself is a rational argument, but if the alleged contradiction doesn't exist, it's very much on par with other irrational beliefs like that. This also brings me to something I heelkick myself in the groin for having ignored in the first place:

Not really. One reason I never use the "Can God create a rock so heavy...?" argument is because it does not really apply. "All powerful" does not mean "Able to do the logically impossible". A 'rock' by definition MUST be 'lift-able' or it is not a rock and if it is lift-able then an all powerful being can lift it.

Actually, it seems rather irrational that you would define omnipotence as being relative, but at the same time arguing about complete omniscience being at odds with free will, and claiming this to be proof of something. Relative omniscience (ie. "All knowing" does not mean "Able to know the logically impossible") doesn't cancel free will even if you believe it to exist in the fullest sense (that a person can freely choose between different options "on the fly").

And I wish you luck with disproving my argument. A few have tried over the years...

Braggart.

Wow. I will take that as a compliment since Epicurus' famous 'Riddle'(now commonly known as "The Problem of Evil") remains a sound argument against omnibenevolent gods. But you are again trying a straw man here by painting the "Problem of Evil" in a simplistic light(but you have not done so badly that this is worth getting into).

Both the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Problem of Evil are sound arguments against specific God-concepts being possible. Simply asserting that you don't like them without being able to show them to be flawed does nothing to help your case.


Argh, I should have guessed you would not agree on that. It's an absurd argument to use because it's too complicated, there are too many uncertain variables surrounding it. Evil/good being far from objective values, free will, other entities' influence (hail satan), just to think up a few.

Also, not every simplification/comparison is a strawman argument. That's only if the simplification/comparison is flawed, otherwise it's just getting at the heart of the problem.

Yes, it does! It cannot even BER a "theory" without adhering to the principle of Parsimony/Occam's razor. At best it can only be a groundless hypothetical speculation.

Whatever the terms used, the simplest answer is not always right no matter how you look at it. Say you have an apple tree on a yard, and a wormy apple is lying on the ground.

A) It fell to the ground by itself.

B) Someone removed it from the tree because it's wormy.

Occam's razor favours the first explanation because it assumes less. That doesn't make the second explanation unlikely, it could easily have been what really happened.

Yes and no(and I am perplexed that you think scientists looking for rational/understandable explanations is a BAD thing?!). Science is basically the study of that which exists, regardless of how it exists. Science does not deal with groundless speculations of things which, by definition could not be understood.

The point was that if it really WAS supernatural and NOT explainable, scientists would never yield to that. Seeking to explain stuff is good, but also a convenient way to deny the existence of anything supernatural ever. You've probably experienced stuff that you couldn't explain in your life. There must be a logical explanation, even if you do not know what it was. But that's just an assumption that you make because you don't BELIEVE in the supernatural. The scientific view ASSUMES the nonexistence of this stuff, it's not like things that cannot be explained don't ever happen.

But 'Neutrality' does NOT mean we should believe ALL claims are possible. What you consider "negative" I believe IS the 'neutral' stance of science. We get fooled by the semantics here into believing that the "neutral" stance is to grant an undeserved "possibility" to all manner of silly claims and this is not only false but an absurd way to go about the study of reality.

Good point, but problems arise when no consideration is given to claims that do deserve it. As I can't think of a good example, though, this is moot. I'll get back to this if one does come to my mind later.
September 15th 2009, 04:14 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
Reply to Meta:
That is exactly what I said would happen.

Just heated discussion
Well. Yeah, maybe heated discussion is the right way to say it.

And right now I have a feeling, and that is basically happening, that I have no right to say anything. Other people can throw their ideas and thoughts in here, but when I say my opinion about things everyone just starts picking on me. It has been going like that for quite a while now. Is it just because it is posted by me? Because right now I'm feeling like it, and that definitely is not right.
September 15th 2009, 04:49 AM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
Is it just because it is posted by me? Because right now I'm feeling like it, and that definitely is not right.

Not at all. I have nothing against you personally, I just disagree with your evaluation about this thread. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they hate you. That's the difference between a flame war and a debate: A flame war is about hate, a debate is about arguments. And I'm talking arguments, not hate.

Remember what I said? Right now I think your relation with Dinkers is getting worse, not mine.

You just confirmed this. Why do you still want this thread closed so desperately then? If it only hurts you? It doesn't hurt me, nor scratcher, nor SkeleTony I'm sure.

Just ignore this thread, let the moderating of the board be done by the staff. I have confidence in their evaluation.

EDIT: Funny to see that there are essentially two discussions now, one about religion and one about closing this thread. And I like to discuss them both.
September 15th 2009, 05:26 AM
knightgl.gif
zeddexx
Peasant He/Him New Zealand
I'm pretty sure I'm worth atleast SIX goats... 
to all you guys out there that want to close this thread, dont worry it wont last forever.
September 15th 2009, 05:28 AM
wizardg.gif
schnapper
Peasant He/Him Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
Let us save our effort and just lie down and die. 
"Close this thread"
WHAAAAT??? And run away from the painful truth? The angel of death guards the exit from this garden of the knowledge of good and evil well. You shall not pass.
September 15th 2009, 05:32 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
Of course it hurts me if people don't pick on other people for saying their opinions, but they pick on me for me saying my opinions.
September 15th 2009, 05:43 AM
slimeg.gif
metatarasal
Bard He/Him Netherlands
I object 
AGAIN, theories do not EVER 'become facts'. This is an all too common misunderstanding of science by laypersons. A theory is an entirely different ani9mal than a fact. Theories EXPLAIN facts. Without the pre-existent facts, there is no need for a theory. If there were no computers then a manual on computer engineering would be a book of gibberish talking about silicon chips, terrabytes, processors etc.

Aye, I stated that wrong. Theories indeed never become facts, they're completely different. Actually that was the entire point of my post. You can have a theory about something everyday, proving something does not make a theory a fact. This is exactly why I feel you can still talk about the 'theory of evolution'.

What I was trying to say is that a the fact that the apple falls is a confirmation of my hypothesis that the apple would fall if I released it. This hypothesis comes from the theory that objects with a weight have a tendency to be attracted to other objects with a weight. This obviously has an even more complex theory behind it, but this theory is already a theory. The computer handbook you are referring to does not explain exactly how a transistor works, just how the software/hardware you want to use works. This means a part of a larger theory can also be a theory.

So, my theory 'apples will fall to the ground when released' is a valid theory. I don't need the entire theory of general relativity to explain why an apple falls. Just like a computer software manual does not need to explain how a transistor works.

You are right that my original statement that "I may have the theory that it will fall when I release it." is more a hypothesis then a theory. This is caused by my own feeling that theories need to be able to predict things to have any meaningful value. (So a theory should be able to produce a hypothesis.)

Still though, I can have the theory that apples warp themselves to the ground. That's not a hypothesis if it isn't specifically refering to that specific apple. I agree that you were right on my original statement about me mixing up the words hypothesis and theory.

You are mostly correct here but I would point out that there is no "theory of evolution". There are SEVERAL theories(re: Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium etc.) that explain the FACT of evolution. Evolution itself is a fact. Natural selection is the primary THEORY explaining how it(evolution/bio-diversity) works.

Well, in the same way you can have the theory that apples fall to the ground and not to the sky you can have the theory that life as we know it has come to be through evolution rather than through a single event. That's what I call the theory of evolution, and I think that's a valid theory. Obviously this theory has many sub-theories, but that does not transform the main theory in a fact. So talking about the theory of evolution is good use of language if you ask me. (Obviously it is misused often to give the impression that evidence for evolution is rather unsubstantial...)

None of those are theories though. The "gravity" and "animals" ones come closest but as you have stated it it is merely a groundless assertion with no explanatory power at all. A "theory" goes into great detail explaining exactly HOW these things occur and work. Theories CAN be overturned adn are constantly revised with the influx of new data but this does not change the facts they explain anymore than the discovery that the earth is elliptical caused our planet to become a cube or a giant marshmallow.

These statements were no groundless assertions with no explanatory power, they explain a lot of things. For example every car that I see has round wheels, not hexagonal ones. This theory helps to explain why (although there's more to it, obviously). A theory does not have to go into great detail to explain something. What the theories I posted are missing is the detail to go back to a statement we all feel is right, or to build upon experimental evidence. So, if I would say that hexagonal wheels are less efficient than round ones and I take the laws of thermodynamics to explain this it would be a great theory. Or if I take the statement that 'Animals have evolved from single celled organisms.' and explain it using experimental evidence it would make a great theory.

But again, you don't need to explain everything in one statement to have a theory. If a scientist who works on cell-biology would need to name everything that is known on cell-biology in a theory he proposes he would have to write a pretty fat article. You just need to go back to a basis that is acceptable within a certain community. So the theory 'God only does good things because we can see this from the bible.' can be an acceptable theory in christian circles, but to convince a non-christian you'll need other evidence. So within christian circles this is a theory, outside of it it is an unfounded statement.

Just realize that what makes a good theory can be different in different circles.

In any case my issue was with Krisknox's gross mis-definition of "theory". I am not even sure you and I disagree all that much as the more I re-read your post the more I am thinking we are getting tangled in semantics.

Indeed, I fully support your your correction of that 'mis-definition'. The main reason I posted my post is because of the last paragraph in which you said:

We have the FACT of gravitation and the THEORY of special relativity AND the theory of gravitation to explain the force of gravity. We have the FACT of evolution and the THEORY of Natural Selection and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium that explains HOW organisms evolve and diversify.

I wanted to explain that you can have the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity as well (if you explain well enough what they are that is). Just to be complete.

And yes, I don't think we disagree much on this.
September 15th 2009, 08:00 AM
knight.gif
krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
everyone is at an impasse.
September 15th 2009, 09:27 AM
dragon.gif
Quiztis
Peasant He/Him Sweden bloop
Life? What's that? Can I download it?! 
Who here has ever been insulted by a religious text, video, or person?
September 15th 2009, 10:07 AM
peasantmb.gif
YeOldeToasT
Peasant They/Them Australia
LOOK UPON MY DEFORMED FACE! 
So, my theory 'apples will fall to the ground when released' is a valid theory. I don't need the entire theory of general relativity to explain why an apple falls.

"Apple falling when let go of" is not a theory, it is an observation or prediction. What you are talking about is a difference between basic knowledge of a subject, and the theories that support its function.
In short, without knowing the theories that explain gravity and how it works in relation to the apple, you will not be able to properly explain to a small child "why?" things fall to the ground when dropped and your answer will be "They just do."

Just like a computer software manual does not need to explain how a transistor works.

Unless it was an electronics encyclopedia on CD of course. But that aside it's a shaky analogy as computer software is generally developed to run on top of an operating system, not directly on hardware. Thus it would not need to explain it because most computer programmers know nothing about transistors and how doping with different chemicals affects the function and type of transistor.

You can have a theory about something everyday, proving something does not make a theory a fact. This is exactly why I feel you can still talk about the 'theory of evolution'.

A theory is not a fact. It is a separate entity that distills a subject and explains it in terms a person can understand. Ever played the clarinet? That's music theory in practice. Driven a car? It's called driving theory. If we didn't have such theories, nobody would drive as there would be nothing for them to study in order to drive. People would jump in their cars and smash into everything because there would be no structured rules on what to actually do.

As skeletony said, "evolution" is fact. Small changes occur in the offspring of organisms depending on a variety of factors. The explanation of these changes are supported by the theory of evolution.

All a theory has to do is explain something and work. Theories are disproved and created all the time. Search for "phlogiston" for some light reading on disproved theories.

Still though, I can have the theory that apples warp themselves to the ground. That's not a hypothesis if it isn't specifically refering to that specific apple. I agree that you were right on my original statement about me mixing up the words hypothesis and theory.

I'm sorry you can't have that theory. That is a (fallacious) observation, and you would have to find a theory that supports such an observation. Even if not referring to a specific apple, your hypothesis would be, "If I let go of an apple, it will warp to the ground." Regardless if it is one or many.

This hypothesis comes from the theory that objects with a weight have a tendency to be attracted to other objects with a weight.

I may be nitpicky, but weight (N) changes depending on the gravitational pull of a planet and/or its acceleration. Therefore your weight is less on the moon. Newton's law specifies mass in kg as the constant. Without any gravity, an object has no weight, though it will contain mass.

So the theory 'God only does good things because we can see this from the bible.' can be an acceptable theory in christian circles, but to convince a non-christian you'll need other evidence. So within christian circles this is a theory, outside of it it is an unfounded statement.

For some reading I will recommend; The Book of Job (God kills some guys family to prove a point to the devil), Genesis (God creates everything) and Leviticus (God commands you not to eat shellfish and bunny rabbits or you deserve to die by stoning.) Jesus performed good deeds, (feeding 5000 people with bread and fish) whereas God commanded people to kill the Philistines.

Of course, each of these could be re-framed from an alternate point of view, claiming that God did all of these because he loved his believers. But I could walk around naked in my town claiming that I was giving people the gift of seeing my finely chiseled features and large triceps. It won't convince a policeman, but I will still believe it to be true. Hence we have extremist groups like the Westboro Baptist Church.

Basically, don't take The Bible literally. There are lessons to be learned from the Gospel, but don't go stoning prostitutes.
September 15th 2009, 11:09 AM
slayer.gif
MadStalker
Peasant He/Him Finland
tag line 
"but don't go stoning prostitutes."

Yeah, nothing's worse than stoned prostitutes!

Ok, I'll shut up now.
September 15th 2009, 11:26 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
Funny to see that there are essentially two discussions now, one about religion and one about closing this thread. And I like to discuss them both

I see two discussions here, but neither one of them has nothing to do with the original religion post which was posted by Fireball a.k.a. Who here has ever been insulted by a religious text, video, or person? Either directly or indirectly?

So yeah, we're getting pretty far from the topic, since I think "apple falling when let go of it" is pretty far from the original topic.
September 15th 2009, 01:32 PM
duckdie.gif
Scratcher:

"...because he can't be both omniscient and have free will. On some different argument about why he can't exist, I might agree, but this one is just crappy."

AGAIN, how so? Calling the argument "crappy" while being unable to refute(or seemingly even address it!) is...well, crappy!

"An Ad hominem argument may not diminish the validity of the original argument itself, but it can be used to show that the opposition is biased to holding their position because they are this and that. A criminal defending criminal acts is not very credible even if their logic is sound."

And even if I COULD make sense of what you wrote above, what does this have to do with your committing the straw man? Who even mentioned ad hominems and what does this ambiguous reference to criminals with sound logic have to do with what we are discussing?

"It's possible because it's not impossible, duh."

Circular reasoning much?

" As you yourself put it:

(Me)"Yes, in MOST cases it is impossible to prove a negative. Santa Claus, giant radioactive dinosaurs etc. would all apply here. But there IS one exception and that is in things which are logically contradictory. To those the 'Can't prove a negative' rule does not apply."(/Me)."


What in my above are you having trouble with? In GENERAL it is usually impossible to prove a negative. But this rule does not apply to logically contradictory claims such as deities who are omni-just AND omni-merciful or a God who is omniscient AND has free will. Same thing applies to square shaped circles. These things are not subject to the "can't prove a negative" rule as they CAN be proven.

"I don't think "omniscience - free will" proves the point that god is logically contradictory. (Furthermore, even if you could prove that, it's still not convincing enough to bury the whole possibility, but that was the "anything is possible" argument.)"

So you have claimed but until you are able to counter my proof to the contrary your bald assertion holds no water here. A being CANNOT be "omniscient"(as defined by the very monotheists who believe in such) AND able to make decisions. A decision can ONLY be made when knowledge is not certain and since God cannot be uncertain at ANY point, he cannot make decisions.

"I think you're confused by me wording it as "birth of the world". I was talking about the beginning of existence itself and that only."

I am not the one confused here. Keep your above quote in mind for a minute and I will show you.

(Me)"And while it is not true that the "world" has always existed, you seem to be ignoring the fact that existence ITSELF has always been. Something has ALWAYS existed and given rise to other things in an endless chain of cause and effect."(/Me)

(Scratcher)"I haven't ignored that, on the contrary, I conceded it's the most likely explanation."


Now I refer you back to the emboldened quote of yours above:

"I think you're confused by me wording it as "birth of the world". I was talking about the beginning of existence itself and that only"

See what you did there? "Beginning of existence itself" does not jive with your new found agreement with my position that existence has NO beginning.

"It's a valid argument for god not being impossible."

False. Try forming that into a syllogistic argument if you think you can. What premises are you drawing this conclusion from? If you are simply going to assert that all things are possible then I do not grant that as a premise(and you would be inviting a whole truckload of other problems which I won't get into in this thread. Sagan already dealt with them anyway in his book Broca's Brain IIRC) because it is nonsensical.

"Not for god existing, but that's not what I've ever said. Appeal to ignorance works both ways too, you can't know that common logic will always apply everywhere/under all conditions with certainty because a large chunk of "everywhere" is still unknown.

And this same exact line of non-reasoning works equally well(or poorly rather) to support ANY assertion anyone can possibly make, no matter how silly or stupid. Even primes greater than '2'? Sure...because there may be some Bizarro-universe where math makes no sense and true quantification is impossible. Square shaped circles? Sure...because while such a postulation cannot make any sense rationally we will just dodge the whole matter by saying "Maybe there is a reality where four-sided circles are the norm!"

The obvious problem with such dodging about(aside from the fact that you are quite literally offering up NONSENSE as if it were an argument) is that any reality where logic does NOT hold sway is just as irrelevant as any 'unreal' claim. Such a reality becomes like Sagan's 'Garage Dragon'. What is the difference between an invisible, intangible creature who cannot effect the reality we share and a made up thing?

"The nature of free will is very much a contested subject in itself. I don't think it exists in the sense you think it must, which I have been trying to explain."

You are a determinist then? That is fine(whatever works for you) but it is irrelevant to my argument and our discussion. We are not debating whether free will actually exists in the way you or I might think it does. I am merely pointing out that God cannot be both omniscient and have free will. Saying that NO ONE can have free will does not change this even if I were to agree with such a belief myself(which I do not).

"Think of it from a different angle. Yes, he knows with absolute certainty what he will do, but what is that foreknowledge based on?

That question does not make any sense here. Regardless of what you might mean by the above, the point remains that he cannot have this infallible foreknowledge AND be able to make decisions.

"Who decides the future?

No one does in the concept you are advocating for. In a reality where that God exists, the future would be like a computer program which cannot be deviated from and thus no free will can happen.

"If some kind of preordained fate exists, THAT would undermine free will."

Not just "undermine" but completely THWART it...make it impossible!

"If the knowledge is based on his own personality, however, he would never be forced to go against his will.

WHAT "will"? He could have no "will" to do ANYTHING! That is my point!

And how can knowledge be based on someone's personality?!

"Consciously thinking and deciding on what to do then would be superficial, something he would not need to do even if he could."

He could not. That is my point(which you seem to alternatively agree with except for when you are trying to disagree...).

"Proof by contradiction itself is a rational argument, but if the alleged contradiction doesn't exist, it's very much on par with other irrational beliefs like that."

But this is irrelevant since the contradiction DOES exist and Has been demonstrated.

" This also brings me to something I heelkick myself in the groin for having ignored in the first place:

(Me)"Not really. One reason I never use the "Can God create a rock so heavy...?" argument is because it does not really apply. "All powerful" does not mean "Able to do the logically impossible". A 'rock' by definition MUST be 'lift-able' or it is not a rock and if it is lift-able then an all powerful being can lift it."(/Me)

Actually, it seems rather irrational that you would define omnipotence as being relative, but at the same time arguing about complete omniscience being at odds with free will, and claiming this to be proof of something. Relative omniscience (ie. "All knowing" does not mean "Able to know the logically impossible") doesn't cancel free will even if you believe it to exist in the fullest sense (that a person can freely choose between different options "on the fly").
"

Wrong. This is exactly why I let THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN An omniscient free-willed deity DEFINE the terms themselves. I am not the one defining "omniscience" here(and I was not the one who provided the above definition of "omnipotence" either). I asked Christians, Jews and Muslims(and a few others as well) and they ALL gave me the same definition of these terms.
Furthermore, if you want to redefine the term "omniscience" in a way that is less problematic for theists then knock yourself out! I have absolutely NO problem with your doing that and I wish you luck in both coming up with a sensible re-definition AND getting the theists to buy into it.

I do not think you CAN. I never contested the re-definition of "omnipotence" in regards to the "Can God create a rock so heavy...?" problem because that more refined definition simply made sense and did not trample all over existent terms already in use. "All powerful" does not entail the logically impossible because if it did then the term itself loses any real meaning. It becomes an empty word like "perfection" or some such when you strip the logical grounding.

But "omniscience" does not suffer this problem. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a being who knows the future as well as he knows the past and present and with absolute, infallible certainty.

The problems arise when you try to combine THAT trait with a trait like "free will".

"Argh, I should have guessed you would not agree on that. It's an absurd argument to use because it's too complicated, there are too many uncertain variables surrounding it. Evil/good being far from objective values, free will, other entities' influence (hail satan), just to think up a few.

This is somewhat true, but irrelevant. It does not matter how any particular being defines "good" and "evil" because the problem is with the very EXISTENCE of "evil" coinciding with the omnipresence of an omni-benevolent being.

Check it out:

The Riddle of Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but is not able to, Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing, Then He is malevolent.
Is He is both able and willing, Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing, Then why call Him God?

And the subjectivity of how "evil" might be defined only goes so far. Every monotheism has a holy book, said to be the word of God and within such are clearly outlined "evils" which God/Allah/Yahweh opposes.

"Also, not every simplification/comparison is a strawman argument. That's only if the simplification/comparison is flawed, otherwise it's just getting at the heart of the problem."

Yeah but that is irrelevant to the fact that you DID commit a straw man. I did not charge you with "simplifying". I could not care less if you break down or simplify a point I make so long as you do not straw man me(attribute a much more absurd, easier to refute position to me and then tackle THAT construct rather than addressing my actual arguments).

"Whatever the terms used, the simplest answer is not always right no matter how you look at it. Say you have an apple tree on a yard, and a wormy apple is lying on the ground.

A) It fell to the ground by itself.

B) Someone removed it from the tree because it's wormy.

Occam's razor favours the first explanation because it assumes less. That doesn't make the second explanation unlikely, it could easily have been what really happened."


False all around, as I explained in previous posts. Occam's Razor is NOT "The simplest answer is best/preferred". That is another of those mis-definitions that has crept into common usage. Occam's razor is the principle that one should never unnecessarily multiply entities for explanation.

HUGE difference.

A correct analogy would be:

You find a worm-eaten apple on the ground beneath the apple tree in your yard.

There are several possibilities in your mind as to how it got there:

1)It fell as apples commonly do.

2)Someone picked it and dropped it on the ground.

3)The apple fairies came and left a worm-eaten apple because they do not like you.

The first two possibilities are valid by Occam's razor. The third is invalid because it entails an unnecessary multiplication of entities(which would themselves require explanation and 'Extraordinary evidence' in like with the claim itself).

A common oft-cited example is the "God did it." explanation. Theists will often tell me that THAT is the "simplest" answer to many questions and since they are operating by a common misunderstanding of Occam's razor, they think this makes sense.

"The point was that if it really WAS supernatural and NOT explainable, scientists would never yield to that."

Couple problems with this. First of all, it is simply false and could not be more false if you tried. I am not sure where this bizarre idea came from that scientists are dogmatists who unanimously agree with one another and would not seek to crush the competition(other scientists) by being the first to substantiate some supernatural occurrence but please...stop it!

Secondly, the "supernatural" CANNOT exist so it would be rather pointless to to coddle you with contrary assertions about such. ANYTHING which exists in reality must by definition be NATURAL. Think about it for a minute guy...by what criteria are you able to distinguish the 'imaginary' from the 'real'? I am serious here...provide us with a definition of these two terms that is not ambiguous and by which you would be able to take any sufficiently defined existential claim and classify it as one or the other.

Hint: There are only a couple such criteria by which the 'real' can be distinguished from the imaginary:

1)Sense contents - Real things are concurrently observable, regardless of individual beliefs. You and I are both unable to walk through the same brick wall because it is real and not imaginary.

2)Linear sequence - Real things must abide by the linear cause and effect sequence whereas imaginary things are not bound by such.

Now I have been through this many times so I know full well you will try and object to the above and I also know full well that you will be unable to posit any argument to counter this. In fact I will go so far as to predict that you will be completely unable to cough up any definition of "real" and "imaginary" as per my request above.

"Seeking to explain stuff is good, but also a convenient way to deny the existence of anything supernatural ever. You've probably experienced stuff that you couldn't explain in your life."

There is a huge difference between "I am not sure what I just experienced" and "No one can possibly understand *THIS* because it is supernatural!". And there is nothing convenient about being a skeptic guy. We are the most openly vilified minority in existence, precisely because we do not go with the popular sentiments and grant undeserved assent to nonsensical supernatural claims.

Ironically most of your assertions about the supernatural seem to be convenient means of denying the truth about reality which you do not want to accept. As I often point out Reason and truth SELDOM trump belief. People will deny non-fantastic truths regardless of what evidence or argument exists.

" There must be a logical explanation, even if you do not know what it was. But that's just an assumption that you make because you don't BELIEVE in the supernatural. The scientific view ASSUMES the nonexistence of this stuff, it's not like things that cannot be explained don't ever happen."

Name a single thing that "CANNOT" be explained by science/naturalism.

Just one.

Go ahead and try.

Don't you find it a tad ironic(to put it politely) that you are chastising naturalists for NOT assenting to irrational claims that are not in any way inferred by concurrent observation or controlled testing?!

No one wants or wanted for the supernatural to be real more than I did by the way guy. Not you, not J. Z. Knight, Not Shirley McClaine.

I just do not think reality configures itself to be in accordance with my wishes.

September 15th 2009, 10:28 PM
peasantmb.gif
YeoLdetoAst
Peasant They/Them Australia
LOOK UPON MY DEFORMED FACE! 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but is not able to, Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing, Then He is malevolent.
Is He is both able and willing, Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing, Then why call Him God?


This pretty much sums everything up. Also, hubble deep field.
September 15th 2009, 11:45 PM
knight.gif
Krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
Ever heard of a test? How else would good people be distingushed from evil?
September 16th 2009, 01:28 AM
duckdie.gif
"Ever heard of a test? How else would good people be distingushed from evil?"

What is the above in regards to? It does not address the Problem of Evil and I am having a Devil of a time trying to figure out what you were getting at with this?! Are you saying that God needs to test people(for whatever unfathomable reason) to figure out who is good and who isn't? Why?! Even if this WERE so how would it have any relevance to the Problem of evil/Epicurus' Riddle?
September 16th 2009, 01:39 AM
dragon.gif
Quiztis
Peasant He/Him Sweden bloop
Life? What's that? Can I download it?! 
There's an extremely good article about this somewhere, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. I'll keep out looking.
September 16th 2009, 07:04 AM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
Alright F*CK this, here's my random opinion on something completely ludicrous to some, sensible to others, theory to yet more others and whatever. Let the chaos of my words be organised, let them be rejected or accepted and let all who bother to read this post debate and discuss all they want, regardless of wether or not it relates to what has been discussed already or what may yet be discussed.

IF a group of people wish to believe in a religious deity of their choosing, they choose to believe in it and it exists to them. What of it to others?
This is the main topic for this post.

IF someone decides that, even after adolecence, fairies exist or dragons roam the skies even without the physical and scientific proof mortals of this world have developed, then it exists to their minds and souls. What of it to others, who don't believe such exist in the real world? They know of such things, so they exist in their minds.

IF An idea is given wings and spread across the distance of oxygen particles and whatever residue from polutants and any other crap that scientists can claim exists to the microscopic eye, until it deposits its existence in the mind of another, then it exists for the minds it has been deposited within. It matters not if the idea is ludicrous and the minds of those receiving the idea reject it, it exists in the recesses of their mind. If they forget the idea, then to them it no longer exists until they are perhaps reminded, or never. FOR THAT PERSON.

Once an idea is created, it exists only until the memory of it's existence dies. Until either the minds who hold the idea disipate with the death of the individual. We can't prove nor disprove the existence of an "Afterlife" regardless of attempts, so give up in advance of discussing the effects of the mind following the soul for now.
If the mind dies, then the idea dies. Possible fact one.
If however, the mind lives on and departs the flesh it resides within as the brain deteriorates with decomposition, then the idea theoretically would still reside within that mind, if the mind itself continues also.
Should this be the case, the existence of the original idea, whatever example you care to use, exists.

So we have different religions, speaking of Jehova, or of some Greek, Roman, or some other ancient deity, it exists within the minds of those who hear of it. Belife in such things rests with the individual mind of the listener who now bears the knowledge of this idea of Aries, or Jupiter, or God and the Devil. Let them choose to believe and remember, or discard and forget until they are reminded simply by the hearing of the idea once more. Let the persuaders, the fanatics of the idea, continue their persuasion attempts to incite belief and acceptance to their arguments.

LET ALL HERE WHO CONTINUE YOUR ARGUMENTS AND READ THIS POST MOVE FOREWARD;
Share your knowledge, Argue your oppinions, and do as you will. Ultimately it is of no consequence unless you learn to accept your chosen knowledge, your decided religion and the afterlife you strive for. If you think your mind will simply dissipate and don't care for it then do what you will with it and leave your legacy on this plane of existence. If you believe in an afterlife for your mind and soul then strive towards what you seek beyond your physical life future, or strive to leave your mark upon this earth. Only you give a dang about yourself; Everything is an illusion, but an illusion that you all have the power to bend to your own will.

That is all. As a token of my utmost confusingly random section of information that you may choose to bank into your memories as you wish, I leave with just one last thing, a jokingly posted quote.

"BRING FORTH THE STAKES! YOU SHALL BURN FOR YOUR BELIEFS, WITCH!" - Mr Shake to Frylock

This entire post (most anyway) has been copied to a journal Here so there may be a couple of random ghosts or lurkers to check it out lol. To read this post there, scroll down to the journal section.
September 16th 2009, 07:36 AM
peasantmb.gif
YeoLdeToast
Peasant They/Them Australia
LOOK UPON MY DEFORMED FACE! 
Not gonna argue with that ExDeath. Although the quote at the end ruined it coz it was all in caps, and I thought it was the most important bit and therefore read it first. And you spelled forward wrong.

You're right, we may all be plugged into The Matrix (I heard it just came out in NZ on video). As one of those Greek dudes said, "Life is a dream from which we never wake up." Or something like that.

People will generally create God in their own image however they see fit. If a man is abhorrent and cruel to others, he believes in a cruel God. If a man gives back to the community and makes others feel good about themselves, he believes in a kind God. I think Marx said that.
September 16th 2009, 07:42 AM
burntree.gif
Fireball5
Peasant He/Him Australia
Let me heat that up for you... 
I have an autistic friend who says we may as well be in the matrix...
September 16th 2009, 07:52 AM
duckdie.gif
ExDeathEvn:

Rather than do the whole massively quoted, point-by-point response I am going to offer some general thoughts on the points you raised.

First of all, though I do not assume you intended any of that towards ME specifically, I just want to point out that I NEVER go looking for people who believe things which I do not to tell them their beliefs are wrong. I just don't do it. If there is a forum called "Fairy friends - DISSENT/DEBATE NOT ALLOWED!" I will not be found posting there for example. same goes for "Christian" forums, Bigfoot forums etc.

However I do participate in DEBATE forums(or forums that are at least NOT prohibitive towards such).

Now as for individuals believing things for themselves(objectively real or not) and such things being 'real' to THEM...again, that is fine. But the delusional guy from the mental hospital sees and hears things which are 'real to HIM' but we do not adjust our views of reality to coincide with his delusions.

Likewise, in an open debate about reality we should not grant an undeserved conciliatory or assent to claims that are not CONCURRENTLY 'real'(as opposed to 'real in your mind'). In short, the mind controlling space vampire in someone's head may seem very real to them for all I know but I am not going to take out a loan to buy a lifetime supply of 'Anti-vampiric mind control juice'.

Finally, as a late friend of mine used to point out Heraclitus observed around 2,500 years ago while watching a boxing match that blows to the head affected thinking while blows to other body parts did not. From this he concluded that we think with a piece of MEAT and not a piece of magic. If the mind could somehow survive the physical death of the brain then why does Alzheimer's and drug use and such mess up your thinking? If the mind were actually dependent on some non-physical "soul" or some such then that non-physical soul would have to get drunk when we drink, get brain damage when we are clubbed in the head, etc.

The mind does not survive brain death...pure and simple.
September 16th 2009, 12:35 PM
dragon.gif
Quiztis
Peasant He/Him Sweden bloop
Life? What's that? Can I download it?! 
From this moment, posts with more than 300 characters (including quotes) will result in a two-day ban from the DN forums.
September 16th 2009, 01:11 PM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
My dad has a friend who's wife is brain dead. She's still alive, but can not do, to say the truth, nothing.
September 16th 2009, 03:20 PM
knight.gif
Krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
so... she can do stuff?
September 16th 2009, 06:24 PM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
Ah, a response from Skeletony. Almost expected that happening

First off, thanks for the quoteing point-by-point fix. Generally the quote system on this website is non existent, so apart from the Italics font being used for quoting there doesn't seem to be any other method unless you count the [ Code ] tags.

To your response, now.

The above text is simply one of my more distant ramblings; I've posted similar outbust-like texts on other website journals (mainly RedvsBlue since I frequent that site more than others). So there's no need to feel I directed any of the above towards you or anyone in particular here on this finely established network *chokes*
From what I gather however, I would just like to say it's good to see people willing to debate topics online, though for me finding said people in the real world is hard enough lol.

To your paragraph regarding individuals believing things for themselves, everything depends on the belife on only the person reading this; in our current example, we'll take you since your response was the most serious debatively. Understandably, your example of a person locked within the confines of a mental asylum would indeed be separated from the majority of our knowledge and ideas, and us separate from him by our own will. To that person, the ideas will remain, and so for them they continue.
Now, I say "Ideas" because my above rant was more directly focused on anything to do with an individual mind; an idea can be a memory, a mental picture of a story character, a plot for world domination or a humanitarian plan for donating to the poor; to them the idea remains, and should the idea bear fruit in a metaphorical sense, it may spread from one to another.

At the moment I've run out of time to continue posting my response, so I'll get back to you on the rest of it later on. Time for some Xbox gaming and beer at a mate's place
September 16th 2009, 07:36 PM
burntree.gif
Fireball5
Peasant He/Him Australia
Let me heat that up for you... 
LOL i don't know why I didn't enable viewing of deleted posts earlier! Is someone impersonating him? Was the first post by him or neither? Who knows... but I agree with the second deleted post

I suck - SkeleTony?
September 16th 2009, 11:39 PM
spike.gif
AGAIN, how so? Calling the argument "crappy" while being unable to refute(or seemingly even address it!) is...well, crappy!

I'm not going to repeat myself after every quote, try reading the whole post.

And even if I COULD make sense of what you wrote above, what does this have to do with your committing the straw man? Who even mentioned ad hominems and what does this ambiguous reference to criminals with sound logic have to do with what we are discussing?

There was no strawman. I was essentially saying you are too sure of yourself, attacking your person instead of the argument you're putting forth.

scratcher: "When talking of highly theoretical concepts, god, the universe, how can you be so certain your logic and laws will always be absolute and flawless?"

SkeleTony: Straw man.

You cannot hide nonsensical postulations behind the constructed straw man of some self-important guy who thinks his ideas are "flawless" and such because that has no bearing on MY case.

Scratcher: some self-important guy who thinks his ideas are "flawless"

That is what you've been coming across as.

SkeleTony: Again, this is STILL a straw man fallacy. Reiterating that you happen to believe this or not realize that it is a straw man does not change the fact. If I were to go after you by saying "I don't think you should be defending child molestation!" then it does not matter whether I believe you are "coming across as..." a child molester. I am still beating down a position you do not actually hold adn one that is far easier to beat down than your actual argument/position.

Scratcher: An Ad hominem argument may not diminish the validity of the original argument itself, but it can be used to show that the opposition is biased to holding their position because they are this and that. A criminal defending criminal acts is not very credible even if their logic is sound.

SkeleTony: And even if I COULD make sense of what you wrote above, what does this have to do with your committing the straw man? Who even mentioned ad hominems and what does this ambiguous reference to criminals with sound logic have to do with what we are discussing?


As you can see, it was you brought up the criminal example as well.

Circular reasoning much?

" As you yourself put it:

(Me)"Yes, in MOST cases it is impossible to prove a negative. Santa Claus, giant radioactive dinosaurs etc. would all apply here. But there IS one exception and that is in things which are logically contradictory. To those the 'Can't prove a negative' rule does not apply."(/Me)."

What in my above are you having trouble with?


Absolutely nothing, I brought it up because YOU seem to be having trouble with it:

If it is not rational then how do you ascertain it being "possible"?! That does not make any sense. The only way to establish that soemthing is possible is through rationality.

In GENERAL it is usually impossible to prove a negative. But this rule does not apply to logically contradictory claims such as deities who are omni-just AND omni-merciful or a God who is omniscient AND has free will. Same thing applies to square shaped circles. These things are not subject to the "can't prove a negative" rule as they CAN be proven.

There's no need to repeat what you said earlier, especially when I haven't disagreed.

So you have claimed but until you are able to counter my proof to the contrary your bald assertion holds no water here. A being CANNOT be "omniscient"(as defined by the very monotheists who believe in such) AND able to make decisions. A decision can ONLY be made when knowledge is not certain and since God cannot be uncertain at ANY point, he cannot make decisions.

I have already countered your proof. Pretending that I've just been saying "FALSE" after every quote does not make your beliefs more convinvcing.

I am not the one confused here. Keep your above quote in mind for a minute and I will show you.

(Me)"And while it is not true that the "world" has always existed, you seem to be ignoring the fact that existence ITSELF has always been. Something has ALWAYS existed and given rise to other things in an endless chain of cause and effect."(/Me)

(Scratcher)"I haven't ignored that, on the contrary, I conceded it's the most likely explanation."

Now I refer you back to the emboldened quote of yours above:

"I think you're confused by me wording it as "birth of the world". I was talking about the beginning of existence itself and that only"

See what you did there? "Beginning of existence itself" does not jive with your new found agreement with my position that existence has NO beginning.


Uh-huh. That I was talking about the beginning of existence before I conceded your view makes sense does not change it into me having talked of something else. You are welcome to read the relevant parts of the posts again, I really don't understand what is not completely obvious about what I was talking of here.

False. Try forming that into a syllogistic argument if you think you can. What premises are you drawing this conclusion from? If you are simply going to assert that all things are possible then I do not grant that as a premise(and you would be inviting a whole truckload of other problems which I won't get into in this thread. Sagan already dealt with them anyway in his book Broca's Brain IIRC) because it is nonsensical.

As you yourself have said at least twice now, it's impossible to prove a negative (unless it violates the law of non-contradiction).

And this same exact line of non-reasoning works equally well(or poorly rather) to support ANY assertion anyone can possibly make, no matter how silly or stupid. Even primes greater than '2'? Sure...because there may be some Bizarro-universe where math makes no sense and true quantification is impossible. Square shaped circles? Sure...because while such a postulation cannot make any sense rationally we will just dodge the whole matter by saying "Maybe there is a reality where four-sided circles are the norm!"

Yes, indeed, valid reasoning to support the fact we do not know things for sure. The limitation is this reasoning can't be used to argue that a four-sided circle, or anything else is MORE believable than any other contradictory claim.

The obvious problem with such dodging about(aside from the fact that you are quite literally offering up NONSENSE as if it were an argument) is that any reality where logic does NOT hold sway is just as irrelevant as any 'unreal' claim. Such a reality becomes like Sagan's 'Garage Dragon'. What is the difference between an invisible, intangible creature who cannot effect the reality we share and a made up thing?

Irrelevant how? Oh, and the difference is clearly that the other exists outside our imaginations. I'm sure it makes a rather big difference to that creature.

You are a determinist then?

I feel no need to label myself as such. If I were to say "yes, I am a determinist" that would mean adopting or at least being thought of as believing in whatever views that label encompasses. If my views seem to go hand-in-hand with deteminism, that's cool, it just means other people agree with them.

That is fine(whatever works for you) but it is irrelevant to my argument and our discussion. We are not debating whether free will actually exists in the way you or I might think it does. I am merely pointing out that God cannot be both omniscient and have free will.

Yes, the meaning of words is irrelevant to a sentence built up of those words. Wait, what? Hahahahahaha.

Saying that NO ONE can have free will does not change this even if I were to agree with such a belief myself(which I do not).

I have not said that. That is merely from your point of view, that is, "total omniscience is incompatible with free will, when we assume free will to mean that one can at any point freely choose between different options."

This is fine to have as a belief, but WHEN YOU TRY TO PASS YOUR POINT OF VIEW AS UNIVERSAL FACT IT DOES NOT QUITE HOLD UP.

That question does not make any sense here. Regardless of what you might mean by the above, the point remains that he cannot have this infallible foreknowledge AND be able to make decisions.

Again, I am using two sentences following each other to explain my position better, and you are cutting the sentences apart and responding like they are two completely different claims.

No one does in the concept you are advocating for. In a reality where that God exists, the future would be like a computer program which cannot be deviated from and thus no free will can happen.

If no one does, how the duck can god even DO anything? He can't decide anything, he's not acting based on the programming that he has in his own head, there is no fate. He would just be... frozen.

WHAT "will"? He could have no "will" to do ANYTHING! That is my point!

And how can knowledge be based on someone's personality?!


If he knows he will do SOMETHING, the knowledge of the SOMETHING he will do must come from SOMEWHERE. If there is no origin, he could never see himself do anything at all, he would just be, stay still.

That doesn't seem like a bad argument against total omnisciene being possible, actually. But it's not what you've been saying.

He could not. That is my point(which you seem to alternatively agree with except for when you are trying to disagree...).

I agree with that, I do not disagree with it, as long as we are talking of total omniscience. What YOU don't realize is that my point of view doesn't necessitate being able to do that.

But this is irrelevant since the contradiction DOES exist and Has been demonstrated.

Bullshoot.

And before you can tell that "saying that it hasn't been demonstrated isn't a good argument", saying that it HAS been demonstrated isn't a good argument either. I have countered your demonstration multiple times, and your primary defence seems to be saying FALSE and repeating what you have already said over and over again.

If you just don't agree with me, that's cool. But that's the whole point, your demonstration is just a BELIEF that you have no way of proving to be a FACT.

Wrong. This is exactly why I let THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN An omniscient free-willed deity DEFINE the terms themselves. I am not the one defining "omniscience" here(and I was not the one who provided the above definition of "omnipotence" either). I asked Christians, Jews and Muslims(and a few others as well) and they ALL gave me the same definition of these terms.
Furthermore, if you want to redefine the term "omniscience" in a way that is less problematic for theists then knock yourself out! I have absolutely NO problem with your doing that and I wish you luck in both coming up with a sensible re-definition AND getting the theists to buy into it.


I am not trying to redefine omniscience, there's just no single mutually-agreed definition of it. I'm sure all religionists, even those believing in the same god, don't agree with each other on exactly what omnipotence and omniscience encompass. That "some people you asked about them" agreed with each other isn't saying much.

I do not think you CAN. I never contested the re-definition of "omnipotence" in regards to the "Can God create a rock so heavy...?" problem because that more refined definition simply made sense and did not trample all over existent terms already in use. "All powerful" does not entail the logically impossible because if it did then the term itself loses any real meaning. It becomes an empty word like "perfection" or some such when you strip the logical grounding.

But "omniscience" does not suffer this problem. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a being who knows the future as well as he knows the past and present and with absolute, infallible certainty.

The problems arise when you try to combine THAT trait with a trait like "free will".


And if we assume that free will exists in the fullest sense of the word, it's logically impossible for god to know with absolute certainty what he will do in the future. Then something IS inherently wrong with that definition. You're just assuming that omniscience is possible by default, but we can just as well apply that assumption to free will.

This is somewhat true, but irrelevant. It does not matter how any particular being defines "good" and "evil" because the problem is with the very EXISTENCE of "evil" coinciding with the omnipresence of an omni-benevolent being.

"Good" loses it's meaning without "Evil". Maybe it's a... necessary evil. Perhaps god wants to test people to determine who should get to heaven and who should not, as Krisknox said. Maybe the existence of evil is good for us on the grand scale. Maybe we still need to be punished for having sinned back in da garden.

Check it out:

The Riddle of Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but is not able to, Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing, Then He is malevolent.
Is He is both able and willing, Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing, Then why call Him God?


The most objectionable part of this riddle is the "Is He able, but not willing, Then He is malevolent." part. Not preventing evil does not automatically render him evil as well. The reasons for why he might not want to do this are numerous, a few of which I listed above.

And the subjectivity of how "evil" might be defined only goes so far. Every monotheism has a holy book, said to be the word of God and within such are clearly outlined "evils" which God/Allah/Yahweh opposes.

Yeah, you are right.

Yeah but that is irrelevant to the fact that you DID commit a straw man. I did not charge you with "simplifying". I could not care less if you break down or simplify a point I make so long as you do not straw man me(attribute a much more absurd, easier to refute position to me and then tackle THAT construct rather than addressing my actual arguments).

Not what you said before:

Wow. I will take that as a compliment since Epicurus' famous 'Riddle'(now commonly known as "The Problem of Evil") remains a sound argument against omnibenevolent gods. But you are again trying a straw man here by painting the "Problem of Evil" in a simplistic light(but you have not done so badly that this is worth getting into).

False all around, as I explained in previous posts. Occam's Razor is NOT "The simplest answer is best/preferred". That is another of those mis-definitions that has crept into common usage. Occam's razor is the principle that one should never unnecessarily multiply entities for explanation.

HUGE difference.


Not really.

A correct analogy would be:

You find a worm-eaten apple on the ground beneath the apple tree in your yard.

There are several possibilities in your mind as to how it got there:

1)It fell as apples commonly do.

2)Someone picked it and dropped it on the ground.

3)The apple fairies came and left a worm-eaten apple because they do not like you.

The first two possibilities are valid by Occam's razor. The third is invalid because it entails an unnecessary multiplication of entities(which would themselves require explanation and 'Extraordinary evidence' in like with the claim itself).


The only difference between this and my example is that you add another, completely absurd option. The second option ALSO entails an unnecessary multiplication of entities, someone needs to come and pick the apple, of which having happened absolutely no evidence exists of. Occam's razor/law of parsimony still dictates that we pick the first option, the first and the second one are not equal. And by all means, the first option is the MOST LIKELY explanation, but that doesn't mean the second option is impossible.

Couple problems with this. First of all, it is simply false and could not be more false if you tried. I am not sure where this bizarre idea came from that scientists are dogmatists who unanimously agree with one another and would not seek to crush the competition(other scientists) by being the first to substantiate some supernatural occurrence but please...stop it!

Not what I'm saying here. A supernatural occurrence wouldn't be provable, so scientists would (likely) never be able to prove it's an unexplainable phenomenom. And before you restart what we've already been through, this is not a bad thing, this is just how it is.

Secondly, the "supernatural" CANNOT exist so it would be rather pointless to to coddle you with contrary assertions about such. ANYTHING which exists in reality must by definition be NATURAL. Think about it for a minute guy...by what criteria are you able to distinguish the 'imaginary' from the 'real'? I am serious here...provide us with a definition of these two terms that is not ambiguous and by which you would be able to take any sufficiently defined existential claim and classify it as one or the other.

Hint: There are only a couple such criteria by which the 'real' can be distinguished from the imaginary:

1)Sense contents - Real things are concurrently observable, regardless of individual beliefs. You and I are both unable to walk through the same brick wall because it is real and not imaginary.

2)Linear sequence - Real things must abide by the linear cause and effect sequence whereas imaginary things are not bound by such.

Now I have been through this many times so I know full well you will try and object to the above and I also know full well that you will be unable to posit any argument to counter this. In fact I will go so far as to predict that you will be completely unable to cough up any definition of "real" and "imaginary" as per my request above.


Why would I when you do it for me? Should I disagree...? Concurrently observable doesn't mean it has to be explainable, so this definition does not make supernaturality impossible.

There is a huge difference between "I am not sure what I just experienced" and "No one can possibly understand *THIS* because it is supernatural!". And there is nothing convenient about being a skeptic guy. We are the most openly vilified minority in existence, precisely because we do not go with the popular sentiments and grant undeserved assent to nonsensical supernatural claims.

There is, but if you do experience something you can't explain, you should seek to find logical explanations for why it happened, NOT just conclude the matter at that point because one MUST exist because you do not believe in the supernatural.

Ironically most of your assertions about the supernatural seem to be convenient means of denying the truth about reality which you do not want to accept. As I often point out Reason and truth SELDOM trump belief. People will deny non-fantastic truths regardless of what evidence or argument exists.

I'll have to disagree, most people aren't so deluded and unreasonable with their beliefs as you seem to think. Most people, even most religionists, will admit truth IF you can demonstrate it to a reasonable degree. That's why most religionists have bent back to put god "in the gaps" and claim that evolution doesn't contradict creation, et cetera. Once you can really prove that god is impossible, most people will admit that too even if they wish to believe in him.

As for me denying the "truth" because I do not want to accept it, seeing as I don't really believe in the existence of a supernatural world, that's just not it.

Name a single thing that "CANNOT" be explained by science/naturalism.

Just one.

Go ahead and try.


Ghosts! Plenty of evidence (photos, videos, sounds) exist to support that these things do exist.

Don't you find it a tad ironic(to put it politely) that you are chastising naturalists for NOT assenting to irrational claims that are not in any way inferred by concurrent observation or controlled testing?!

Not assenting is one thing, flat-out refusing because you do not believe it's possible is another. I'll have to take back something I said in the last post:

SkeleTony: But 'Neutrality' does NOT mean we should believe ALL claims are possible. What you consider "negative" I believe IS the 'neutral' stance of science. We get fooled by the semantics here into believing that the "neutral" stance is to grant an undeserved "possibility" to all manner of silly claims and this is not only false but an absurd way to go about the study of reality.

scratcher: Good point, but problems arise when no consideration is given to claims that do deserve it. As I can't think of a good example, though, this is moot. I'll get back to this if one does come to my mind later.


I was wrong to have leaned towards your argument. In order to stay unbiased, you DO need to consider all manner of silly claims. Even if it's a very short consideration, this is a necessary step in order to maintain your integrity.
September 17th 2009, 01:25 AM
dragon.gif
Quiztis
Peasant He/Him Sweden bloop
Life? What's that? Can I download it?! 
Did someone just got pwnt or is it my Wall-of-Text syndrome that just kicked in again?
September 17th 2009, 03:41 AM
wizardg.gif
schnapper
Peasant He/Him Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
Let us save our effort and just lie down and die. 
@ Skull: Hi-5, brother
September 17th 2009, 04:02 AM
duckdie.gif
Scrathcer:

Will probably deal with your latest tomorrow because...and sorry if this sounds insulting, but there is just way too much 'fail' in that post. I would be up all night and part of the morning addressing your various misunderstandings(i.e. Occam's Razor, various logical fallacies etc.).

Quiztis: It is "Wall of text" and little more. But wait for my response where I will seemingly have to go into great detailed explanation before making up your mind...
September 17th 2009, 04:32 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
SkeleTony, his post doesn't have. anything more "fail" than your posts, actually.

Hi-5 to you too, Schnapp.
September 17th 2009, 05:42 AM
spike.gif
I don't mind, insults and disagreement is the most likely conclusion our discussion will get. You have already shown that you are unable to consider different possibilities (regardless of what you say), unwilling to admit being mistaken and garble arguments to tickle your own pickle.

I am looking forward to reading your next behemoth, but please don't make me repeat our entire chat history by RAVING about stuff I have not said.
September 17th 2009, 06:10 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
I have been saying that for the last week and a half. And now you get it? Oh well.

SkeleTony falls to his own mistakes.
September 17th 2009, 11:22 AM
spike.gif
It's not that I realized something just now, the discussion is starting to near a point from where it's not worth it to continue anymore.

I could be wrong though, not sure yet.
September 18th 2009, 05:06 PM
burntree.gif
Striker
Noble She/Her United States
Daniel, there are clowns. 
Meh, semantics-focused and vitriolic argumentative style aside, Tonystony's posts are at least a vast improvement over the famous brick wall of circular logic.
September 18th 2009, 09:17 PM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
Too lazy to finish my earlier reply
September 18th 2009, 10:30 PM
knight.gif
Krisknox
Peasant He/Him United States
The site's resident Therian (Dire Wolf, Dragon) 
What's the point of typing a shoot-ton of letters if noone's gonna read them, Tony?
September 19th 2009, 07:00 AM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
Whats the point in asking a stupid question when people DO read them, Kris?
September 19th 2009, 11:43 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
What's the point in saying people read them when you're the only one reading them, Ex?
September 19th 2009, 11:18 PM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
What's the point in saying I'm the only one reading them when Skeletony and Scratcher plus others are reading them as well as discussing them?
Clearly there are more nubs here than I though lol
September 19th 2009, 11:20 PM
custom_robj.png
Robj
Jester He/Him Australia
You feed the madness, and it feeds on you. 
What's the point of a nub without the cake?!
September 20th 2009, 01:58 AM
knightgl.gif
zeddexx
Peasant He/Him New Zealand
I'm pretty sure I'm worth atleast SIX goats... 
this thread has just about reduced me to tears, also its got so much text in it, that my psp almost blew up trying to load the first half...
September 20th 2009, 05:56 AM
wizardg.gif
schnapper
Peasant He/Him Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
Let us save our effort and just lie down and die. 
Mphhh glumph mmmmmble
September 20th 2009, 07:51 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
What's the point in claiming other people read them, when they clearly say they don't?
September 21st 2009, 03:38 AM
burntree.gif
Fireball5
Peasant He/Him Australia
Let me heat that up for you... 
I only read posts that have less than half a page
September 21st 2009, 03:48 AM
custom_robj.png
Robj
Jester He/Him Australia
You feed the madness, and it feeds on you. 
What in the name of all that's been read is the point of reading posts that discuss reading posts, in the same thread that contains the readable posts being discussed and were read by people that like reading posts but ignored by light readers that don't read the long posts, which are read and enjoyed by other readers that read them as I said and not enjoyed by the small readers who skipped straight over them and didn't read the read/unread posts at all, but read the smaller posts that most people read.

September 21st 2009, 04:50 PM
wizardg.gif
schnapper
Peasant He/Him Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
Let us save our effort and just lie down and die. 
"I would not live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live forever." - Heather Whitestone
September 24th 2009, 12:06 PM
slimeb.gif
DaVince
Peasant He/Him Netherlands
Olde Time Dinkere 
I didn't read all that (just skimmed over the insane amounts of text), but...

"Theories" NEVER become LAWS.
That's not quite true. They become truth when proven.
September 24th 2009, 08:07 PM
burntree.gif
Striker
Noble She/Her United States
Daniel, there are clowns. 
In other words, "I would if I could, but I can't, so I won't."
September 25th 2009, 12:42 AM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
+100 for Sparta
September 25th 2009, 04:12 AM
wizardg.gif
schnapper
Peasant He/Him Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands
Let us save our effort and just lie down and die. 
I like the theory behind warrior women.
October 15th 2010, 07:04 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
Religion, anyone?
October 15th 2010, 07:28 AM
spike.gif
You must like torturing yourself.

"Close the thread... waah, waah"
October 15th 2010, 07:52 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
But I thought DDC was good for your heart. Especially the big golden ones that are usually inside chests. Guess I was wrong.
October 15th 2010, 10:18 AM
pq_knight.gif
ExDeathEvn
Peasant He/Him New Zealand rumble
"Skinny Legend" 
Gold hearts? Those are for addrenalin junkies. It's the big read hearts that are good for you.
Those, and beans. The more you eat, the more you... Y'know
October 15th 2010, 10:57 AM
custom_skull.gif
Skull
Peasant He/Him Finland bloop
A Disembodied Sod 
The more I eat, the more I... the more... I know?
October 15th 2010, 11:05 AM
dragon.gif
Quiztis
Peasant He/Him Sweden bloop
Life? What's that? Can I download it?! 
November 28th 2010, 06:30 PM
knightg.gif
wongo
Peasant He/Him United States
Theres a party in my tummy! 
Hey atheist people.
No matter what you say, atheism is a religion.
Religion to me is defined by having faith in believing something. Christianity is having faith in believing God exists. Atheism is the opposite, it is having faith in believing that God does NOT exist.

Think about it, it makes sense, right?
So before you call Christians religious nut holes, think about yourself first.
November 28th 2010, 08:35 PM
dinkdead.gif
"Think about it, it makes sense, right?"

Not really, no. I can believe that there's fairies at the bottom of my garden if I like, doesn't make it a religion.

And, um, this thread is long dead, please don't bump it back, whether you believe what you're saying or not
November 30th 2010, 10:23 AM
custom_marpro.png
Marpro
Peasant He/Him bloop
 
Not really, no. I can believe that there's fairies at the bottom of my garden if I like, doesn't make it a religion.

You are God, Sir.