Lucky why? This is one of the topics where it's warranted to bring up einstein and the chocolate chip cookies. Why would god let that happen? "Free will"? What about the free will of the eleven million people einstein killed (not counting soldiers) who had no say in their fate?
Nobody changes their stance on any matters in these kinds of threads especially if it's a thread that involves Xant. All the posts are just the kind of ''My thoughts on the matter are the best and most true and nobody can disapprove them and now i will showcase my supreme opinions to the rest of the internet to show my superiority''.Well, no one can disprove them. So there's that.
Pointless threads.
go argue on reddit xant
There should be a variant of Godwin's law which says: As an online discussion grows longer, the amount of fucks given approaches 0.
Because locking topics is gay as fuck, and it's even gayer when done because of fallacious invoking of Godwin's Law.Damn you Pepe for locking the thread, I have responses that need to be made! Now we have one that Xant made, except the first post isn't nearly provocative enough to get the other side in here.
God is dumb and you're dumb and you should feel dumb if you believe in God.You saying that god isn't real, and than you say that god is dumb! It means that you belive in god! Haha ha ha! You dumb! Haha!
He's (God) real.[...] You're dumb if you believe in him.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login(click to show/hide)
Most witches don’t believe in gods. They know that the gods exist, of course. They even deal with them occasionally. But they don’t believe in them. They know them too well. It would be like believing in the postman.
i´d rather not have some higher beeing watch me all the time :oops:The thing is the higher being is what you make of it. God is what is you make God to be. If being nice to people and/or just living a healthy life is a form of god to someone then let them be.
How is not believing in anything simple minded? Do you have any reason for believing there is "a being watching over us"? If not, is that not the same as believing there are pink, invisible unicorns flying around you singing "Kumbayaah my Lord, kumbayaah"? If not, why not?So then from your perspective, what do you believe us and the space time continuum came from. Where does that voice that is in the back of your head come from when you are about to make a bad decision. Im saying that you are being kind of close minded if you believe we come from nothing or that a fucking explosion started the universe.
So then from your perspective, what do you believe us and the space time continuum came from.I don't believe anything about it. I don't know where and how "everything" began. I don't have enough data to believe anything; so I don't.
Where does that voice that is in the back of your head come from when you are about to make a bad decision. Im saying that you are being kind of close minded if you believe we come from nothing or that a fucking explosion started the universe.The voice in the back of my head comes from my brain.
There is scientific evidence that an explosion started the Universe.
The only good Big Bang Therory I know is there : http://www.zone-telechargement.com/series/vostfr/35206-the-big-bang-theory-saison-7.html
Biggest waste of time reading this thread..........
I should really learn that nothing constructive ever comes out of these forums
No, there isn't. There is a theory and some evidence to support the idea that the early universe underwent a rapid expansion. Nothing says that there was an explosion. Ekpyrotic model as it happens assumes that there was a collision, not an explosion. Not to mention the problems with the Big Bang theory as it stands given scientific evidence we currently have.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Enjoy.
Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.
Reading comprehension is difficult.
I'm glad you finally realized that.
For your definition to be true, there would have had to have been a chemical or nuclear release of energy, or an external force compressing the early universe and then suddenly disappearing so that the internal pressure resulted in the expansion. In fact, the physicists say that prior to the "Big Bang", there was nothing at all, so no chemical, nuclear, or internal mechanical energy even existed at all to create this explosion of yours. Hence, the Ekpyrotic model theorizes the existence of branes and the "big bang" being a result of a collision between them so that rather than being an an expansion of "something" from "nothing", it is an interaction between 2 "somethings" that we can not perceive.
The only physics involved is in the proving that the universe is expanding. I'm not arguing pro or counter a creator, nor am i saying we have all the answers, cos we don't. Just nit-picking terminology :P the 'explosion' is now, and all around us.
My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to be to me such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.
"You appear to be astonished," he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. "Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it."
"To forget it!"
"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."
"But the Solar System!" I protested.
"What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."
you know he just quoted Sherlock Holmes right? Kafein :lol:
it would be if poe wrote sherlock holmes :rolleyes:
To you, knowledge is only valuable if it has immediate use? Besides, it is completely false that more knowledge "clutters" your brain.
I was a pretty stout atheist for a while but looking back it was a more of a backlash towards Christianity. I guess I'm agnostic these days.
I'm an agnostic atheist.
I'm mildly annoyed when people dodge the "Do you believe in gods?" question by saying they are agnostic. Either you do believe or you don't, there's not really much fence sitting on a yes or no question. On the other hand, it's completely fine to be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, where you say "I do(n't) believe, but I do not know". And that's agnostic (a)theism.
I'm an agnostic atheist.
I'm mildly annoyed when people dodge the "Do you believe in gods?" question by saying they are agnostic. Either you do believe or you don't, there's not really much fence sitting on a yes or no question. On the other hand, it's completely fine to be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, where you say "I do(n't) believe, but I do not know". And that's agnostic (a)theism.
Now that I think of it I guess that would be considered "agnostic atheist" to him then. It's asinine that apparently it "would not be fine" to him unless you append with that qualifier though.
No, an agnostic does not know, and in fact believes it is impossible to know, thus will never answer that question yes or no. The answer is "It is impossible to know".
I'm aware we're not born "tabula rasa", a blank state in which we and others imprint things onto the mind, and I understand that neurologists say we have a "neuroplasicity" within our brains and that instead of losing information we only weaken synapses. But that's about the pennyworth of knowledge I have on that subject and what the deuce is it to me if I can't be as cognizant of the subject as neurologists and psychologists?
"--and now I was going to bring back all such things into my life and become again that most limited of all specialists, the 'well-rounded man.' This isn't just an epigram--life is much more successfully looked at from a single window, after all."
Did I say differently? Although with an added caveat that there are agnostics who are of the opinion that at this point in time it is impossible to know, but might be possible in the future.
This however has little to do with what a person believes, since I know plenty of people who say that they believe in god, but they don't have any actual knowledge if he really exists or not. It's a matter of faith. These people are agnostic theists.
Whether they answer my question or not, I have trouble wrapping my head around on how someone can neither believe or not believe. And yes, I agree that for the moment it is impossible to know.
Basically, if someone is asked the question "Do you believe in god/gods?" and he can't answer yes, then he does not believe. Or am I being dumb in thinking this? How is it impossible to know what you yourself believe?
I don't see how you don't understand not knowing something. While this is completely off base when it comes to agnosticism as it deals with the material, which is measurable, as far as you are concerned it is not measurable. So answer me yes or no, is there a Canadian quarter in my pocket? In fact, are there even pockets on the clothes that I am currently wearing? Yes or no? In fact, am I even wearing clothes? Yes or no?What Khorin talks about is a bit different IMO. He doesn't say "There is no god", he says "I don't believe in god". The first is impossible without certain knowledge, the second is not.
Since you can't observe anything concerning those questions, nor have any other way of ascertaining the truth of those questions, the only honest answer you can give is you don't know, nor can you know. To assume either or state either yes or no is simply a lie on your part.
That doesn't make sense. Why would he have reason to believe there is no thing in his pocketbecause...
he doesn't know he's wearing clothes
That doesn't make sense. Why would he have reason to believe there is no thing in his pocket if he doesn't know he's wearing clothes?It's a guess, just like whether god exists or not is an (educated) guess.
because...No, you have no reason to assume one way or the other. That means it'd be stupid to say "I don't believe you have X in your pocket, because I don't even know if you're wearing pants." Your map being blank has nothing to do with the state of the territory. If you have no more information than that, a rational agent does not say "I don't believe you." A rational agent says "I have no way of knowing; therefore, it is a 50-50 possibility."
Note that we're not talking about the case when Grannpappy himself says he does have that thing in his pocket, same as god can't say "I do exist" to get "No you fucking don't" as an anwser, which would be weird indeed.
I assume that if I have no knowledge on the matter, my default stance is "not believing", so I actually have to get a reason to believe in something, not reason not to believe.
because...
Note that we're not talking about the case when Grannpappy himself says he does have that thing in his pocket, same as god can't say "I do exist" to get "No you fucking don't" as an anwser, which would be weird indeed.
I assume that if I have no knowledge on the matter, my default stance is "not believing", so I actually have to get a reason to believe in something, not reason not to believe.
No, you have no reason to assume one way or the other. That means it'd be stupid to say "I don't believe you have X in your pocket, because I don't even know if you're wearing pants." Your map being blank has nothing to do with the state of the territory. If you have no more information than that, a rational agent does not say "I don't believe you." A rational agent says "I have no way of knowing; therefore, it is a 50-50 possibility."
Believing what? That I was wearing clothes at the time of that post? When I ask am I wearing clothes, yes or no, your default answer is no?
You have absolutely no basis for that opinion whatsoever. It is illogical to answer either yes or no. The answer is, you don't know and you can't know. As Xant says, the best guess you can make is that it is a 50/50 probability, which is still the same as saying you don't know, nor do you lean one way or the other.
If you don't have any evidence, why would your default answer then be "no, I don't believe you have this thing in your pocket, because I don't know whether you're wearing clothes right now"? Why is there a "because" in there? Would you believe he had something specific in his pocket if he WAS wearing clothes..? "I don't know" is the only sensible answer.That's correct, the word "because" shouldn't be there since it's just a guess. What I wrote in my last post is still legit though.
I didn't read everything so go easy on me but what about experience?That's right, but we're taking all this pocket thing as an example of (not) believing in God, and we can't have any experience regarding God because there's no norm on this matter.
If you don't know whether someone is wearing clothes or not, wouldn't experience tell you that "normally" people wear clothes? You would assume that everyone is wearing some clothes and not being butt-naked.
Just saying...
I didn't read everything so go easy on me but what about experience?From a Bayesian perspective, yes. But whether someone has clothes or not (that is, if you have no more data to go on than the question - if you can see someone is naked, then the probability of them having something in their pocket decreases rather sharply..) is more or less irrelevant when asked the question "do I have something in my pocket?"
If you don't know whether someone is wearing clothes or not, wouldn't experience tell you that "normally" people wear clothes? You would assume that everyone is wearing some clothes and not being butt-naked.
Just saying...
[...]But whether someone has clothes or not [...] is more or less irrelevant when asked the question "do I have something in my pocket?"I don't get that. Isn't it essential to have clothes on to have something in your pocket? So how is the question about clothes irrelevant?
I don't get that. Isn't it essential to have clothes on to have something in your pocket? So how is the question about clothes irrelevant?It's essential to have clothes to have something in your pocket, yes. You can also have clothes with no pockets in them. Or you can have clothes with pockets with nothing in them. The person asking the question either has something in their pockets or they do not. Neither option becomes more or less likely because the person being asked the question doesn't know whether the question-asker is wearing clothes.
You would have to deny somebody the question about clothes if you want him to answer a question about something in a pocket without it. That doesn't make it irrelevant though.
Tbh, I have to feeling that I am missing the point though.
Oww, the question was if the asking person is wearing clothes? :D
That is indeed irrelevant.
It was a series of 3 questions. None of which anyone has the answer to, nor can have the answer to. The only answer that can be provided to the series is "I don't know". Not yes, not no, but I don't know.Lemme think about how I could possibly answer this in a proper way...
Here is something that you can firmly believe in. When Xant and I are on the same side of a discussion, you are wrong, so you might as well try to understand the point if you don't already get it.
I doubt anyone's even trying to change anyone else's beliefs.
Then why bother doing anything else than shitpo--Why bother doing anything at all? Why do you browse the forums? Why'd you make that post? Why play cRPG?
ohhh.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Lemme think about how I could possibly answer this in a proper way...
Oh, I know... Fuck you!
Like you were some intellectual pillar of the community and it would make any difference if you agree or not, Rum. :lol:
Dripping with arrogance you're certainly not entitled to. Reading some Wikipedia article on the fly doesn't give you "smartz", you know.
Why do I even bother again... Guess I am too stupid to learn this one lesson.
A gnostic atheist, would claim to know, and would probably also answer that "I believe that god does not exist."
you are dumb if you believe in God.
This way all christians are gnostic atheists, cause they do believe that all forgotten gods from the past except theirs do not exist :PNope, that entire thing is silly, an atheist believes in absolutely no god whatsoever existing, Christians are merely monotheists with a weird magic holy gay threesome.
Christians are merely monotheists with a weird magic holy gay threesome.
and what about mother of god and all saints? Though they're not gods per se, they have to have some godlike superpowers, otherwise why would we pray to them? :P though they're monotheists they have more gods than in pantheon :)Fairly sure only Catholics worship saints and virgin Marry, Orthodoxies might also, but I doubt it. But yeah Christians are gross.
Prove to me that God exists? No shits given, it still doesn't prove any religions are correct or that worshipping said 'God' is necessary
I've met a huge number of atheists who care more about trying to prove themselves right than many of the theists i've met
Agnosticism is an artificial term made up by people scared to say that there's no god :) Outside of religion there's no such distinction, cause statements are based on facts (more or less), not belief. Noone claims to be agnostic on the subject of ufo, even though its nonexistence can not be proved. As long as proves of its existence aren't swown noone resonable will say that he "believes" in its existence.
From 1947 to 1969, a total of 12, 618 sightings were reported to Project BLUE BOOK. Of these 701 remain "Unidentified."
Though existence of some "god" can be matter of discussion, I do believe christian religion (and all other based on bible) are fake, all these fairy tales about crucified son of god are too ridiculous to be true
Do you guys just sit on the side of the road all damn day and annoy the shit out of people, telling em about your atheistic beliefs and how everyone should obey&believe them?
where were all the 'brave internet warriors against religious fanaticism' 1000 years ago when being vocal on that subject required true bravery?
You're free to believe what you want when you want, suddenly that isn't enough for most people, they have to go around being loud and obnoxious in their beliefs, trying to get everyone to believe the same thing as them,
My god, best god? is that how it works now?
(click to show/hide)
HoppsterFalka(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Pretentious format i know, but Falka replied mid-post and spoilers save walls of text.
Why you put that in quotation marks? I never said that lol. Kinda misleading.
meeting up to discuss their beliefs and try and convert people to believe the same xD it's hilarious. It's like if i decided to shoot a gun-owner to prove how much i hate guns and how i would never ever use one.
And few of the extremely vocal atheists will ever in their lives contemplate the possibility that they might be wrong, they also just... believe.Because most atheists are more intelligent than you are. Most people don't go about their lives contemplating whether they might be wrong about Saruman really existing either.
I could see a beardy fellow tear the sky and announce his existence in a booming voice, but to me there is no logical step that would lead me from knowing he was real, to worshipping him.Your logic fails hard, then. Not that this is exactly news. But that stance is one of the most retarded ones I've seen, especially considering how religions like to preach about eternal punishment if you don't believe in their deity.
Agnosticism is an artificial term made up by people scared to say that there's no god :) Outside of religion there's no such distinction, cause statements are based on facts (more or less), not belief. Noone claims to be agnostic on the subject of ufo, even though its nonexistence can not be proved. As long as proves of its existence aren't swown noone resonable will say that he "believes" in its existence.
This way all christians are gnostic atheists, cause they do believe that all forgotten gods from the past except theirs do not exist :P
(click to show/hide)
God is not measurable, and thus can't be compared to physical phenomenon.
http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=marketplacebooth&merchant=Muslim_Wizard
Buy them and Allah s blessing will be upon you forever!!!
Strange thing to say when there are tons of people who believe that UFO's exist, without actually knowing.
Except they do believe in a god so they are theists.
You only have to go to any youtube comment section on any video that discusses religion and you will find enough of both arrogant theists and atheists to last a lifetime.
Atheists adamantly believe something they have no proof of
quit trying to ram your religious beliefs down our throats you arrogant hypocritical sack of shit
''Guh Xant, errrrr, most Chistians are more intelligent than you. Cos the majority don't spend their time desperately trying to prove that Saruman doesn't exist.''
Shittest atheist i ever saw - you're exactly the kind of hypocrite who'd talk all this shit but get on his knees and suck God-dick the moment he had proof a God existed
I doubt there's a lot of atheists who are willing to make second 9.11 cause of their lack of faith :P
Count the number of times you've said 'believe' in your own posts in relation to your opinion on this matter, it's a lot :lol:
You have no reason or proof to believe it other than your own determination to believe it. It is just 'obvious' to you in the same way that God is 'obvious' to Christians.
Oh, you're INTELLIGENT so that's why you're right? Great argument!
To quote every rational atheist ever; 'i dont care what you believe as long as you don't cram it down my throat', you could learn a thing or 2 from them Xant, quit trying to ram your religious beliefs down our throats you arrogant hypocritical sack of shit :)Show me where the hypocrisy is.
''Guh Xant, errrrr, most Chistians are more intelligent than you. Cos the majority don't spend their time desperately trying to prove that Saruman doesn't exist.''You think Saruman, the White Wizard, exists? There are some mental institutes near you that can help.
]Nah, your 'intelligence' fails hard, i never said i believe in religious mumbo-jumbo any more than you doNever said you did, your belief is irrelevant.
Strange thing to say when there are tons of people who believe that UFO's exist, without actually knowing. No they don't call themselves agnostic on the subject, because that has a religious connotation.
This is assuming UFO stands for aliens.
That's why I said "noone resonable" :P
pple kill other pple when they think they are right, they have the only truth... it can be religious, politic, nationalism...Etc...
just think to this : maybe the other side in AS RIGHT AS YOURS.... and it will be no war anymore.....
pple kill other pple when they think they are right, they have the only truth... it can be religious, politic, nationalism...Etc...
just think to this : maybe the other side in AS RIGHT AS YOURS.... and it will be no war anymore.....
Fairly sure only Catholics worship saints and virgin Marry, Orthodoxies might also, but I doubt it. But yeah Christians are gross.
People tend to say that they believe when they want to express their hope or convinction about some subject. "I believe that brazil will win mundial". In such context you can not equate it with faith in god. But if someone firmly and categorically states that aliens exist though he has not the slightest trace of proof then it's irrational and unreasonable.
I disagree with your opinion, and will murdle you for it.
I dunno it's just a different way that I say murder. I sometimes use it as past tense "he got murdled""He had been murdled"?
"He had been murdled"?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/local-church-full-of-brainwashed-idiots-feeds-town,34860/?ref=auto
Looks like Muhammad needed to see a podiatrist.
WOW....JIHAD ON THIS HEATHEN INFIDEL!
Allahu akbar!
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
With that short hair and itty bitty titties she looks as though she is a Bieber wannabe. :?
With that short hair and itty bitty titties she looks as though she is a Bieber wannabe. :?
I'm pretty sure she is a man
Disgusting avatar, makes me puke
Pfft i bet you would love to get a shot at her. Or get an autograph to your daughter/son
Look who's speaking furry my old friendgt
Atleast mine actually has tits and isn't a man!
Anyway, God is a pretty dapper fellow, what?
I wonder where this is going now...
I'm pretty sure she is a man
Disgusting avatar, makes me puke
Miley got tits and a vagina and isn't covered in animated fur!
Boys! Boys!.. Let's keep it civil, please! Why don't we keep both?..
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
What the fuck did you do to Miley!?