God

Dissata · 11-23-2002, 10:24 AM

yes but it is that hope that drives people to action, letting them acheive their goals. hope is not pointless. to not drive yourself to fullfil that hope, or to unrealistically hope, is pointless. but to hope is not pointless.

essentialy though, I agree with you

Clyde · 11-23-2002, 01:29 PM

"I can't vouch for other religions but christianity is clearly
against war."

Whether "Christianity" is for or against war is irrelevant what matters is the result, and Christianity like many religions before it have caused much suffering and war, The Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades?

"Cyde, you believe it is illogical, therefore you have faith in that logic"

...... Planes built according logical principles fly, planes built on illogical principles do not.

"Wars are not caused by religion. Human greed, pride and fear are root causes. The people commiting these otrocities
are using religion as an excuse."

Whilst many religiously related wars are not directly caused by religion they are fueled by them. Furthermore in many wars religion DOES have an active part to play in the cause.

"your problem mostly is you combine every religion and attack it, this is the equivilent of attacking the words of every scientist that ever lived, and because one was wrong, refuting the idea of science. "

All religions are based on irrational beliefs, all therefore are equally illogical and equally improbable. Of course each one claims that "theres" is the right one.

"logic, as you have assumed, gives us the best possible answer, this is not always the correct one. what logic dictates means nothing. what is actually correct is all that matters. "

But logic IS ALL WE HAVE TO GO ON, of course what is actually correct is what matters, but we have no way of independently viewing reality; THE ONLY WAY of getting close is through logical reasoning.

Which person do you think is more likely to be correct? The person who believes the Earth is flat (illogical) or the person who believes its spherical (logical)?

"just curious, how did you logicaly conclude there was no god?"

The same way you concluded that there is no tooth fairy.

Actually i thought about a lot of different things:

How do we work out whats real; Why do I believe there is a keyboard under my fingers? Why don't I believe in the tooth fairy? Why are people religious? Why did religions come about? Are religious arguments valid? (you will notice that many people have been reduced to arguing against LOGIC ITSELF, which would be funny if it wasnt so tragic) Does science point towards a creator? If there was a creator would we expect science to point towards him?

My conclusions were that A) Belief in God is illogical and motivated entirely by human factors B) The ONLY way to work out the nature of the world around us is through logical deductions the alternative is to live in a dream world where there is no line between imaginary and real.

"lack of evidence then logicaly would conclude evolution does not exists. since believe it or not, they hold just about the same quantity of proof as each other"

No....

"proof of god."

This should be good.......

"1)
Genetic code perfected almost 4 billion years ago. just a few million years after the first organism. much to little time to evolve.
implying that the genetic code already existed before the first organisms"

Utter nonsense, 1) It is totally meaningless to say that the genetic code is "perfect". 2) We have no genetic code from anywhere near that time period anyway.

Furthermore you have no idea how longer chemical evolution takes, no one does.

"2) the lack of evidence that this so called evolution breeched species. (all it was was natural selection throughout history from many different allready existing species. supposedly)"

A statement founded on ignorance, there is mountains of evidence supporting evolution.

"The Universe is not eternal. there had to have been something first, to create the energy, or at least replenish the kenetic energy that is lost after time. what caused the beginning of the universe? once what, how? once how or who, what was there first and how did it get there"

It is believed that the universe is indeed finite and did indeed start BUT your argument like all other religious arguments is DEEPLY flawed for several reasons:

A) Time BEGAN with the big bang. Since you cannot have a "before" the big bang, is it meaningfull to look for a "cause"?

B) EVEN if there was a "before", which there wasn't, there would have been no laws of physics, all our concepts of causality are built upon the laws of physics etched into the universe, without them they cease to be meaningfull, so the question dissolves.

C) EVEN IF there was a before, AND we could expect a meaningfull answer, God is STILL not a reasonable answer, why? Because he SOLVES NOTHING, if you insert God into the problem you are left with exactly the same problem you've just pushed it back a stage: Who made the universe? God. Who made God? Errrrrrrr.. same problem.

So you see God solves nothing. He is not a solution to the problem of creation, which isnt a meaningfull problem anyway: If we ever do find an "answer" it will not "mean" anything to us, it will be written in the language of mathematics.

Claiming God is the answer to the problem of creation is no different to claiming God is the solution to any other problem (except its even less valid, for the reasons provided), look at the past: Whenever something was unknown religion would site God, science would keep quiet for a while then find the real answer.

"People often have "near-death experiences" and things like that, but when was the last time you heard of a "near-ceasing-to-exist experience"

Near-Death experiences are very well understood by medical science.

"The universe cannot be eternal. if it was eternal there would be no kenetic energy left"

This is nonsense.

"even in an event where there could be multiple replenishments of kenetic energy, with an eternity before it to use this energy, that to would be gone. The universe then would still exist but would be quite unihabitable"

Nonsense again, the universe does not "use up" Kinetic energy.

"This theoretically could happen many times. the expansion and contraction of energies, but eventually the kenetic energy would wear out."

Wrong.

"thus the universe cannot, according to our logic"

Only your logic, physicists have other ideas.

"However, there may be factors on this subject I'm not aware of. and my thinking may be scientificaly flawed."

There are, and it is.

"however, this, or a another theory close to it shows the improbability of an infinite Universe"

There is no such theory. If the oscillating universe theory is true then there is no reason why the universe could not have existed and continue to exist for eternity constantly being "reborn" via the crunch-bang patter. However currently we do NOT believe it to be true because the universe shows no signs of contracting under gravity in fact rather than the universe's expansion slowing down it seems to be speeding up.

salvelinus · 11-23-2002, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Nonsense again, the universe does not "use up" Kinetic energy.

Well, "use up" may be a poor choice of words, but if the universe does expand forever, it will experience a heat death from entropy, and eventually even protons will decay.

Clyde · 11-23-2002, 02:44 PM

"but if the universe does expand forever, it will experience a heat death from entropy, and eventually even protons will decay."

Indeed, but that is dependant on the Universe expanding forever. If the universe were too oscillate between expanding and contracting there would be no gradual loss of K.E. which is what he was talking about.

Anyhow the energy from electromagnetic radiation is often grouped with K.E, so in that sense rather than the universe losing K.E. its gaining it.

BMJ · 11-23-2002, 03:11 PM

so true ken...

although, we now know who the ten stupidest people here are.

Sentaku senshi · 11-23-2002, 05:15 PM

Cyde as you know Sudam shot 39 scud missles at Isreal durring the gulf war.

Quote:

Ephraim: Fine, be skeptical, as long as you promise not to be lazy, and you dig out the facts by yourself, together with their context. In the meantime let’s look at some of the quotes from Israeli newspapers that Seedlink provided:

After the noise quieted down and the dust settled, the people who were frozen in shock began to look around. They were completely astonished when they realized that not even one of the 200 people were injured. The entire building had collapsed around them, even three walls of the shelter were gone and only the eastern wall remained standing [the shelter was also used as a shul (synagogue) so that even the racks which held siddurim (prayer books) and chumashim (the first five books of the Bible) were not damaged].
When the Prime Minister and the Mayor toured the site, the Prime Minister asked if there were people here? “Definitely, ” said the Mayor, “there were 200 people and they were all saved by a miracle!
[Mishpacha monthly magazine Feb. 2, 1991]

Quote:

Shalom and Jaquelyn H., although non-observant, respected Torah scholars, and had recently been advised to have their mezuzot (parchments containing biblical verses that are placed on the doorpost) examined. Despite the expense involved, the young couple replaced the old mezuzot with kosher ones. When the Scud exploded in their neighborhood, the entire apartment was uprooted by the blast. Cupboards, windows, and furniture were utterly destroyed. doors flew, and door posts were jolted from their places. From the contents of the apartment, all that remained intact were the mezuzot. Despite the destruction all around H. family was physically unharmed.

Some more stuff I happend to find:

Quote:

Rashi, whose commentary, unlike other commentaries is obligatory for Jews who fear heaven (see Mishna Brura on 285:2) tells us that seven days after the raven was sent forth, Noah sent out the dove that found no rest upon the waters, which forced it to return. Since the raven was sent out on the 10th day of the Hebrew month, Elul, it follows that the dove was sent out on the 17th of Elul based on Rashi's commentary to Genesis 8:5 and 8:6 and so Ramban (on Genesis 8:4) said, explicitly on behalf of Rashi.

(See also the calculation of Rashi's date by Artscroll commentary on Genesis 8:6.)

It is interesting to note that the anti-Semitic Nuremberg laws were issued on the 17th day of Elul in 5695 (secular year 1935). In addition, World War II, which started on September 1, 1939, began when looking at the Hebrew date, on the 17th of Elul (Jewish Year 5699).

The jewish Convent was not destroyed with the Comming of Christ as it can not be destroyed. It only applies to those of the Jewish Faith.

Sentaku senshi · 11-23-2002, 06:08 PM

"It seems that it will never be possible to KNOW whether God exists or not. In fact, it's ultimately a flawed question. Knowing things solidly is not what philosophy is about, but the argument can be biased one way or the other. In many ways, it feels like we are forced to act as scepticists after taking all arguments in account. We can imagine that there is a truth behind the existence of God, but we can never actually KNOW the answer, even though we can work through arguments either way. For all we know, someone may come up with a new line on the design argument, resurrecting it from it's seeming death at the hand of cold, hard science. My favoured analogy is that we can visualise the discussion development as crossing a bridge. Every new line of argument takes us halfway further across. We can get closer and closer to the truth, but we can never actually get there."

-Jonny EOL

11-23-2002, 07:29 PM

In Australia the member of parliment Rev. Fred Nile (of the Festival of Light) in the spirit of religious tolerance often shown by these days by 'good christians' is calling for a ban on Muslim women wearing their traditional dress in public (in case they are a terrorist concealing bombs ect.)

I note he is not calling for a ban on overcoats, brief cases, handbags or wheelchairs (which could also be used to conceal the same stuff)

I note he is not calling for a ban on Nuns wearing habits.
Why?
Because blinded by his faith he has succumed to bigotry? or does he see a chance to promote his idol over others?

Why has a man so high in the christian church no tolerance for others and their faith?

Why does god not point out his error? or does gods silence prove his acceptance?

Seems to me we should be calling for a ban on priests in uniforms. We have all read about what terrors they conceal under their religious uniform to expose to innocent children.

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
another pearl of wisdom from D Rumsfeld (hoping we won't remember where he was in '83)

mithrandir · 11-23-2002, 07:56 PM

>>I note he is not calling for a ban on Nuns wearing habits.
Why?<<

There are hardly any nuns in Australia who wear habits anymore, those that do have limited it to just the headdress.

>>Because blinded by his faith he has succumed to bigotry? or does he see a chance to promote his idol over others?<<

Or because of the fact that Muslim women have in the past carried concealed weapons?

>>Why does god not point out his error? or does gods silence prove his acceptance?<<

Do not assume that God is an interventionist.

>>Seems to me we should be calling for a ban on priests in uniforms. We have all read about what terrors they conceal under their religious uniform to expose to innocent children.<<

I have known several Catholic priests over the years and each have been remarkable kind and moral men. It is to their detriment that the media makes claims about every Christian priest being a paedophile. It is a modern day witch-hunt and trial by media. Do the actions of the minority of priests automatically reflect the actions of the majority? If I were to conduct an experiment, and only 10% of my results supported my hypothesis, would I be able to use those results to support it? Of course not, that is laughable. So why then do you think that because a small percent of priests are guilty of terrible crimes, that all are?

Clyde · 11-24-2002, 05:33 AM

"Cyde as you know Sudam shot 39 scud missles at Isreal durring the gulf war. "

Right so God let a few million Jews die in the holocaust but saved 200 in Israel............ uh-huh that makes perfect sense.

Or MAYBE, just maybe, they survived ............ *drum roll* by chance. Anyhow can you verify the authenticity of those quotes? No? Quel Suprise.

"It seems that it will never be possible to KNOW whether God exists or not. In fact, it's ultimately a flawed question. Knowing things solidly is not what philosophy is about, but the argument can be biased one way or the other. In many ways, it feels like we are forced to act as scepticists after taking all arguments in account. We can imagine that there is a truth behind the existence of God, but we can never actually KNOW the answer, even though we can work through arguments either way. For all we know, someone may come up with a new line on the design argument, resurrecting it from it's seeming death at the hand of cold, hard science. My favoured analogy is that we can visualise the discussion development as crossing a bridge. Every new line of argument takes us halfway further across. We can get closer and closer to the truth, but we can never actually get there."

-Jonny EOL"

It seems that it will never be possible to KNOW whether invisible elephants exists or not. In fact, it's ultimately a flawed question. Knowing things solidly is not what philosophy is about, but the argument can be biased one way or the other. In many ways, it feels like we are forced to act as scepticists after taking all arguments in account. We can imagine that there is a truth behind the existence of invisible elephants, but we can never actually KNOW the answer, even though we can work through arguments either way. For all we know, someone may come up with a new line on the design by invisible elephant argument, resurrecting it from it's seeming death at the hand of cold, hard science. My favoured analogy is that we can visualise the discussion development as crossing a bridge. Every new line of argument takes us halfway further across. We can get closer and closer to the truth, but we can never actually get there."

- Can't you see why this argument is so foolish?

Sentaku senshi · 11-24-2002, 05:14 PM

>Right so God let a few million Jews die in the holocaust but saved 200 in Israel............ uh-huh that makes perfect sense.<

I'm not goint to expain I'm half a sleep
http://600000men.com/book/teichtal.htm

>Or MAYBE, just maybe, they survived ............ *drum roll* by chance. Anyhow can you verify the authenticity of those quotes? No? Quel Suprise.<

Sure I could, I could learn hebrew and go find the magazines that they were taken from. Am I going to no, if you want to see if the quotes are real have fun.

>- Can't you see why this argument is so foolish?

Nope,

"Knowing things solidly is not what philosophy is about, but the argument can be biased one way or the otherKnowing things solidly is not what philosophy is about, but the argument can be biased one way or the other"

Nick · 11-24-2002, 05:50 PM

This thread is ultimatly foolish. I see now that Clyde (who
hasn't even attempted to learn the c language) came here just
to argue and make fun. I suggest that
we leave this thread. We know what we
believe in our hearts and do not need to make excuses.

novacain · 11-24-2002, 08:47 PM

>> I have known several Catholic priests over the years and each have been remarkable kind and moral men. It is to their detriment that the media makes claims about every Christian priest being a paedophile. It is a modern day witch-hunt and trial by media. Do the actions of the minority of priests automatically reflect the actions of the majority? If I were to conduct an experiment, and only 10% of my results supported my hypothesis, would I be able to use those results to support it? Of course not, that is laughable. So why then do you think that because a small percent of priests are guilty of terrible crimes, that all are?<<

Why do you NOT apply this logic to the Muslim women?

It is easy for Nile to get his face on TV with a racist claim but say something about priests and ..................

>>Or because of the fact that Muslim women have in the past carried concealed weapons?

So we condem them all? Have not priests in the past abused children? You say we should give priests another chance but not the Muslims?

That makes you a racist mithrandir / [stealth].

Clyde · 11-25-2002, 02:32 AM

"http://600000men.com/book/teichtal.htm"

That webpage is truly absurd, talk about grasping for straws, no no, grasping for nano-sized straws whilst wearing huge mittens is probably a more apt analogy.

"Nope, Knowing things solidly is not what philosophy is about, but the argument can be biased one way or the otherKnowing things solidly is not what philosophy is about, but the argument can be biased one way or the other""

This is ridiculous: Since we can't know anything solidly we should randomly pick what to believe in, ignoring evidence and logic, BRILLIANT IDEA, now go hide because killer rabits are about to descend on your house!

"I see now that Clyde (who
hasn't even attempted to learn the c language) came here just
to argue and make fun."

Oh i see because i forgot what EOF meant i can't program..... Another irrational belief? You're quite wrong. I'm only an amateur programmer to be sure but I have "bothered to learn the c language", and bits of C++ and the windows API and a fair bit of directdraw.

I'm debating, which is what your doing, but i'm using logic and you are using illogic, and you dont like it when i point that belief in God IS ridiculous, when I say "go and hide now because killer rabits are about to decend" I mean that belief in God is in NO WAY different to ANY random belief based on nothing like materialising killer bunnies.

"We know what we
believe in our hearts and do not need to make excuses"

yes....... you already "know", in your "heart" whats right, your completely certain your correct, just as all those other religious people are completely certain they are correct just as I am certain too, of course we can't all be correct yet we are all completely certain....... so what can we conclude? That "certainty" and "knowing in your heart" alone do not infact mean that the believer is correct , the only way to evaluate the world around us, to determine what is real and what is not is through logical reasoning and evidence: Invisible elephants, miniture gnomes, and an infinite number of other possible entities and non-entities including God lack any evidence, the probability of them actually existing is stupendously miniscule. The vast majority of people and i'll bet this includes Sentak, and probably you, believe in God because they are indocrinated into it, they are told from a very early age that God exists and X-religion is the right/best one, etc.. Do you think you would be a Christian if you were brought up a Muslim? No? Do you think your beliefs are based on anything other than your upbringing; Do you think they are based on logic and rational? Just THINK about it, without immediately concluding that you are already correct. Consider the possiblity that you believe not because you have a real reason to believe its true but because you WANT it to be true.

Hasta.

Sentaku senshi · 11-27-2002, 03:02 PM

>This is ridiculous: Since we can't know anything solidly we should
randomly pick what to believe in, ignoring evidence and logic, BRILLIANT IDEA, now go hide because killer rabits are about to descend on your house!<

Well, Cyde it's been two days and there are no killer rabits, I'm disapointed.

There is no logic in the belive that because we have not proved x or y does not mean x or y does not exist, for if it was then it would be illogical for scientist to look for x or y.

I ask you this Cyde what makes religon so powerful that just because someone says it's for the Lord he can command people? Don't tell me it's the Promise of something great such as virgins in heaven, because if it was then money would be Worshiped.

11-23-2002, 10:24 AM	#256
Dissata monotonously living Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 341	yes but it is that hope that drives people to action, letting them acheive their goals. hope is not pointless. to not drive yourself to fullfil that hope, or to unrealistically hope, is pointless. but to hope is not pointless. essentialy though, I agree with you __________________ if a contradiction was contradicted would that contradition contradict the origional crontradiction?
Dissata is offline

11-23-2002, 01:29 PM	#257
Clyde The Earth is not flat. Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,420	"I can't vouch for other religions but christianity is clearly against war." Whether "Christianity" is for or against war is irrelevant what matters is the result, and Christianity like many religions before it have caused much suffering and war, The Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades? "Cyde, you believe it is illogical, therefore you have faith in that logic" ...... Planes built according logical principles fly, planes built on illogical principles do not. "Wars are not caused by religion. Human greed, pride and fear are root causes. The people commiting these otrocities are using religion as an excuse." Whilst many religiously related wars are not directly caused by religion they are fueled by them. Furthermore in many wars religion DOES have an active part to play in the cause. "your problem mostly is you combine every religion and attack it, this is the equivilent of attacking the words of every scientist that ever lived, and because one was wrong, refuting the idea of science. " All religions are based on irrational beliefs, all therefore are equally illogical and equally improbable. Of course each one claims that "theres" is the right one. "logic, as you have assumed, gives us the best possible answer, this is not always the correct one. what logic dictates means nothing. what is actually correct is all that matters. " But logic IS ALL WE HAVE TO GO ON, of course what is actually correct is what matters, but we have no way of independently viewing reality; THE ONLY WAY of getting close is through logical reasoning. Which person do you think is more likely to be correct? The person who believes the Earth is flat (illogical) or the person who believes its spherical (logical)? "just curious, how did you logicaly conclude there was no god?" The same way you concluded that there is no tooth fairy. Actually i thought about a lot of different things: How do we work out whats real; Why do I believe there is a keyboard under my fingers? Why don't I believe in the tooth fairy? Why are people religious? Why did religions come about? Are religious arguments valid? (you will notice that many people have been reduced to arguing against LOGIC ITSELF, which would be funny if it wasnt so tragic) Does science point towards a creator? If there was a creator would we expect science to point towards him? My conclusions were that A) Belief in God is illogical and motivated entirely by human factors B) The ONLY way to work out the nature of the world around us is through logical deductions the alternative is to live in a dream world where there is no line between imaginary and real. "lack of evidence then logicaly would conclude evolution does not exists. since believe it or not, they hold just about the same quantity of proof as each other" No.... "proof of god." This should be good....... "1) Genetic code perfected almost 4 billion years ago. just a few million years after the first organism. much to little time to evolve. implying that the genetic code already existed before the first organisms" Utter nonsense, 1) It is totally meaningless to say that the genetic code is "perfect". 2) We have no genetic code from anywhere near that time period anyway. Furthermore you have no idea how longer chemical evolution takes, no one does. "2) the lack of evidence that this so called evolution breeched species. (all it was was natural selection throughout history from many different allready existing species. supposedly)" A statement founded on ignorance, there is mountains of evidence supporting evolution. "The Universe is not eternal. there had to have been something first, to create the energy, or at least replenish the kenetic energy that is lost after time. what caused the beginning of the universe? once what, how? once how or who, what was there first and how did it get there" It is believed that the universe is indeed finite and did indeed start BUT your argument like all other religious arguments is DEEPLY flawed for several reasons: A) Time BEGAN with the big bang. Since you cannot have a "before" the big bang, is it meaningfull to look for a "cause"? B) EVEN if there was a "before", which there wasn't, there would have been no laws of physics, all our concepts of causality are built upon the laws of physics etched into the universe, without them they cease to be meaningfull, so the question dissolves. C) EVEN IF there was a before, AND we could expect a meaningfull answer, God is STILL not a reasonable answer, why? Because he SOLVES NOTHING, if you insert God into the problem you are left with exactly the same problem you've just pushed it back a stage: Who made the universe? God. Who made God? Errrrrrrr.. same problem. So you see God solves nothing. He is not a solution to the problem of creation, which isnt a meaningfull problem anyway: If we ever do find an "answer" it will not "mean" anything to us, it will be written in the language of mathematics. Claiming God is the answer to the problem of creation is no different to claiming God is the solution to any other problem (except its even less valid, for the reasons provided), look at the past: Whenever something was unknown religion would site God, science would keep quiet for a while then find the real answer. "People often have "near-death experiences" and things like that, but when was the last time you heard of a "near-ceasing-to-exist experience" Near-Death experiences are very well understood by medical science. "The universe cannot be eternal. if it was eternal there would be no kenetic energy left" This is nonsense. "even in an event where there could be multiple replenishments of kenetic energy, with an eternity before it to use this energy, that to would be gone. The universe then would still exist but would be quite unihabitable" Nonsense again, the universe does not "use up" Kinetic energy. "This theoretically could happen many times. the expansion and contraction of energies, but eventually the kenetic energy would wear out." Wrong. "thus the universe cannot, according to our logic" Only your logic, physicists have other ideas. "However, there may be factors on this subject I'm not aware of. and my thinking may be scientificaly flawed." There are, and it is. "however, this, or a another theory close to it shows the improbability of an infinite Universe" There is no such theory. If the oscillating universe theory is true then there is no reason why the universe could not have existed and continue to exist for eternity constantly being "reborn" via the crunch-bang patter. However currently we do NOT believe it to be true because the universe shows no signs of contracting under gravity in fact rather than the universe's expansion slowing down it seems to be speeding up. Last edited by Clyde; 11-23-2002 at 01:48 PM.
Clyde is offline

11-23-2002, 02:44 PM	#259
Clyde The Earth is not flat. Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,420	"but if the universe does expand forever, it will experience a heat death from entropy, and eventually even protons will decay." Indeed, but that is dependant on the Universe expanding forever. If the universe were too oscillate between expanding and contracting there would be no gradual loss of K.E. which is what he was talking about. Anyhow the energy from electromagnetic radiation is often grouped with K.E, so in that sense rather than the universe losing K.E. its gaining it.
Clyde is offline

11-23-2002, 03:11 PM	#260
BMJ Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 1,330	so true ken... although, we now know who the ten stupidest people here are.
BMJ is offline

11-23-2002, 06:08 PM	#262
Sentaku senshi Christian Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 618	"It seems that it will never be possible to KNOW whether God exists or not. In fact, it's ultimately a flawed question. Knowing things solidly is not what philosophy is about, but the argument can be biased one way or the other. In many ways, it feels like we are forced to act as scepticists after taking all arguments in account. We can imagine that there is a truth behind the existence of God, but we can never actually KNOW the answer, even though we can work through arguments either way. For all we know, someone may come up with a new line on the design argument, resurrecting it from it's seeming death at the hand of cold, hard science. My favoured analogy is that we can visualise the discussion development as crossing a bridge. Every new line of argument takes us halfway further across. We can get closer and closer to the truth, but we can never actually get there." -Jonny EOL __________________ I shall call egypt the harmless dragon -Isaiah 30.7
Sentaku senshi is offline

11-23-2002, 07:29 PM	#263
TechNoFear Guest Posts: n/a	In Australia the member of parliment Rev. Fred Nile (of the Festival of Light) in the spirit of religious tolerance often shown by these days by 'good christians' is calling for a ban on Muslim women wearing their traditional dress in public (in case they are a terrorist concealing bombs ect.) I note he is not calling for a ban on overcoats, brief cases, handbags or wheelchairs (which could also be used to conceal the same stuff) I note he is not calling for a ban on Nuns wearing habits. Why? Because blinded by his faith he has succumed to bigotry? or does he see a chance to promote his idol over others? Why has a man so high in the christian church no tolerance for others and their faith? Why does god not point out his error? or does gods silence prove his acceptance? Seems to me we should be calling for a ban on priests in uniforms. We have all read about what terrors they conceal under their religious uniform to expose to innocent children. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" another pearl of wisdom from D Rumsfeld (hoping we won't remember where he was in '83)

11-23-2002, 07:56 PM	#264
mithrandir aurë entuluva! Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,209	>>I note he is not calling for a ban on Nuns wearing habits. Why?<< There are hardly any nuns in Australia who wear habits anymore, those that do have limited it to just the headdress. >>Because blinded by his faith he has succumed to bigotry? or does he see a chance to promote his idol over others?<< Or because of the fact that Muslim women have in the past carried concealed weapons? >>Why does god not point out his error? or does gods silence prove his acceptance?<< Do not assume that God is an interventionist. >>Seems to me we should be calling for a ban on priests in uniforms. We have all read about what terrors they conceal under their religious uniform to expose to innocent children.<< I have known several Catholic priests over the years and each have been remarkable kind and moral men. It is to their detriment that the media makes claims about every Christian priest being a paedophile. It is a modern day witch-hunt and trial by media. Do the actions of the minority of priests automatically reflect the actions of the majority? If I were to conduct an experiment, and only 10% of my results supported my hypothesis, would I be able to use those results to support it? Of course not, that is laughable. So why then do you think that because a small percent of priests are guilty of terrible crimes, that all are? __________________ Who's Your Suspended Account?
mithrandir is offline

11-24-2002, 05:33 AM	#265
Clyde The Earth is not flat. Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,420	"Cyde as you know Sudam shot 39 scud missles at Isreal durring the gulf war. " Right so God let a few million Jews die in the holocaust but saved 200 in Israel............ uh-huh that makes perfect sense. Or MAYBE, just maybe, they survived ............ drum roll by chance. Anyhow can you verify the authenticity of those quotes? No? Quel Suprise. "It seems that it will never be possible to KNOW whether God exists or not. In fact, it's ultimately a flawed question. Knowing things solidly is not what philosophy is about, but the argument can be biased one way or the other. In many ways, it feels like we are forced to act as scepticists after taking all arguments in account. We can imagine that there is a truth behind the existence of God, but we can never actually KNOW the answer, even though we can work through arguments either way. For all we know, someone may come up with a new line on the design argument, resurrecting it from it's seeming death at the hand of cold, hard science. My favoured analogy is that we can visualise the discussion development as crossing a bridge. Every new line of argument takes us halfway further across. We can get closer and closer to the truth, but we can never actually get there." -Jonny EOL" It seems that it will never be possible to KNOW whether invisible elephants exists or not. In fact, it's ultimately a flawed question. Knowing things solidly is not what philosophy is about, but the argument can be biased one way or the other. In many ways, it feels like we are forced to act as scepticists after taking all arguments in account. We can imagine that there is a truth behind the existence of invisible elephants, but we can never actually KNOW the answer, even though we can work through arguments either way. For all we know, someone may come up with a new line on the design by invisible elephant argument, resurrecting it from it's seeming death at the hand of cold, hard science. My favoured analogy is that we can visualise the discussion development as crossing a bridge. Every new line of argument takes us halfway further across. We can get closer and closer to the truth, but we can never actually get there." - Can't you see why this argument is so foolish? Last edited by Clyde; 11-24-2002 at 05:38 AM.
Clyde is offline

11-24-2002, 05:14 PM	#266
Sentaku senshi Christian Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 618	>Right so God let a few million Jews die in the holocaust but saved 200 in Israel............ uh-huh that makes perfect sense.< I'm not goint to expain I'm half a sleep http://600000men.com/book/teichtal.htm >Or MAYBE, just maybe, they survived ............ drum roll by chance. Anyhow can you verify the authenticity of those quotes? No? Quel Suprise.< Sure I could, I could learn hebrew and go find the magazines that they were taken from. Am I going to no, if you want to see if the quotes are real have fun. >- Can't you see why this argument is so foolish? Nope, "Knowing things solidly is not what philosophy is about, but the argument can be biased one way or the otherKnowing things solidly is not what philosophy is about, but the argument can be biased one way or the other" __________________ I shall call egypt the harmless dragon -Isaiah 30.7
Sentaku senshi is offline

11-24-2002, 05:50 PM	#267
Nick Blank Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,034	This thread is ultimatly foolish. I see now that Clyde (who hasn't even attempted to learn the c language) came here just to argue and make fun. I suggest that we leave this thread. We know what we believe in our hearts and do not need to make excuses.
Nick is offline

11-24-2002, 08:47 PM	#268
novacain train spotter Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: near a computer Posts: 3,448	>> I have known several Catholic priests over the years and each have been remarkable kind and moral men. It is to their detriment that the media makes claims about every Christian priest being a paedophile. It is a modern day witch-hunt and trial by media. Do the actions of the minority of priests automatically reflect the actions of the majority? If I were to conduct an experiment, and only 10% of my results supported my hypothesis, would I be able to use those results to support it? Of course not, that is laughable. So why then do you think that because a small percent of priests are guilty of terrible crimes, that all are?<< Why do you NOT apply this logic to the Muslim women? It is easy for Nile to get his face on TV with a racist claim but say something about priests and .................. >>Or because of the fact that Muslim women have in the past carried concealed weapons? So we condem them all? Have not priests in the past abused children? You say we should give priests another chance but not the Muslims? That makes you a racist mithrandir / [stealth]. __________________ "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter." Friedrich Nietzsche "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered." George Best "If you are going through hell....keep going." Winston Churchill Last edited by novacain; 11-24-2002 at 09:11 PM.
novacain is offline

11-25-2002, 02:32 AM	#269
Clyde The Earth is not flat. Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,420	"http://600000men.com/book/teichtal.htm" That webpage is truly absurd, talk about grasping for straws, no no, grasping for nano-sized straws whilst wearing huge mittens is probably a more apt analogy. "Nope, Knowing things solidly is not what philosophy is about, but the argument can be biased one way or the otherKnowing things solidly is not what philosophy is about, but the argument can be biased one way or the other"" This is ridiculous: Since we can't know anything solidly we should randomly pick what to believe in, ignoring evidence and logic, BRILLIANT IDEA, now go hide because killer rabits are about to descend on your house! "I see now that Clyde (who hasn't even attempted to learn the c language) came here just to argue and make fun." Oh i see because i forgot what EOF meant i can't program..... Another irrational belief? You're quite wrong. I'm only an amateur programmer to be sure but I have "bothered to learn the c language", and bits of C++ and the windows API and a fair bit of directdraw. I'm debating, which is what your doing, but i'm using logic and you are using illogic, and you dont like it when i point that belief in God IS ridiculous, when I say "go and hide now because killer rabits are about to decend" I mean that belief in God is in NO WAY different to ANY random belief based on nothing like materialising killer bunnies. "We know what we believe in our hearts and do not need to make excuses" yes....... you already "know", in your "heart" whats right, your completely certain your correct, just as all those other religious people are completely certain they are correct just as I am certain too, of course we can't all be correct yet we are all completely certain....... so what can we conclude? That "certainty" and "knowing in your heart" alone do not infact mean that the believer is correct , the only way to evaluate the world around us, to determine what is real and what is not is through logical reasoning and evidence: Invisible elephants, miniture gnomes, and an infinite number of other possible entities and non-entities including God lack any evidence, the probability of them actually existing is stupendously miniscule. The vast majority of people and i'll bet this includes Sentak, and probably you, believe in God because they are indocrinated into it, they are told from a very early age that God exists and X-religion is the right/best one, etc.. Do you think you would be a Christian if you were brought up a Muslim? No? Do you think your beliefs are based on anything other than your upbringing; Do you think they are based on logic and rational? Just THINK about it, without immediately concluding that you are already correct. Consider the possiblity that you believe not because you have a real reason to believe its true but because you WANT it to be true. Hasta. Last edited by Clyde; 11-25-2002 at 11:14 AM.
Clyde is offline

11-27-2002, 03:02 PM	#270
Sentaku senshi Christian Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 618	>This is ridiculous: Since we can't know anything solidly we should randomly pick what to believe in, ignoring evidence and logic, BRILLIANT IDEA, now go hide because killer rabits are about to descend on your house!< Well, Cyde it's been two days and there are no killer rabits, I'm disapointed. There is no logic in the belive that because we have not proved x or y does not mean x or y does not exist, for if it was then it would be illogical for scientist to look for x or y. I ask you this Cyde what makes religon so powerful that just because someone says it's for the Lord he can command people? Don't tell me it's the Promise of something great such as virgins in heaven, because if it was then money would be Worshiped. __________________ I shall call egypt the harmless dragon -Isaiah 30.7
Sentaku senshi is offline

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
what race is god?	Leeman_s	A Brief History of Cprogramming.com	11	02-22-2004 05:38 PM
God II	Leeman_s	A Brief History of Cprogramming.com	5	01-09-2003 01:42 AM
GOD and religion	Unregistered	A Brief History of Cprogramming.com	19	10-14-2001 05:13 PM
Foundations	mithrandir	A Brief History of Cprogramming.com	18	10-05-2001 02:18 PM