Questions for Kermit ...

[Ava Estelle]

I was reading an article in the Guardian about the present day 'crusade' by religious organisations again gays. Knowing Kermit's fondness for quoting scripture to justify his points of view, I thought it would be interesting to hear his opinions on certain parts of scripture brought up by a reader's comments ...

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

I do need some advice, however, regarding some of the other specific laws in the Bible and how to follow them.

1). When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2). I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3). I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4). I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

5). A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is a abomination of Leviticus 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

6). Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

7). Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?

8). I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

9). My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Leviticus 24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus 20:14).


Read the whole piece here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1985899,00.html)

[GepperRankins]

you should get on youtube. there's less long words and more swearing. it's where the cool atheists are right now :ermm:

[Ava Estelle]

you should get on youtube. there's less long words and more swearing. it's where the cool atheists are right now :ermm:

I don't want to mix with cool atheists, I'm shit hot, for a start, and I'm not an atheist. :whistling

[vidcc]

3). I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

I think if you get such a response then it's probably that time of the month :shifty:mCwKbUVyHLY

[Mr JP Fugley]

you should get on youtube. there's less long words and more swearing. it's where the cool atheists are right now :ermm:

I don't want to mix with cool atheists, I'm shit hot, for a start, and I'm not an atheist. :whistling

Have you experienced an epiphany :O

[GepperRankins]

I don't want to mix with cool atheists, I'm shit hot, for a start, and I'm not an atheist. :whistling

Have you experienced an epiphany :O
he probably considers himself a bright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement).


intentionally deceptive name and an elitist attitude. damn those errrr. nm :dabs:

[Ava Estelle]

Oh dear, I'm being attacked by the GEP mafia again, excuse me whilst I pull the duster feathers out of my back! :lol:

[GepperRankins]

Oh dear, I'm being attacked by the GEP mafia again, excuse me whilst I pull the duster feathers out of my back! :lol:
no you aren't :blink:


oh wait. sorry. i could have worded that better. i was just reading up on this bright thing. i thought it'd be a smart arse thing to call an atheist who denies atheism, a bright.

as far as religion goes i'll most likely agree with you a lot more than i agree with JP. i reckon organised religion is a shit.

[Ava Estelle]

i thought it'd be a smart arse thing to call an atheist who denies atheism, a bright.

If you'd read some earlier threads of mine you'd know that if I have to be called anything, it would be agnostic, not atheist. I would prefer no labels, but that seems too complicated for some people to comprehend.

As to religions, that's a whole different thing, one doesn't need to be an atheist or agnostic to find religions to be a load of bollocks. There are many deeply spiritual people, who believe in gods, who don't belong to any religion, and have no desire to be a part of one.

[GepperRankins]

explain your agnosticism plz. if you reject organised religion, there's no reason to believe in a god. the idea is purely man-made.

so an omnipotent being can't be disproved, but he's never been seen, he's never done anything, and he's doing a good job of hiding.

[Ava Estelle]

If I could PROVE there was no God, I would, but just as JP can't prove there is, I can't prove there isn't. I also believe both to be unproveable. So as long as I can't prove the non-existance of a god, I cannot call myself an atheist, because an atheists position is absolute.

[Barbarossa]

If God existed He could easily prove it :snooty:

[Busyman™]

If God existed He could easily prove it :snooty:

So you live and breath just because?

The laws of physics are that way just because?

God is already proven imo.

[GepperRankins]

If I could PROVE there was no God, I would, but just as JP can't prove there is, I can't prove there isn't. I also believe both to be unproveable. So as long as I can't prove the non-existance of a god, I cannot call myself an atheist, because an atheists position is absolute.
yes, it's a belief. i believe there's no god the same way i believe i won't win the lottery every week for the rest of my life. not impossible, but i'm still fairly sure.

would you really entertain the idea that you could win the lottery every week?

[Ava Estelle]

I feel that if you believe something to be true you should be able to offer proof, otherwise it's just, as you say, a belief. I have no belief.



So you live and breath just because?

The laws of physics are that way just because?

God is already proven imo.

I've heard better arguments for the existence of Santa Claus. :lol:

[GepperRankins]

If God existed He could easily prove it :snooty:

So you live and breath just because?

The laws of physics are that way just because?

God is already proven imo.
:dabs:

and god is there just because?

[bigboab]

If I could PROVE there was no God, I would, but just as JP can't prove there is, I can't prove there isn't. I also believe both to be unproveable. So as long as I can't prove the non-existance of a god, I cannot call myself an atheist, because an atheists position is absolute.

According to this theory anyone can say anything 'exists' if you cant prove otherwise. There must be a lot of people locked up in the 'loony bin' wrongly.

[Chip Monk]

Oh dear, I'm being attacked by the GEP mafia again, excuse me whilst I pull the duster feathers out of my back! :lol:

WOLF, WOLF, WOLF!

Haven't heard the "mafia" pish for a wee while.

It's particularly funny when we're ganging up on you in relation to a subject which The and I fundamentally disagree on.

[Busyman™]

I feel that if you believe something to be true you should be able to offer proof, otherwise it's just, as you say, a belief. I have no belief.



So you live and breath just because?

The laws of physics are that way just because?

God is already proven imo.

I've heard better arguments for the existence of Santa Claus. :lol:

Agreed.
However, I believe something so complex as the universe had to be started by something intelligent and this has nothing to do with a particular religion.

I think it's the only logical conclusion.

I rather believe an intelligent being always was than dirt, gases, and polypeptides, always was.

[manker]

I feel that if you believe something to be true you should be able to offer proof, otherwise it's just, as you say, a belief. I have no belief.




I've heard better arguments for the existence of Santa Claus. :lol:

Agreed.
However, I believe something so complex as the universe had to be started by something intelligent and this has nothing to do with a particular religion.

I think it's the only logical conclusion.

I rather believe an intelligent being always was than dirt, gases, and polypeptides, always was.If something created what we know of the universe, then it must be more complex than it. You rather believe that something more complex than the universe exists because the universe is too complex to exist on its own.

How very logical.

Btw, the word "universe" means "everything, everywhere" so by very definition, your 'creator' is encompassed by it.

So did your 'creator' create itself. That's a clever trick.

[Busyman™]

Agreed.
However, I believe something so complex as the universe had to be started by something intelligent and this has nothing to do with a particular religion.

I think it's the only logical conclusion.

I rather believe an intelligent being always was than dirt, gases, and polypeptides, always was.If something created what we know of the universe, then it must be more complex than it. You rather believe that something more complex than the universe exists because the universe is too complex to exist on its own.

How very logical.

Btw, the word "universe" means "everything, everywhere" so by very definition, your 'creator' is encompassed by it.

So did your 'creator' create itself. That's a clever trick.

I believe the creator created itself (or always was) rather than dirt created itself.

[bigboab]

If something created what we know of the universe, then it must be more complex than it. You rather believe that something more complex than the universe exists because the universe is too complex to exist on its own.

How very logical.

Btw, the word "universe" means "everything, everywhere" so by very definition, your 'creator' is encompassed by it.

So did your 'creator' create itself. That's a clever trick.

I believe the creator created itself (or always was) rather than dirt created itself.

What was it before it created itself?:wacko:

[Busyman™]

I believe the creator created itself (or always was) rather than dirt created itself.

What was it when it before it created itself?:wacko:

The creator, of course.

[manker]

If something created what we know of the universe, then it must be more complex than it. You rather believe that something more complex than the universe exists because the universe is too complex to exist on its own.

How very logical.

Btw, the word "universe" means "everything, everywhere" so by very definition, your 'creator' is encompassed by it.

So did your 'creator' create itself. That's a clever trick.

I believe the creator created itself (or always was) rather than dirt created itself.
Are you using some 1337 sp34k version of the word 'logical'.

Even today, dirt and rocks are created all of the time by chemical reactions combined with heat and pressure. I guess there were chemical reactions, heat and pressure at the inception of the universe. I'm okay with calling that 'the big bang'.

There were probably a lot of dirt and rocks created back then - most likely no deities, however.

If you're not religious, why make the inception of the universe even more complicated than it already is.

[manker]

What was it when it before it created itself?:wacko:

The creator, of course.
So now you've got something that's not only more complicated than the universe, but also more complicated than the entity that created the universe.

You consider the universe too complicated to exist without an intelligent force, so you've now created in your head two entities that are even more complicated to explain its existence.

Way to go.

[Busyman™]

The creator, of course.
So now you've got something that's not only more complicated than the universe, but also more complicated than the entity that created the universe.

You consider the universe too complicated to exist without an intelligent force, so you've now created in your head two entities that are even more complicated to explain its existence.

Way to go.

....and I don't consider dirt sentient.

[Busyman™]

I believe the creator created itself (or always was) rather than dirt created itself.
Are you using some 1337 sp34k version of the word 'logical'.

Even today, dirt and rocks are created all of the time by chemical reactions combined with heat and pressure. I guess there were chemical reactions, heat and pressure at the inception of the universe. I'm okay with calling that 'the big bang'.

There were probably a lot of dirt and rocks created back then - most likely no deities, however.

If you're not religious, why make the inception of the universe even more complicated than it already is.

Too me it really isn't. Past believing there is an ultimate creator and I can't go past that.

However, believing the Big Bang just happened with no conscious effort behind it is ludicrous.

[manker]

So now you've got something that's not only more complicated than the universe, but also more complicated than the entity that created the universe.

You consider the universe too complicated to exist without an intelligent force, so you've now created in your head two entities that are even more complicated to explain its existence.

Way to go.

....and I don't consider dirt sentient.So we can discount dirt from being this infinitely-complex entity that you think created the creator that made the universe.

Excellent :dabs:

[Busyman™]

....and I don't consider dirt sentient.So we can discount dirt from being this infinitely-complex entity that you think created the creator that made the universe.

Excellent :dabs:

as you can discount the Big Bang doing the same. :1eye:

[manker]

Are you using some 1337 sp34k version of the word 'logical'.

Even today, dirt and rocks are created all of the time by chemical reactions combined with heat and pressure. I guess there were chemical reactions, heat and pressure at the inception of the universe. I'm okay with calling that 'the big bang'.

There were probably a lot of dirt and rocks created back then - most likely no deities, however.

If you're not religious, why make the inception of the universe even more complicated than it already is.

Too me it really isn't. Past believing there is an ultimate creator and I can't go past that.

However, believing the Big Bang just happened with no conscious effort behind it is ludicrous.Ludicrous is thinking up something more complex to explain an event which you consider too complicated to have just happened - and then calling it logical.

[manker]

So we can discount dirt from being this infinitely-complex entity that you think created the creator that made the universe.

Excellent :dabs:

as you can discount the Big Bang doing the same. :1eye:Yeah, I certainly can discount the big bang from being this infinitely-complex entity that you think created the creator that made the universe.

You're posting total crap now, I shouldn't be surprised - you usually do when you've no idea what to write in reply.

[Busyman™]

Too me it really isn't. Past believing there is an ultimate creator and I can't go past that.

However, believing the Big Bang just happened with no conscious effort behind it is ludicrous.Ludicrous is thinking up something more complex to explain an event which you consider too complicated to have just happened - and then calling it logical.

I consider logical has an end to it.

You consider it logical that the universe just happened. There is no further effort in thought on the matter.

I think something more complex (God) created something less complex (the universe).

Where God comes from....who made God....and so forth, I can only guess that God always was.

This could be the 50th universe created for all I know. It could be that one dies and then another is created. Whatever.

i just believe a sentient being started it versus a group of molecules or whatever went a blewthefuckup on it's very own.

Simply put

I believe all rules are made by intelligence.

[bigboab]

I think I must be thick. No arguments there.:) I just cannot comprehend the universe and beyond. It cannot have any end, there must be something beyond the end. It cannot be a circle. There must be something outside of the circle. I wish someone could explain it to me in a logical way, without bringing in a 'non provable' existence of a super being.

Incidentally I just received this link in an E-MAIL. Weird or what?

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/singingman7/GVM.htm

[manker]

Ludicrous is thinking up something more complex to explain an event which you consider too complicated to have just happened - and then calling it logical.

I consider logical has an end to it.

You consider it logical that the universe just happened. There is no further effort in thought on the matter.

I think something more complex (God) created something less complex (the universe).

Where God comes from....who made God....and so forth, I can only guess that God always was.

This could be the 50th universe created for all I know. It could be that one dies and then another is created. Whatever.

i just believe a sentient being started it versus a group of molecules or whatever went a blewthefuckup on it's very own.

Simply put

I believe all rules are made my intelligence.I don't consider it logical that the universe just happened. I believe there is far more to the big bang theory than we know. No-one has a perfect explanation but some theories are more credible than others.

What I won't do, however, is create something in my mind more complicated than the universe itself and consider that that thing 'just happened' and then made the universe.

Also, logic doesn't have to have an end. A logical way to work out the area of a circle is to use pi, you'll never be able to work out the exact area because of the nature of pi itself - but using pi is the most logical way to approximate it.

A logical process has to have reasoned steps and in this particular example that you've given, your steps are far more illogical than mine because you've tried to complicate it by dreaming up an entity more complex than the most complicated thing known to man!

[Mr JP Fugley]

Too me it really isn't. Past believing there is an ultimate creator and I can't go past that.

However, believing the Big Bang just happened with no conscious effort behind it is ludicrous.Ludicrous is thinking up something more complex to explain an event which you consider too complicated to have just happened - and then calling it logical.

That's why it's easy for people who believe that God always was and always will be. That's really a dead simple explanation of the stuff of creation.

And also, if you believe, like me that God does no exist within the same spacetime as we do then to try to explain Him with reference to it is pointless.

I know that sounds trite, but hey, faith is the bee's knees.

[vidcc]

I always thought this quote would make sense one day


"as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." I think this clears it up :cool:

[bigboab]

I always thought this quote would make sense one day


"as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." I think this clears it up :cool:

Just what I have requested. :rolleyes:

[Busyman™]

I consider logical has an end to it.

You consider it logical that the universe just happened. There is no further effort in thought on the matter.

I think something more complex (God) created something less complex (the universe).

Where God comes from....who made God....and so forth, I can only guess that God always was.

This could be the 50th universe created for all I know. It could be that one dies and then another is created. Whatever.

i just believe a sentient being started it versus a group of molecules or whatever went a blewthefuckup on it's very own.

Simply put

I believe all rules are made my intelligence.I don't consider it logical that the universe just happened. I believe there is far more to the big bang theory than we know. No-one has a perfect explanation but some theories are more credible than others.

What I won't do, however, is create something in my mind more complicated than the universe itself and consider that that thing 'just happened' and then made the universe.

Also, logic doesn't have to have an end. A logical way to work out the area of a circle is to use pi, you'll never be able to work out the exact area because of the nature of pi itself - but using pi is the most logical way to approximate it.

A logical process has to have reasoned steps and in this particular example that you've given, your steps are far more illogical than mine because you've tried to complicate it by dreaming up an entity more complex than the most complicated thing known to man!

It's not a dream up. It's one versus the other.

Believing all rules were made up by something not sentient is illogical to me.

In this case logic has an end for me. I can't fathom what governs this sentient being, how it was created, what it is made of, where it is located, how old is it.....

There are too many variables. When I was younger, it crossed my mind that God may be everything, literally.

[Snee]

Rant-time, methinks...

Some of this I've written about before, but it's about probabilities, and people seem to forget that sort of thing:


If I could PROVE there was no God, I would, but just as JP can't prove there is, I can't prove there isn't. I also believe both to be unproveable. So as long as I can't prove the non-existance of a god, I cannot call myself an atheist, because an atheists position is absolute.
yes, it's a belief. i believe there's no god the same way i believe i won't win the lottery every week for the rest of my life. not impossible, but i'm still fairly sure.

would you really entertain the idea that you could win the lottery every week?

Interesting analogy, if a tad one-dimensional.

The odds for winning the big on a nation-wide lottery of the proportions I assume you are talking about once are pretty damned slim, and to win the lottery every week makes them drastically worse, but as you say, it never becomes impossible. It's only impossible for you to have one it in the past, as time only moves in one direction for us, so to speak.

The chance may be slim as fuck, but it's still there, but you know that.

However, the fact is that you also know of the circumstances surrounding said lottery: We are talking about a finite period of time, and a fairly well-defined set of odds. It's even possible to almost calculate the exact odds if you know how big each printed batch of lottery tickets is, and the frequency with which they are printed and your projected lifespan (assuming that would be correct).

So it's quantifiable.

And someone is always winning, anyways.


Now try calculating the odds for an entity more complex than our universe, coming into existence some time in...time.

Frankly, it's not doable.

Here's the thing, y'see:

The universe is, according to most contemporary scientists, rly rly big.
As far as we are concerned, it might well be close enough to be infinite in size.

And that's just what we call the universe.

Moving on...

-
Btw, the word "universe" means "everything, everywhere" so by very definition, your 'creator' is encompassed by it.

Yeah, and "Atom" means "Indivisible" or something to that effect, it doesn't mean one is. -

A couple of years back some scientists came to the conclusion that what we think of as space, I suppose what some of us would call the universe, rests inside another space.

A universe with a universe in it, kinda' :dabs:

They even figured they had proof, cos they could explain some stuff that previously hadn't made much sense by adding other universes into what they knew about how the laws of physics work.

Gravity, for instance, is comparatively weak here, and they really didn't understand why that was until they invented another universe our universe leeched that from :ermm: And, if they took this kind of thing into account, they could make sense of a lot of thing that previously hadn't (the math is decent, from what I hear, tho' theories like this are constantly evolving, and I really don't know what's become of it today).

It was also believed possible (past tense, cos I dunno the state of things today. I heard about it in 2003 I think.) that m-space, or that macroverse, or whatever you'd like to call it, contained lots of other universes. Maybe something of the magnitude of one for every possibility one could think of. Another you, perhaps, Dave, winning the lottery every week.

Maybe every possible state you could be in is real somewhere, sort of a phase space become reality.

Lots of them would have different laws of physics and so on too, of course.

So there, now I've got nigh on infinite space, inside something even "larger" (dimensions are funny things, rly). And then there's time, which some people (I think Einstein was one of them) described as being a flow of energy.

It might be circular in some places, or maybe some places don't restrict you to one direction, or...time might not even be of consequence, or infinite.


And then there's another theory about this entire universe vibrating. As time goes forward (just to muck things up even more) our laws of physics slowly change. Lightspeed, for instance might not be a constant if you take time into account.

And then there's something Hawking was on about, about this being a holographic universe.

Reality would be a kind of projection of something else, where all the real information was constant, or sth.
(Information (here mainly referring to the structure of elementary particles) can never be lost, but it would be if what we see is what there is, 'cos when stuff gets sucked into black holes the information about its structure would be stored on the surface, only the surface of a black hole is finite, so there's no room for an infinite amount of information, and therefore real information is stored elsewhere :dabs:

So now I'll never run out of time (maybe there's no end to it, or maybe I can recycle it), or space, and I'm not even sure if I'm real. And pretty much everyone (scientists, that is) seems to agree that there are at least eleven dimensions to reality.

How could I possible assume that nothing complex enough to be called a God couldn't exist somewhere in infinity? :unsure:

...On the one hand, I've never seen any proof of the existence of God (I've heard of plenty of "witnesses" :lol:, tho', but that's another matter entirely). On the other, it seems impossible to discount the existence of one, seeing as the possibilities for what could exist seem near infinite.

Not saying a God would have to be anything we'd recognize as one (a big beard in the sky type of deal), but something way more powerful than us and terribly complex (and we don't need to limit ourselves to something naturally occurring either, it might be something manufactured) could certainly exist.

I dunno about you all, but I don't assume that we as a race are the pinnacle of evolution :dabs: Speaking of probabilities, see, it's probably more likely that we are somewhere near the middle of what is possible (always assume you are average, cos most things are), and since we've got virii on one side of the spectrum, one can only wonder what lies at the other.

And we're nowhere near the end of the universe, from what I know, so wouldn't things keep evolving here, on top of everything else?

[Ava Estelle]

It's particularly funny when we're ganging up on you in relation to a subject which The and I fundamentally disagree on.

And you are ... ?

[Ava Estelle]

I believe the creator created itself (or always was) rather than dirt created itself.

I'm trying to think of a response to this, but it's so ridiculous I can't stop laughing, especially from someone with the words "Use Logic Or STFU!" under his name.

Surely it would be better to say you don't know than to come up with stuff like this?

[Barbarossa]

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/)

Is this the sort of thing you're on about, busy? :unsure:

[GepperRankins]

I believe the creator created itself (or always was) rather than dirt created itself.

I'm trying to think of a response to this, but it's so ridiculous I can't stop laughing, especially from someone with the words "Use Logic Or STFU!" under his name.

Surely it would be better to say you don't know than to come up with stuff like this?
that's the thing that gets me. god has always been invented and reinvented simply because people won't admit they don't know :blink:

[Busyman™]

I believe the creator created itself (or always was) rather than dirt created itself.

I'm trying to think of a response to this, but it's so ridiculous I can't stop laughing, especially from someone with the words "Use Logic Or STFU!" under his name.

Surely it would be better to say you don't know than to come up with stuff like this?

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

The lot of you believe that dirt, wind, fire, whateverthefuck just popped in with no beginning decision. You believe that the rules of physics were made by no one. They are the rules just because "it just worked out that way."

[GepperRankins]

I'm trying to think of a response to this, but it's so ridiculous I can't stop laughing, especially from someone with the words "Use Logic Or STFU!" under his name.

Surely it would be better to say you don't know than to come up with stuff like this?

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

The lot of you believe that dirt, wind, fire, whateverthefuck just popped in with no beginning decision. You believe that the rules of physics were made by no one. They are the rules just because "it just worked out that way."
:dabs: we don't know. there's many theories that could explain it. multiverses and parallel dimensions and stuff.


saying the universe must have been created, by something that's exempt from the same rule is bloody silly really

[Mr JP Fugley]

I'm trying to think of a response to this, but it's so ridiculous I can't stop laughing, especially from someone with the words "Use Logic Or STFU!" under his name.

Surely it would be better to say you don't know than to come up with stuff like this?
that's the thing that gets me. god has always been invented and reinvented simply because people won't admit they don't know :blink:

I'm never done admitting I don't know.

I believe, just as other people who don't know don't believe. Like you.

I said it in another thread, I believe loads of stuff that I don't know. I take them on faith as well

[Ava Estelle]

The lot of you believe that dirt, wind, fire, whateverthefuck just popped in with no beginning decision.

No we don't, that's your interpretation, no-one else's. Matter consists of energy, remember E=MC2?



You believe that the rules of physics were made by no one. They are the rules just because "it just worked out that way."

These aren't rules that are 'made', they are the observable way things work, they didn't have to be written, and they don't follow a pattern, that's just plain silly.

[Busyman™]

No we don't, that's your interpretation, no-one else's. Matter consists of energy, remember E=MC2?

Sooooo? Do you believe the dirt is sentient. I mean sure it could be but I doubt it decided to create the universe.



You believe that the rules of physics were made by no one. They are the rules just because "it just worked out that way."

These aren't rules that are 'made', they are the observable way things work, they didn't have to be written, and they don't follow a pattern, that's just plain silly.

Who said written? Laws of physics do follow a "pattern".

How do you know the rules weren't made? Oh that's right "they are the observable way things work".

Shirley it would be better to say you don't know than to come up with stuff like this?:lol: :lol:

[Ava Estelle]

Shirley it would be better to say you don't know than to come up with stuff like this?:lol: :lol:

Forget it BM, you just look more and more stupid when you carry on like this, you just keep believing in creators who create themselves from nothing and wave magic wands to make thousands of millions of billions of stars and planets. If that seems logical to you then that's fine, I don't have any desire to burst your bubble, so you keep putting your stocking out at Xmas, and your teeth under your pillow, kiss mommy goodnight and the world will stay cosy and warm for you. :lol:

[Busyman™]

Shirley it would be better to say you don't know than to come up with stuff like this?:lol: :lol:

Forget it BM, you just look more and more stupid when you carry on like this, you just keep believing in creators who create themselves from nothing and wave magic wands to make thousands of millions of billions of stars and planets. If that seems logical to you then that's fine, I don't have any desire to burst your bubble, so you keep putting your stocking out at Xmas, and your teeth under your pillow, kiss mommy goodnight and the world will stay cosy and warm for you. :lol:

So am I to believe the alternative?

You are the one that believes that the way things work doesn't follow a pattern.:lol: :lol:

You believe the starting point was simply matter.

I believe a sentient being started matter.
I believe a sentient being put forth the rules for the way things work.

You believe those rules were just started on their lonesome. It's the rules cuz it's the rules, so to speak.

My logic > your logic.

[Ava Estelle]

You are the one that believes that the way things work doesn't follow a pattern.:lol: :lol:

You really should put that bible down and read up on physics, the only 'pattern' is an observed one, physics doesn't 'follow' anything.

You believe the starting point was simply matter.

As I already said, matter is energy, don't misquote me.

I believe a sentient being started matter.
I believe a sentient being put forth the rules for the way things work.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You believe those rules were just started on their lonesome. It's the rules cuz it's the rules, so to speak.

There are no 'rules', that's something you made up, do try to keep up BM.

My logic > your logic.

How you can believe something when you have absolutely no idea whatsoever how it was accomplished is beyond logic, it's stupidity.

[GepperRankins]

Forget it BM, you just look more and more stupid when you carry on like this, you just keep believing in creators who create themselves from nothing and wave magic wands to make thousands of millions of billions of stars and planets. If that seems logical to you then that's fine, I don't have any desire to burst your bubble, so you keep putting your stocking out at Xmas, and your teeth under your pillow, kiss mommy goodnight and the world will stay cosy and warm for you. :lol:

So am I to believe the alternative?

You are the one that believes that the way things work doesn't follow a pattern.:lol: :lol:

You believe the starting point was simply matter.

I believe a sentient being started matter.
I believe a sentient being put forth the rules for the way things work.

You believe those rules were just started on their lonesome. It's the rules cuz it's the rules, so to speak.

My logic > your logic.
:dabs: you believe there was a creator. there needed to be one in your mind because there needed to be creation.

however the creator didn't need to be created because you're busyman


everybody's logic > your logic

[Busyman™]

You are the one that believes that the way things work doesn't follow a pattern.:lol: :lol:

You really should put that bible down and read up on physics, the only 'pattern' is an observed one, physics doesn't 'follow' anything.

You believe the starting point was simply matter.

As I already said, matter is energy, don't misquote me.

I believe a sentient being started matter.
I believe a sentient being put forth the rules for the way things work.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You believe those rules were just started on their lonesome. It's the rules cuz it's the rules, so to speak.

There are no 'rules', that's something you made up, do try to keep up BM.

Sure there are. If there was a Big Bang or whateverthefuck there was a basic rule set which governed everything. Scientists observe the product of this every day.

My logic > your logic.

How you can believe something when you have absolutely no idea whatsoever how it was accomplished is beyond logic, it's stupidity.
So cuz I believe a sentient being set this all in motion that's stupid?

What is your belief?

My belief in a creator starts with logic and not a book. My belief in a creator started absent any religious affiliation.

[GepperRankins]

we're not calling you stupid, just your theory, or lack of.


pretty much every supernatural thing that could be seen has been explained through logic and the scientific process. supernatural is impossible

your argument is contradictory to itself and science. you can't support it with anything thing other than a refusal to admit what you don't know.

once upon a time the stars were painted on heaven and rain was god shaking the clouds, because of exactly the logic you're using

[Ava Estelle]

.. we're not calling you stupid ..

I am. :)

[Busyman™]

.. we're not calling you stupid ..

I am. :)

What's your belief, Billy?

[Barbarossa]

Which particular part of the universe leads you to believe that an intelligent creator was responsible for its creation?

Most of the universe is a waste of time and space.

[manker]

Rant-time, methinks...

Some of this I've written about before, but it's about probabilities, and people seem to forget that sort of thing:


yes, it's a belief. i believe there's no god the same way i believe i won't win the lottery every week for the rest of my life. not impossible, but i'm still fairly sure.

would you really entertain the idea that you could win the lottery every week?

Interesting analogy, if a tad one-dimensional.

The odds for winning the big on a nation-wide lottery of the proportions I assume you are talking about once are pretty damned slim, and to win the lottery every week makes them drastically worse, but as you say, it never becomes impossible. It's only impossible for you to have one it in the past, as time only moves in one direction for us, so to speak.

The chance may be slim as fuck, but it's still there, but you know that.

However, the fact is that you also know of the circumstances surrounding said lottery: We are talking about a finite period of time, and a fairly well-defined set of odds. It's even possible to almost calculate the exact odds if you know how big each printed batch of lottery tickets is, and the frequency with which they are printed and your projected lifespan (assuming that would be correct).

So it's quantifiable.

And someone is always winning, anyways.


Now try calculating the odds for an entity more complex than our universe, coming into existence some time in...time.

Frankly, it's not doable.

Here's the thing, y'see:

The universe is, according to most contemporary scientists, rly rly big.
As far as we are concerned, it might well be close enough to be infinite in size.

And that's just what we call the universe.

Moving on...

-
Btw, the word "universe" means "everything, everywhere" so by very definition, your 'creator' is encompassed by it.

Yeah, and "Atom" means "Indivisible" or something to that effect, it doesn't mean one is. -

A couple of years back some scientists came to the conclusion that what we think of as space, I suppose what some of us would call the universe, rests inside another space.

A universe with a universe in it, kinda' :dabs:

They even figured they had proof, cos they could explain some stuff that previously hadn't made much sense by adding other universes into what they knew about how the laws of physics work.

Gravity, for instance, is comparatively weak here, and they really didn't understand why that was until they invented another universe our universe leeched that from :ermm: And, if they took this kind of thing into account, they could make sense of a lot of thing that previously hadn't (the math is decent, from what I hear, tho' theories like this are constantly evolving, and I really don't know what's become of it today).

It was also believed possible (past tense, cos I dunno the state of things today. I heard about it in 2003 I think.) that m-space, or that macroverse, or whatever you'd like to call it, contained lots of other universes. Maybe something of the magnitude of one for every possibility one could think of. Another you, perhaps, Dave, winning the lottery every week.

Maybe every possible state you could be in is real somewhere, sort of a phase space become reality.

Lots of them would have different laws of physics and so on too, of course.

So there, now I've got nigh on infinite space, inside something even "larger" (dimensions are funny things, rly). And then there's time, which some people (I think Einstein was one of them) described as being a flow of energy.

It might be circular in some places, or maybe some places don't restrict you to one direction, or...time might not even be of consequence, or infinite.


And then there's another theory about this entire universe vibrating. As time goes forward (just to muck things up even more) our laws of physics slowly change. Lightspeed, for instance might not be a constant if you take time into account.

And then there's something Hawking was on about, about this being a holographic universe.

Reality would be a kind of projection of something else, where all the real information was constant, or sth.
(Information (here mainly referring to the structure of elementary particles) can never be lost, but it would be if what we see is what there is, 'cos when stuff gets sucked into black holes the information about its structure would be stored on the surface, only the surface of a black hole is finite, so there's no room for an infinite amount of information, and therefore real information is stored elsewhere :dabs:

So now I'll never run out of time (maybe there's no end to it, or maybe I can recycle it), or space, and I'm not even sure if I'm real. And pretty much everyone (scientists, that is) seems to agree that there are at least eleven dimensions to reality.

How could I possible assume that nothing complex enough to be called a God couldn't exist somewhere in infinity? :unsure:

...On the one hand, I've never seen any proof of the existence of God (I've heard of plenty of "witnesses" :lol:, tho', but that's another matter entirely). On the other, it seems impossible to discount the existence of one, seeing as the possibilities for what could exist seem near infinite.

Not saying a God would have to be anything we'd recognize as one (a big beard in the sky type of deal), but something way more powerful than us and terribly complex (and we don't need to limit ourselves to something naturally occurring either, it might be something manufactured) could certainly exist.

I dunno about you all, but I don't assume that we as a race are the pinnacle of evolution :dabs: Speaking of probabilities, see, it's probably more likely that we are somewhere near the middle of what is possible (always assume you are average, cos most things are), and since we've got virii on one side of the spectrum, one can only wonder what lies at the other.

And we're nowhere near the end of the universe, from what I know, so wouldn't things keep evolving here, on top of everything else?Whoa, major over-share! What I read of it was rather interesting, however.

I made the universe definition comment because I wanted to simplify matters. I mean, everyone who has ever made even a cursory glance at this topic knows that there are a brazillion theories - and those theories simply weren't relevant to what I was trying to say.

Which was that Busy's logic is woeful.

[GepperRankins]

lolz. reading this thing by sam harris



You suggest that the existence of the universe demonstrates the existence of God. Why? Because everything that exists must have a cause. It is amazing how many people find this argument compelling.

...

If God created the universe, what created God? To say that God is uncreated simply begs the question. Why can’t I say that the cosmos is uncreated?



i wish i knew how to structure sentences :wub:

[manker]

If God created the universe, what created God? To say that God is uncreated simply begs the question. Why can’t I say that the cosmos is uncreated?You can't say it because you're qualifying your belief, that the universe is uncreated, with the statement that god is uncreated.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, Sam, but you don't believe in god :crazy:

[GepperRankins]

If God created the universe, what created God? To say that God is uncreated simply begs the question. Why can’t I say that the cosmos is uncreated?You can't say it because you're qualifying your belief, that the universe is uncreated, with the statement that god is uncreated.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, Sam, but you don't believe in god :crazy:
:dabs:

he's not saying he believes owt. he's in the same argument i had with busy. basically telling some dude that that stupid argument doesn't strengthen the argument that there is a god


http://jewcy.com/dialogue/monday_why_are_atheists_so_angry_sam_harris
incase you care like ^^

[Barbarossa]

I think manker was attacking his sentence structure :dabs:

[GepperRankins]

I think manker was attacking his sentence structure :dabs:
yeah, well he started a sentence with "and"

[Busyman™]

Which particular part of the universe leads you to believe that an intelligent creator was responsible for its creation?

Detroit, of course.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I think manker was attacking his sentence structure :dabs:
yeah, well he started a sentence with "and"

And you fell for it. Schoollboy error.

And also your man started a sentence with a conjunction.

And another thing, he used "this sentence" when he clearly meant "that sentence".

To be honest, for a two or three line quote it really was a poor effort.

[Snee]

snipWhoa, major over-share! What I read of it was rather interesting, however.

Yeah, well, mostly I just silently lol at the board atheists and their silly antics, however, that morning I guess I couldn't sleep, so I must have decided all of that needed saying for some unfathomable reason.

My recollection of writing it is really fuzzy tho'. The next day I thought I'd dreamt it :dabs:


Either way, all arguments I've heard for atheism thus far have been pretty darned thin, especially so when contemplating infinity and probablity, as I wrote.


EDit: And where my grammar and spelling went in that post, I don't know :pinch:

[vidcc]

Yeah, well, mostly I just silently lol at the board atheists and their silly antics, however, that morning I guess I couldn't sleep, so I must have decided all of that needed saying for some unfathomable reason.

My recollection of writing it is really fuzzy tho'. The next day I thought I'd dreamt it :dabs:


Either way, all arguments I've heard for atheism thus far have been pretty darned thin, especially so when contemplating infinity and probablity, as I wrote.



http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

[Busyman]

Yeah, well, mostly I just silently lol at the board atheists and their silly antics, however, that morning I guess I couldn't sleep, so I must have decided all of that needed saying for some unfathomable reason.

My recollection of writing it is really fuzzy tho'. The next day I thought I'd dreamt it :dabs:


Either way, all arguments I've heard for atheism thus far have been pretty darned thin, especially so when contemplating infinity and probablity, as I wrote.



http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

:glag:

[Snee]

Yeah, well, mostly I just silently lol at the board atheists and their silly antics, however, that morning I guess I couldn't sleep, so I must have decided all of that needed saying for some unfathomable reason.

My recollection of writing it is really fuzzy tho'. The next day I thought I'd dreamt it :dabs:


Either way, all arguments I've heard for atheism thus far have been pretty darned thin, especially so when contemplating infinity and probablity, as I wrote.



http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

Moronic.

Were you trying to say anything with that, or what? :unsure:

EDit: you do know I find your religion belief-system silly because I don't hold any beliefs wrt the metaphysical, and I find it stupid that you think you don't, right?

[GepperRankins]

my probability thing was basically an illustration to show why i don't believe in god. i'm not saying there's scalable odds on it.

i'm just saying the case for god is non-existent so there's no reason to believe in him. the case against god is constantly strengthening so there is reason not to believe in him.

there's never been a proven miracle. holy texts contain factual errors.


anyway, it shouldn't be my job to prove there is no god. it should be your job to prove there is

[vidcc]

http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

Moronic.

Were you trying to say anything with that, or what? :unsure:

Think about it (try to think about the "delusional" banter



EDit: you do know I find your religion silly because I don't hold any beliefs, and I find it stupid that you think you don't, right?

my religion????

I think I don't hold any beliefs????

I hold the belief that there is no god. I hold no supernatural beliefs.

I object to religious groups trying to force me to live my life by their doctrines (which have nothing to do with the existence of god)

You hold no beliefs....other than the belief that things cannot be known :rolleyes: It's a belief nonetheless.

[Snee]

EDit: @ Dave:

Not really, seeing as how I don't believe in God either.

And this because there's no proof that he exists.


Until there is proof that there is one, or isn't, you people, atheists and religious people alike, are all the same to me, in a sense.

And I've got my own ideas about probability. As I've said, I don't think that the improbability you base your ideas on exists.

The reason I find atheism silly is because it's just as based on beliefs, and might well be just as improbable as you think that the other option is, only we don't know enough to tell, yet.

@Vid, fair enough, then I disagree with your beliefs. I think it's a sign of you having a closed mind.

Oh, and I don't hold any beliefs (in this matter), I know for a fact that nothing can be proven.


EDitII: believing that there is no god is still a belief regarding the metaphysical, sorry, no go. Same point of reference, just a different angle.

[vidcc]

Not really, seeing as how I don't believe in God either.

And this because there's no proof that he exists.

How can you say then that you don't believe in god and then say it's unknowable ?

You could only say "I don't know if god exists", not that you don't believe.





@Vid, fair enough, then I disagree with your beliefs. I think it's a sign of you having a closed mind.
everyone has a closed mind...including you


Oh, and I don't hold any beliefs, I know for a fact that nothing can be proven.
yes you do, I have emboldened your belief, you appear to have a closed mind on this fact.

[Snee]

Prove that the existence of God, or lack thereof can be proven, at this point in time, then.

I know you can't. I know no one can, and I know that's a fact.
Also, knowing that there is a possibility that something exists, and also that it might not, does not constitute a belief in one of the other.

You, on the other hand, appears to have discounted the possibility that there is a God, without sufficient proof. And the fact that you won't acknowledge the possibility implies, to me, that you do have a closed mind, which in my reckoning, shouldn't be applicable to someone who hasn't fixed a notion (wrt the supernatural) in their minds, like wot you have.

[vidcc]

EDitII: believing that there is no god is still a belief regarding the metaphysical, sorry, no go. Same point of reference, just a different angle.
Ok I don't believe in the supernatural, I do not believe in god.

[vidcc]

Prove that the existence of God, or lack thereof can be proven, at this point in time, then.

I know you can't. I know no one can, and I know that's a fact.
Also, knowing that there is a possibility that something exists, and also that it might not, does not constitute a belief in one of the other.

You, on the other hand, appears to have discounted the possibility that there is a God, without sufficient proof. And the fact that you won't acknowledge the possibility implies, to me, that you do have a closed mind, which in my reckoning, shouldn't be applicable to someone who hasn't fixed a notion (wrt the supernatural) in their minds, like wot you have.

Ok your belief is that god cannot be proven or unproven This is you belief system.

You can't say you don't believe in god and still say he could exist, you can only say you don't know. You could say you favour one possibility over the other.

There is an invisible alien from mars that we can't hear or detect behind you. It's gathering fuel for it's spaceship, in this case the flakes of skin that all humans shed.

[Snee]

EDitII: believing that there is no god is still a belief regarding the metaphysical, sorry, no go. Same point of reference, just a different angle.
Ok I don't believe in the supernatural, I do not believe in god.
However you rephrase that, it's still the same.

"I don't believe", pretty much means the same thing as "I believe" :dabs:

You something about the nature of reality, and others believe another, and none of you have proof. Which is my point.

Why not just wait and see, why form a belief now?

If I die not knowing, I don't mind :unsure:

[vidcc]

Why not just wait and see, why form a belief now?

If I die not knowing, I don't mind :unsure:

So do you believe in god or not?


EDit: @ Dave:

Not really, seeing as how I don't believe in God either.

And this because there's no proof that he exists.

sounds like you made a choice to me

[Snee]

Prove that the existence of God, or lack thereof can be proven, at this point in time, then.

I know you can't. I know no one can, and I know that's a fact.
Also, knowing that there is a possibility that something exists, and also that it might not, does not constitute a belief in one of the other.

You, on the other hand, appears to have discounted the possibility that there is a God, without sufficient proof. And the fact that you won't acknowledge the possibility implies, to me, that you do have a closed mind, which in my reckoning, shouldn't be applicable to someone who hasn't fixed a notion (wrt the supernatural) in their minds, like wot you have.

Ok your belief is that god cannot be proven or unproven This is you belief system.

You can't say you don't believe in god and still say he could exist, you can only say you don't know. You could say you favour one possibility over the other.


What you can't seem to understand is that it's possible to know that something can't be proven on the basis of empirical data.

No one has disproven or proven the existence of God up until now (as far as I know, however, I may be wrong), therefore it is, at this point in time not knowable (yes).

And in addition, it is well known that all isn't known about the nature of reality.

It is however not unknowable period, therefore I abstain from making a judgement in either direction, until it is proven.

This is a knowledge based on facts. And not a belief, which wouldn't be.




There is an invisible alien from mars that we can't hear or detect behind you. It's gathering fuel for it's spaceship, in this case the flakes of skin that all humans shed.
Maybe in a parallel universe, and the existence or non-existence of that can't be proven either. Sounds eminently silly, tho', and the odds are most likely a lot worse for it, seeing as how it's very specific :dabs:

EDit: and I really have no preference either way.

Maybe I'd prefer if there was a God, and a horn of plenty, and all manner of awesome stuff, but it doesn't mean that I favour one belief over the other. I know it can't be proven, and therefore I don't believe know that I can't know if either possibility is true, which is not the same thing as knowing that it exists.

[Snee]

So do you believe in god or not?


EDit: @ Dave:

Not really, seeing as how I don't believe in God either.

And this because there's no proof that he exists.

sounds like you made a choice to me

Poor choice of words then, I'da thunk you knew what I meant.

However: I know the possibility exists, but I don't know that's it's true or false.

[vidcc]

I understand fully what you are trying to say, I disagree with it in context. I made the alien from mars thing to make that point. He isn't really there, I made him up. But you have to take the suggestion as plausible (even if remotely so) That is your belief system, you can argue against it all you like but it is.

Why maybe in a parallel universe and not this one?

Anyone can make up anything and base it on "well you can't prove or disprove it" that is what I believe was done with gods. It was made up by man to explain something they don't understand.

Your belief system is that anything that can't be proven one way or the other has a degree of credibility.

[vidcc]

So do you believe in god or not?

Originally Posted by SnnY View Post
EDit: @ Dave:

Not really, seeing as how I don't believe in God either.

And this because there's no proof that he exists.


sounds like you made a choice to me

Poor choice of words then, I'da thunk you knew what I meant.

However: I know the possibility exists, but I don't know that's it's true or false.

Why would I have known what you meant if it differs from what you say?

you made a statement that matches my reason for not believing in god.

If you wish to change that now to "I don't know if god exist" instead of you don't believe I have no problem with that, it's not a big thing and I respect your belief

[Snee]

I guess, in a sense, that all scientific data, which is what I'm trying to say that this is (empirical data, science, astronomy, etc.) has a component of belief in it, in that nothing may be what we think it is, but even so, I don't agree with it being on par with what is traditionally classified as a religion, which is what I think atheism comes close to.

I know that nothing can is proven, because it just can't be proven, it's a constant, the same as what we think the speed of light is today.

And I know enough of the science involved to, in my mind, know what is unprovable, and that nothing is impossible. And if the science changed, it would most likely only prove my point, that the nature of reality isn't well definable beyond a certain point.

Sort of a cornerstone of reality, it's as real as the ground I walk on (although that may not be real either).

As for your martians, the possibility of them existing never ceases to exist, no matter how slim a chance gets, it's still a chance, which I admit can do anyone's head in.

The reason it's more improbable, or at least more likely to happen somewhere entirely else, is because the time (now), and the space involved (this solar system), is a lot smaller than all of what borders on infinity, which you have to take into account when it comes to notions of God.

[Snee]

So do you believe in god or not?



sounds like you made a choice to me

Poor choice of words then, I'da thunk you knew what I meant.

However: I know the possibility exists, but I don't know that's it's true or false.

Why would I have known what you meant if it differs from what you say?

Since I'd defined what I do know earlier in the thread.

Bit of a bastard to read tho', I know, and I'm sorry about that.


you made a statement that matches my reason for not believing in god.

I don't agree with that, but there you go, you believe what you do about it.


If you wish to change that now to "I don't know if god exist" instead of you don't believe I have no problem with that, it's not a big thing and I respect your belief
If you read something of what I've been saying on here off and on now for years (and earlier in this thread than that post, at that), you'd know that I really didn't change anything.

Granted, that was a poor choice of words, but what I was saying, was that I know that each possibility may be true, but that I don't believe or believe in a God the way (you) religious (-ish) people do.

[vidcc]

To save you wasting your time typing the same thing again


I understand fully what you are trying to say, I disagree with it in context. .

I fully understand the concept. That doesn't mean that I agree it is valid to use to defend a belief in the supernatural.

I would like to pin you down though on the not believing in god

there can only be one of three answers

1.you believe
2. you don't believe
3. you are undecided.

My choice is #2.

If you say you don't believe but it's possible that he may exist then the answer is #3. The same goes with if you say you believe but it's possible he doesn't exist.

[Busyman™]

To save you wasting your time typing the same thing again


I understand fully what you are trying to say, I disagree with it in context. .

I fully understand the concept. That doesn't mean that I agree it is valid to use to defend a belief in the supernatural.

I would like to pin you down though on the not believing in god

there can only be one of three answers

1.you believe
2. you don't believe
3. you are undecided.

My choice is #1.

If you say you don't believe but it's possible that he may exist then the answer is #3. The same goes with if you say you believe but it's possible he doesn't exist.

So you believe that God is an impossibility?

[vidcc]

We are typing in between posts





you made a statement that matches my reason for not believing in god.

I don't agree with that, but there you go, you believe what you do about it.
You don't agree that you made a statement that matches my beliefs or you don't agree with the reason for my beliefs.

[vidcc]

To save you wasting your time typing the same thing again



I fully understand the concept. That doesn't mean that I agree it is valid to use to defend a belief in the supernatural.

I would like to pin you down though on the not believing in god

there can only be one of three answers

1.you believe
2. you don't believe
3. you are undecided.

My choice is #1.

If you say you don't believe but it's possible that he may exist then the answer is #3. The same goes with if you say you believe but it's possible he doesn't exist.

So you believe that God is an impossibility? actually i've just noticed my mistake, i choose #2...i don't believe
:frusty:

to answer your question.....yes... although I could accept the theory that god isn't a "supreme being" or other such thing that would respond to worship, but is instead just a word to describe "nature" and the process that created. Even then I would call it nature and not god.

[Snee]

Yes.

I'm open to both possibilities, until such a time that one or the other is disproven, or I expire, whichever comes first (my money's on the latter).

Why isn't it a valid defense for belief in the supernatural, and isn't not equally supportive of your belief, btw?

Not that I want to go through this again or owt, but, why pick one over the other when you don't know? :unsure:

I suppose I know why some people are motivated (believe or go to hell), but why do you believe in what you do, exactly, what prompted it do begin with?

What did you see to make you decide that that was the likelier of the two? :unsure:

[Snee]

We are typing in between posts




I don't agree with that, but there you go, you believe what you do about it.
You don't agree that you made a statement that matches my beliefs or you don't agree with the reason for my beliefs.

I don't think my statement matches your beliefs, because I know the context I posted this within :pinch:

It is, however, almost three in the morning, and my brain feels less than intact for various reasons, both related and unrelated, so what I see as clear as day, might not be to you. Might not be to me later on, either.

[Snee]

So you believe that God is an impossibility? actually i've just noticed my mistake, i choose #2...i don't believe
:frusty:

to answer your question.....yes

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/ehlee/Images/Pictures/nelson.gif

[vidcc]

We are typing in between posts

You don't agree that you made a statement that matches my beliefs or you don't agree with the reason for my beliefs.

I don't think my statement matches your beliefs, because I know the context I posted this within :pinch:


I have never had a problem with people correcting things or putting it in context, but your statement matches my beliefs perfectly, that you didn't mean to say that is a different thing ;)

I don't believe in God.

This because there's no proof that he exists.


And yes the 1&2 are too close together on the keyboard:frusty:

[Snee]

As fun as this has been, I need about a thousand winks, now.

If you get bored, just imagine me saying the opposite of what you think and keep going, and I'll try and fill in the blanks in later on :unsure:

Debating stuff like this is more fun than shouting insults at people anyways :happy:

[Busyman™]

So you believe that God is an impossibility? actually i've just noticed my mistake, i choose #2...i don't believe
:frusty:

to answer your question.....yes... although I could accept the theory that god isn't a "supreme being" or other such thing that would respond to worship, but is instead just a word to describe "nature" and the process that created. Even then I would call it nature and not god.

Indeed I mean leaving worship out of it. Many folk like to bring the Bible and worship into the discussion when it is clearly out of scope.

What you refer to in your last was one thing that crossed my mind when I was younger. The God is literally everything.

My belief in a supreme sentient being started when I looked at how nature worked a certain way. My thought was that there is rule set, however basic it started, that had to be determined.

So when having to toss up what started everything, a sentient being or non sentient matter my conclusion was sentient being.

Now I can't prove it scientifically but so what, it's my belief based on some logic. No one has to prove anything to believe it.

It hasn't been proven OJ killed anyone yet many believe he did it and what was shown was proof enough to those people.

Saying something is and you believe something is are two different things.

[Ava Estelle]

there can only be one of three answers

1.you believe
2. you don't believe
3. you are undecided.
Wrong, there is a fourth ... Neither 1 nor 2 can be proven, therefore I neither believe nor disbelieve. This isn't the same as 3, which admits either 1 or 2 could be right, but that you haven't decided which one.



I'm open to both possibilities, until such a time that one or the other is disproven, or I expire, whichever comes first (my money's on the latter).
This is a contradiction of what you said in an earlier post ...


I know for a fact that nothing can be proven.


I find SnnY's posts quite confusing, an atheist says, I don't believe in God[s], SnnY says ..

.. I don't believe in God either ..

Where is this atheist 'doctrine' you disassociate yourself with?

[bigboab]

Is there a possibility that God was 'invented' because all the other Gods around at the time were about to be disproved as Gods and proven that they were only a tangible part of the Universe? Sun, Moon, Sea Gods etc.
If that was the case then I admire the 'Inventor'.:) What a salesman, 'selling' something that is not tangible.:)

At the moment I dont believe in any religion. I have reached the age where I am keeping my options open.:rolleyes: I do, however, believe in their morals. Religion itself is not to blame for any wrongs done in its name. It the Religious adherents who do stupid things in the name of that religion that are to blame. A bit like; the road does not cause any road accidents. It's only the people and vehicles using the roads that are the cause of accidents. There are very few, exceptions to the above.:whistling

[GepperRankins]

There is an invisible alien from mars that we can't hear or detect behind you. It's gathering fuel for it's spaceship, in this case the flakes of skin that all humans shed.


Maybe in a parallel universe, and the existence or non-existence of that can't be proven either. Sounds eminently silly, tho', and the odds are most likely a lot worse for it, seeing as how it's very specific


i'd say it's more likely, as it's not supernatural

[Snee]

Wrong, there is a fourth ... Neither 1 nor 2 can be proven, therefore I neither believe nor disbelieve. This isn't the same as 3, which admits either 1 or 2 could be right, but that you haven't decided which one.



I'm open to both possibilities, until such a time that one or the other is disproven, or I expire, whichever comes first (my money's on the latter).
This is a contradiction of what you said in an earlier post ...


I know for a fact that nothing can be proven.


I find SnnY's posts quite confusing, an atheist says, I don't believe in God[s], SnnY says ..

.. I don't believe in God either ..

Where is this atheist 'doctrine' you disassociate yourself with?

It was very early in the morning, however, if you'd read all of what I said, instead of the bits you thought made for nice cutouts, you'da' understood what I said.

However, once more for the hard of reading:

I don't don't believe, or believe in God the way JP, Dave, or vid does.

I know that there is a possibility that God exists, but I also know that there is a possibility that one doesn't, this knowledge doesn't equal believing in, or not beliving in God the way a religious person, or an atheist does. I know neither can be proven, and therefore I'm open to the fact that either possibility may be true, or false.

Therefore I don't believe in God, but I also don't "don't believe in God" the way vid does, since what he's saying really is that he believes that God doesn't exist. My not believing doesn't mean the same thing as an atheists believing. (I explained this, tho', and stopped saying that "I don't believe", since that became confusing.)

He believes in something. I don't. In this case. (vid would say I believe in possibilities or sth, which I disagree on, as I say I know that neither possibility can be disproven at this point in time. This is because of there's plenty of empirical evidence that not all is known, and that since it isn't, we don't have the means to know everything, and so on.)

The only reason I didn't go over it and clarify, was because vid had already quoted me, and I'd already made an amendment to clarify the context in which that was posted in a later post.


And dave, no.

The odds for Martians existing here and now would most likely be far worse than the existence of a God somewhere, at some level of existence, somewhere.

As I've been saying, there's a lot to reality that isn't known, and therefore the odds for a God existing, or not existing, can't be determined at all, and until they can, no one can say however it's improbable or not, whereas the Martians we can say something about.

Parallel universes, m-space, eleven dimensions (not the same as parallel dimensions, btw), holographic universe, ever-changing laws of physics, near (from our POV) infinite time, and space, or possibly just infinite.

And at any point in time, or that space, a god, or godlike creature, could exist, or start existing.

As for the martians:

We (think we) know something of Mars, today, in this space, we know that there have been no known observations of martians, we know that skin is mostly just carbon, and that can be found anywhere, as can all of the elements constituting a human body, so there'd not be much of a point in collecting that for fuel, so they most likely wouldn't go here for that, 'cos it'd be insane, and so on.

EDit: And it's also fairly specific, and for each detail: Time, space, purpose, point of origin, etc, it becomes less probable.

[Mr JP Fugley]

anyway, it shouldn't be my job to prove there is no god. it should be your job to prove there is

How does that work then. As I understand it the default position in western society for many years was the belief in a God. It quite possibly still is.

[GepperRankins]

Wrong, there is a fourth ... Neither 1 nor 2 can be proven, therefore I neither believe nor disbelieve. This isn't the same as 3, which admits either 1 or 2 could be right, but that you haven't decided which one.



This is a contradiction of what you said in an earlier post ...


I know for a fact that nothing can be proven.


I find SnnY's posts quite confusing, an atheist says, I don't believe in God[s], SnnY says ..

.. I don't believe in God either ..

Where is this atheist 'doctrine' you disassociate yourself with?

It was very early in the morning, however, if you'd read all of what I said, instead of the bits you thought made for nice cutouts, you'da' understood what I said.

However, once more for the hard of reading:

I don't don't believe, or believe in God the way JP, Dave, or vid does.

I know that there is a possibility that God exists, but I also know that there is a possibility that one doesn't, this knowledge doesn't equal believing in, or not beliving in God the way a religious person, or an atheist does. I know neither can be proven, and therefore I'm open to the fact that either possibility may be true, or false.

Therefore I don't believe in God, but I also don't "don't believe in God" the way vid does, since what he's saying really is that he believes that God doesn't exist. My not believing doesn't mean the same thing as an atheists believing. (I explained this, tho', and stopped saying that "I don't believe", since that became confusing.)

He believes in something. I don't. In this case. (vid would say I believe in possibilities or sth, which I disagree on, as I say I know that neither possibility can be disproven at this point in time. This is because of there's plenty of empirical evidence that not all is known, and that since it isn't, we don't have the means to know everything, and so on.)

The only reason I didn't go over it and clarify, was because vid had already quoted me, and I'd already made an amendment to clarify the context in which that was posted in a later post.


And dave, no.

The odds for Martians existing here and now would most likely be far worse than the existence of a God somewhere, at some level of existence, somewhere.

As I've been saying, there's a lot to reality that isn't known, and therefore the odds for a God existing, or not existing, can't be determined at all, and until they can, no one can say however it's improbable or not, whereas the Martians we can say something about.

Parallel universes, m-space, eleven dimensions (not the same as parallel dimensions, btw), holographic universe, ever-changing laws of physics, near (from our POV) infinite time, and space, or possibly just infinite.

And at any point in time, or that space, a god, or godlike creature, could exist, or start existing.

As for the martians:

We (think we) know something of Mars, today, in this space, we know that there have been no known observations of martians, we know that skin is mostly just carbon, and that can be found anywhere, as can all of the elements constituting a human body, so there'd not be much of a point in collecting that for fuel, so they most likely wouldn't go here for that, 'cos it'd be insane, and so on.

EDit: And it's also fairly specific, and for each detail: Time, space, purpose, point of origin, etc, it becomes less probable.
i understand the whole 10th dimension thing and infinity and shizzle. the point is that even if a godlike creature came to exist in another universe. if it came into our universe it would obey our physics. now an alien with great technology but poor common sense could exist. even if it came from another dimension's planet mars, it breaks no laws here

[Ava Estelle]

OK, SnnY, I'll ask again, seeing as you read and answer only that which suits you.

First off you said that you knew for a FACT that nothing could be proven.

You later said you were open to the possibility of there either being or not being a god.

This is a contradiction, if you know for a FACT that something can't be proven you can't be open to the possibility that it can be.

I also asked what the atheist dogma was you disapproved of, and the reason I asked was because an atheist would say he\she didn't believe in god, as you did. You added the rider that you didn't believe because you had seen no proof, as an atheist would. You call atheism a 'religion' and say you see no difference between the two. But if atheism is a religion, so is agnosticism.

You say you don't believe in anything, but you do, you believe there's a possibility that god exists, and you believe there's a possibility that one doesn't. You just try to word it in such a way as to make you sound superior to atheists.

[GepperRankins]

anyway, it shouldn't be my job to prove there is no god. it should be your job to prove there is

How does that work then. As I understand it the default position in western society for many years was the belief in a God. It quite possibly still is.
the default indoctrination has been a belief in god.

the default position would be not knowing if it weren't for this education. so it should be your job to sway me toward your position of believing, not my job to sway you into unbelieving

[Mr JP Fugley]

i understand the whole 10th dimension thing and infinity and shizzle.

:lol:

[Mr JP Fugley]

OK, SnnY, I'll ask again, seeing as you read and answer only that which suits you.



:lol:

[Mr JP Fugley]

How does that work then. As I understand it the default position in western society for many years was the belief in a God. It quite possibly still is.
the default indoctrination has been a belief in god.

the default position would be not knowing if it weren't for this education. so it should be your job to sway me toward your position of believing, not my job to sway you into unbelieving

I don't think it's either of our job's, either way.

However, here's the good bit. You never, ever get to say "told you so".

[GepperRankins]

i understand the whole 10th dimension thing and infinity and shizzle.

:lol:
:dabs:


ok, would "i'm aware of the theory" work for you?

[Mr JP Fugley]

First off you said that you knew for a FACT that nothing could be proven.

You later said you were open to the possibility of there either being or not being a god.

This is a contradiction, if you know for a FACT that something can't be proven you can't be open to the possibility that it can be.



Do you realise that doesn't actually make sense.

He said it can't be proven.

He said he accepts it might be true, or it might not.

That is entirely consistent, there is no contradiction. Just because something can't be proven, either way does not mean that either state is possible.

[Mr JP Fugley]

:lol:
:dabs:


ok, would "i'm aware of the theory" work for you?

It does seem more likely.

[GepperRankins]

the default indoctrination has been a belief in god.

the default position would be not knowing if it weren't for this education. so it should be your job to sway me toward your position of believing, not my job to sway you into unbelieving

I don't think it's either of our job's, either way.

However, here's the good bit. You never, ever get to say "told you so".
why? because your religion is malleable?

well yeah, you see the creation story isn't wrong it's just a metaphor. what it really means is that god guided evolution

[Mr JP Fugley]

I don't think it's either of our job's, either way.

However, here's the good bit. You never, ever get to say "told you so".
why? because your religion is malleable?

well yeah, you see the creation story isn't wrong it's just a metaphor. what it really means is that god guided evolution

Simpler than that old bean. If you're right, how do you say "told you so".

Unless of course I've jumped the gun and you believe in an after-life, sans a deity.

Not really sure what you meant by the other bit, other than it making sense to me.

[Busyman™]

Is there a possibility that God was 'invented' because all the other Gods around at the time were about to be disproved as Gods and proven that they were only a tangible part of the Universe? Sun, Moon, Sea Gods etc.
If that was the case then I admire the 'Inventor'.:) What a salesman, 'selling' something that is not tangible.:)

At the moment I dont believe in any religion. I have reached the age where I am keeping my options open.:rolleyes: I do, however, believe in their morals. Religion itself is not to blame for any wrongs done in its name. It the Religious adherents who do stupid things in the name of that religion that are to blame. A bit like; the road does not cause any road accidents. It's only the people and vehicles using the roads that are the cause of accidents. There are very few, exceptions to the above.:whistling

We aren't talking about religion though.

[Busyman™]

Wrong, there is a fourth ... Neither 1 nor 2 can be proven, therefore I neither believe nor disbelieve. This isn't the same as 3, which admits either 1 or 2 could be right, but that you haven't decided which one.



This is a contradiction of what you said in an earlier post ...


I know for a fact that nothing can be proven.


I find SnnY's posts quite confusing, an atheist says, I don't believe in God[s], SnnY says ..

.. I don't believe in God either ..

Where is this atheist 'doctrine' you disassociate yourself with?

It was very early in the morning, however, if you'd read all of what I said, instead of the bits you thought made for nice cutouts, you'da' understood what I said.

However, once more for the hard of reading:

I don't don't believe, or believe in God the way JP, Dave, or vid does.

I know that there is a possibility that God exists, but I also know that there is a possibility that one doesn't, this knowledge doesn't equal believing in, or not beliving in God the way a religious person, or an atheist does. I know neither can be proven, and therefore I'm open to the fact that either possibility may be true, or false.

Therefore I don't believe in God, but I also don't "don't believe in God" the way vid does, since what he's saying really is that he believes that God doesn't exist. My not believing doesn't mean the same thing as an atheists believing. (I explained this, tho', and stopped saying that "I don't believe", since that became confusing.)

He believes in something. I don't. In this case. (vid would say I believe in possibilities or sth, which I disagree on, as I say I know that neither possibility can be disproven at this point in time. This is because of there's plenty of empirical evidence that not all is known, and that since it isn't, we don't have the means to know everything, and so on.)

The only reason I didn't go over it and clarify, was because vid had already quoted me, and I'd already made an amendment to clarify the context in which that was posted in a later post.


And dave, no.

The odds for Martians existing here and now would most likely be far worse than the existence of a God somewhere, at some level of existence, somewhere.

As I've been saying, there's a lot to reality that isn't known, and therefore the odds for a God existing, or not existing, can't be determined at all, and until they can, no one can say however it's improbable or not, whereas the Martians we can say something about.

Parallel universes, m-space, eleven dimensions (not the same as parallel dimensions, btw), holographic universe, ever-changing laws of physics, near (from our POV) infinite time, and space, or possibly just infinite.

And at any point in time, or that space, a god, or godlike creature, could exist, or start existing.

As for the martians:

We (think we) know something of Mars, today, in this space, we know that there have been no known observations of martians, we know that skin is mostly just carbon, and that can be found anywhere, as can all of the elements constituting a human body, so there'd not be much of a point in collecting that for fuel, so they most likely wouldn't go here for that, 'cos it'd be insane, and so on.

EDit: And it's also fairly specific, and for each detail: Time, space, purpose, point of origin, etc, it becomes less probable.

You're agnostic.

[Ava Estelle]

Do you realise that doesn't actually make sense.

What you've posted there doesn't make sense, was that a question or a statement? :)

[GepperRankins]

why? because your religion is malleable?

well yeah, you see the creation story isn't wrong it's just a metaphor. what it really means is that god guided evolution

Simpler than that old bean. If you're right, how do you say "told you so".

Unless of course I've jumped the gun and you believe in an after-life, sans a deity.

Not really sure what you meant by the other bit, other than it making sense to me.
for the last 1500 or so years christianity has been repeatedly knocked down because the beliefs contradict facts. skeptics have never been able to say "told you so" because christians keep moving the goal posts.

right now i'm guessing the few things you still believe are; creation of the universe, evolution driven by god (which you wouldn't have, before darwin), an afterlife.

the first of these is because there's no one watertight theory for the creation of the universe.

the second is because you can't accept that humans aren't special.

the third is still widely accepted even though it's impossible. people find it difficult to believe this is just a survival mechanism. there are influences such as drugs and brain damage that can change a personality. sleep deprivation can make us act unlike we normally do. brain damage can make a person forget everything they've ever done. if there is an afterlife we won't remember this one, and because this one can be corrupted by so many things beyond our control it shouldn't effect the next.

[GepperRankins]

Is there a possibility that God was 'invented' because all the other Gods around at the time were about to be disproved as Gods and proven that they were only a tangible part of the Universe? Sun, Moon, Sea Gods etc.
If that was the case then I admire the 'Inventor'.:) What a salesman, 'selling' something that is not tangible.:)

At the moment I dont believe in any religion. I have reached the age where I am keeping my options open.:rolleyes: I do, however, believe in their morals. Religion itself is not to blame for any wrongs done in its name. It the Religious adherents who do stupid things in the name of that religion that are to blame. A bit like; the road does not cause any road accidents. It's only the people and vehicles using the roads that are the cause of accidents. There are very few, exceptions to the above.:whistling

We aren't talking about religion though.
we really are. the reason you believe an uncreated god set the rules is based off of the dogma from christianity and countless religions before it.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Do you realise that doesn't actually make sense.

What you've posted there doesn't make sense, was that a question or a statement? :)

Yes.

[Ava Estelle]

Yes.
Ah, I thought so.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Simpler than that old bean. If you're right, how do you say "told you so".

Unless of course I've jumped the gun and you believe in an after-life, sans a deity.

Not really sure what you meant by the other bit, other than it making sense to me.
for the last 1500 or so years christianity has been repeatedly knocked down because the beliefs contradict facts.

Like physics then

skeptics have never been able to say "told you so" because christians keep moving the goal posts.

That's the FA you're thinking about

right now i'm guessing the few things you still believe are; creation of the universe, evolution driven by god (which you wouldn't have, before darwin), an afterlife.

I wasn't alive before Darwin so I couldn't possibly comment.

the first of these is because there's no one watertight theory for the creation of the universe.

See above re physics. There are theories, however they will probly change as we get better at observing, recording and analyzing

the second is because you can't accept that humans aren't special.

Why should I, we are special

the third is still widely accepted even though it's impossible. people find it difficult to believe this is just a survival mechanism. there are influences such as drugs and brain damage that can change a personality. sleep deprivation can make us act unlike we normally do. brain damage can make a person forget everything they've ever done.

You having alternative explanations doesn't make it impossible. Both can be true.

if there is an afterlife we won't remember this one, and because this one can be corrupted by so many things beyond our control it shouldn't effect the next.

Not a clue what you mean there. Seriously, not a clue.



I hate posting like that.

[vidcc]

Wrong, there is a fourth ... Neither 1 nor 2 can be proven, therefore I neither believe nor disbelieve. This isn't the same as 3, which admits either 1 or 2 could be right, but that you haven't decided which one.

I disagree. Of course it's the same. You haven't decided if you believe one or the other. Saying you neither believe nor disbelieve is just using more words to say you are undecided. That you have no intention to make a choice is neither here nor there


I also disagree with the whole "it can never be proven" thing on this. One day it could be proven that he does exist, it's just we can't prove it now. Who knows, one day we may have that restaurant at the end of the universe. However given the way his existence has been phrased I agree that to the faithful it can never be disproved. I could go around my entire life and point and say "there he isn't", this will not disprove anything because of the way his existence has been phrased. Saying "there he is" and he is there moving in mysterious ways would be proof.
It's a clever trick.

[Ava Estelle]

I disagree. Of course it's the same. You haven't decided if you believe one or the other. Saying you neither believe nor disbelieve is just using more words to say you are undecided. That you have no intention to make a choice is neither here nor there .

You misrepresent me; to say you're undecided is to say there's a choice and you can't make up your mind which to believe.

I neither believe nor disbelieve, it has nothing whatsoever to do with being undecided.

One is saying you can't make up your mind and the other is saying there's nothing to decide.

[vidcc]

God either exists or he doesn't (provable or not) so there is something to decide you believe. This doesn't mean what you believe is correct. If you choose to not believe one way or the other you are undecided. That you can give a reason why you cannot make a choice doesn't make you any less undecided.

[Mr JP Fugley]

That's why we use the word agnostic, which is generally taken to mean "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."

Not an atheist, they believe that God does not exist. Obviously not a believer. Someone who thinks they can't decide.

Please note I said can't because I meant can't, do me a favour and don't read it as won't.

[Ava Estelle]

God either exists or he doesn't (provable or not) so there is something to decide you believe. This doesn't mean what you believe is correct. If you choose to not believe one way or the other you are undecided. That you can give a reason why you cannot make a choice doesn't make you any less undecided.

Again you misrepresent!

Let me make this clear ... I am NOT undecided.

It is NOT a case of not being able to make a choice.

I really don't see why you persist with this.

It's like if my wife comes home with two dresses and asks which one I prefer.

I say I have no preference.

She says, you just can't decide.

I say, it's got nothing to do with it, I have no preference, I like them both equally.

[vidcc]

Ok if you have no preference you are not deciding. Again all you are doing is giving a reason why you can't decide, and if you can't decide you are undecided.

you are undecided if you won't decide. (for whatever reason)

you are undecided if you can't decide. (for whatever reason)

un·de·cid·ed Pronunciation (nd-sdd)
adj.
1. Not yet determined or settled; open:
2. Not having reached a decision; uncommitted:

[Ava Estelle]

Ok if you have no preference you are not deciding. Again all you are doing is giving a reason why you can't decide, and if you can't decide you are undecided.

you are undecided if you won't decide. (for whatever reason)

you are undecided if you can't decide. (for whatever reason)

un·de·cid·ed Pronunciation (nd-sdd)
adj.
1. Not yet determined or settled; open:
2. Not having reached a decision; uncommitted:

I'm finished with this, you're just being a dick.

I really don't need you to tell me how I feel.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Ok if you have no preference you are not deciding. Again all you are doing is giving a reason why you can't decide, and if you can't decide you are undecided.

you are undecided if you won't decide. (for whatever reason)

you are undecided if you can't decide. (for whatever reason)

un·de·cid·ed Pronunciation (nd-sdd)
adj.
1. Not yet determined or settled; open:
2. Not having reached a decision; uncommitted:

I'm finished with this, you're just being a dick.

I really don't need you to tell me how I feel.

What a sore way to lose a semantics argument.

pwnd by a dyslexic merkin, now that's V poor indeed.

[Ava Estelle]

pwnd by a dyslexic merkin, now that's V poor indeed.

Yeah, I know, but it's 5am, 87 degrees, Manchester United won, I've downed a six pack of VB, and the dyslexic merkin would argue that black was white.

Oh, and Robbie 'Chopper' Savage brought down Gilberto Silva, who whacked him, and got sent off! To think United once considered keeping him, what were they thinking!

[vidcc]

Ah, so now it's coming down to insults :rolleyes:

[Mr JP Fugley]

pwnd by a dyslexic merkin, now that's V poor indeed.

... and the dyslexic merkin would argue that black was white.



:lol: Stop it, that's two in the last day

[GepperRankins]

the second is because you can't accept that humans aren't special.

Why should I, we are special

the third is still widely accepted even though it's impossible. people find it difficult to believe this is just a survival mechanism. there are influences such as drugs and brain damage that can change a personality. sleep deprivation can make us act unlike we normally do. brain damage can make a person forget everything they've ever done.

You having alternative explanations doesn't make it impossible. Both can be true.

if there is an afterlife we won't remember this one, and because this one can be corrupted by so many things beyond our control it shouldn't effect the next.

Not a clue what you mean there. Seriously, not a clue.


first off, when did we become special? if you believe in evolution and heaven, do mice and amoebas go to heaven?

as for the rest of what i said. if there was afterlife what does it have to do with this one? we know memory and personality and stuff are governed by hormones and the brain. if a brain is damaged personality and memory are effected.

if i lived a good life then turned into a violent sociopath due to injuries in a car accident. will i be judged on life only up until the accident or what?

[Mr JP Fugley]

the second is because you can't accept that humans aren't special.

Why should I, we are special

the third is still widely accepted even though it's impossible. people find it difficult to believe this is just a survival mechanism. there are influences such as drugs and brain damage that can change a personality. sleep deprivation can make us act unlike we normally do. brain damage can make a person forget everything they've ever done.

You having alternative explanations doesn't make it impossible. Both can be true.

if there is an afterlife we won't remember this one, and because this one can be corrupted by so many things beyond our control it shouldn't effect the next.

Not a clue what you mean there. Seriously, not a clue.


first off, when did we become special? if you believe in evolution and heaven, do mice and amoebas go to heaven?

as for the rest of what i said. if there was afterlife what does it have to do with this one? we know memory and personality and stuff are governed by hormones and the brain. if a brain is damaged personality and memory are effected.

if i lived a good life then turned into a violent sociopath due to injuries in a car accident. will i be judged on life only up until the accident or what?

If you want to equate yourself with an amoeba fill yer boots mate, I'm self aware. Also, please provide me a list of all the great inventions of the animal kingdom, sans man. I'm not talking evolution to adapt to their changing environement, I'm talking actually making stuff, just coz they want to.

Secondly, I don't equate my soul with my brain or the chemicals in my body. You seem to think that we believe the consciousness is basically removed from the brain and goes to live as a wee ghost in the clouds. Other people may, I don't. Please don't ask me to explain in detail what I do believe, I'm not entirely sure myself and I'm certainly not good enough at putting it into written words.

You will be judged appropriately. Christianity (mine) does not teach that everyone is judged in the same way. It's how one lives, but it's also what one is given and what happens during your life that matters. As I understand it it's not a tick list that St Peter checks at the door then decides if you're in or out.

[vidcc]

If you want to equate yourself with an amoeba fill yer boots mate, I'm self aware. Also, please provide me a list of all the great inventions of the animal kingdom, sans man. I'm not talking evolution to adapt to their changing environement, I'm talking actually making stuff, just coz they want to.
I'm not sure that mans inventions are a good test as to being "special".
Obviously we are move advanced in our own habitat.

Although I'm not sure if this counts as "just because they want to", many animals do make use of their surroundings to makes basic tools and one can't deny that birds and spiders make structures, Bees, termites and ants are another example, all without the benefit of the opposable thumb or our large brain. I realise that some is instinct but often it's learned. Many animals are able to figure out complex "puzzles" so we know they have intellect.
Secondly, yes man has achieved many great things, but he has also achieved many bad things. Can we both agree not all inventions would make us special in a good way?
All this aside it doesn't address the question of all life going to "heaven" or just man.



You will be judged appropriately. Christianity (mine) does not teach that everyone is judged in the same way. It's how one lives, but it's also what one is given and what happens during your life that matters. As I understand it it's not a tick list that St Peter checks at the door then decides if you're in or out.
I appreciate that this could another one of those different doctrines according to which "branch" one is a member of but I found this interesting.


It is not necessary as a Christian to perform good works IN ORDER to please God because, first of all, our good deeds are but filthy rags to God (Isaiah 64:6) and, most important, we are made righteous in the eyes of God by the finished work of Jesus on the cross (Rom. 5). This is one of the areas where the cults error. They confuse good works with the forgiveness of sins. They combine the two and teach that God will not accept us if we are not trying to be good. Because they have a wrong view of who Jesus is, they have a wrong view of salvation.
source (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/salvation.htm)

I hadn't heard of the combining the two because if you don't do good deeds bit, but I had heard that it doesn't matter what good deeds you do if you don't accept Christ as your Saviour......Christ is the only way into heaven....(In one religion).

[Mr JP Fugley]

I'm not sure that mans inventions are a good test as to being "special".

I think they are, they separate us from all other animals. I genuinely can't even see how anyone would not think our incredible achievements, in a relatively short period, make us special in all of Earth's history.

Obviously we are move advanced in our own habitat.

Although I'm not sure if this counts as "just because they want to", many animals do make use of their surroundings to makes basic tools and one can't deny that birds and spiders make structures, Bees, termites and ants are another example, all without the benefit of the opposable thumb or our large brain. I realise that some is instinct but often it's learned. Many animals are able to figure out complex "puzzles" so we know they have intellect.

Animals do make use of their environment, that's true. However their use of tools, on the rare occasion it occurs, is minimal. As to complex puzzles, teaching a squirrel to press a few levers to get to a nut really isn't that complex. Particularly when compared to what one can teach the most befuddled dolt of a human being.

Secondly, yes man has achieved many great things, but he has also achieved many bad things. Can we both agree not all inventions would make us special in a good way?

Whether inventions are good or bad, or put to good use or bad, is irrelevant in this context. I agree that man has put his inventiveness to evil uses, however that makes it no less special that he achieved the things



That's another thing which makes us special. We consider that we are capable of good and bad, we are that self-aware. Does anyone think that another animal can be good or bad. Is the Lion killing it's prey and eating it alive, evil. If a man ripped a deer to pieces, but didn't kill it, then started to eat it whilst it was still alive. Would that be considered bad.

Of course it would because we have risen above that, we are special.

[vidcc]

.
Animals do make use of their environment, that's true. However their use of tools, on the rare occasion it occurs, is minimal. As to complex puzzles, teaching a squirrel to press a few levers to get to a nut really isn't that complex. Particularly when compared to what one can teach the most befuddled dolt of a human being.

Who said anything about "teaching" squirrels to press levers, I was talking about them being able to figure things out for themselves. That denotes intelligence. Animals in their everyday life provide solutions to problems. I appreciate the argument here is levels of intelligence but then humans are the ones setting the rules.

My initial point was that there are better ways to show that man is "special" than his inventions and that we are just talking scale.

[Mr JP Fugley]

.
Animals do make use of their environment, that's true. However their use of tools, on the rare occasion it occurs, is minimal. As to complex puzzles, teaching a squirrel to press a few levers to get to a nut really isn't that complex. Particularly when compared to what one can teach the most befuddled dolt of a human being.

Who said anything about "teaching" squirrels to press levers, I was talking about them being able to figure things out for themselves. That denotes intelligence. Animals in their everyday life provide solutions to problems. I appreciate the argument here is levels of intelligence but then humans are the ones setting the rules.

My initial point was that there are better ways to show that man is "special" than his inventions and that we are just talking scale.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was just using that as an example.

What type of "puzzle" were you referring to.

[bigboab]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/bigboab/gorilla.jpg
I think this pic shows one of those rare occasion when animals use intelligence.

[vidcc]

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was just using that as an example.

What type of "puzzle" were you referring to.

It's not the kind of puzzle I questioned it was you saying the squirrel was "taught" to press the lever, when in fact the lever was put there and the squirrel figured it out for himself.

However in nature animals figure out how to reach things that are out of reach, how to open things, how to escape things etc. etc. Granted not all animals.

But as to being special that will always depend on what the measurement is. Personally I think there are things in nature that have their own "specialness"

That's another thing which makes us special. We consider that we are capable of good and bad, we are that self-aware. Does anyone think that another animal can be good or bad.
I think this is a much better example with a few provisos. Perhaps it is rare for animals to know the difference between good and bad, but I am undecided on if it is impossible. First we have to define good and bad. In your example of the lion killing its food is natures method bad?. It may be from a human stance but the human method is rare in nature. It could be said it's a matter of opinion. How many animals kill for pleasure? (even without the ability to know good or bad)
Some animals have complex social systems that we don't fully understand, how do we know that they don't have good/bad rules within those systems, and would the good/bad rules match our own? We don't know everything about nature.


All this aside I note that the point gepper raised was about getting into heaven


first off, when did we become special? if you believe in evolution and heaven, do mice and amoebas go to heaven? Hasn't been answered.

Perhaps he could clarify this for me but even given the previous post It seems to me he was asking from a spiritual stance as to what was special about humans compared to other animals in regards to getting into heaven.
If that is the case our "superiority" would be irrelevant in answering the question.

If this is not what he was asking, ignore this.

[vidcc]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/bigboab/gorilla.jpg
I think this pic shows one of those rare occasion when animals use intelligence. Do you always have to bring our president into it :shifty:

What is he doing? Crossing a river or fishing?

Given enough time will other animals evolve to be as "achieved" as humans? Is it just we are at a different stage?

[bigboab]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/bigboab/gorilla.jpg
I think this pic shows one of those rare occasion when animals use intelligence.:shifty:

What is he doing? Crossing a river or fishing?

Given enough time will other animals evolve to be as "achieved" as humans? Is it just we are at a different stage?

:lol:

Crossing a river. I can think of a few people that would not think of using a stick to keep their balance when doing this.

[Mr JP Fugley]

It's not the kind of puzzle I questioned it was you saying the squirrel was "taught" to press the lever, when in fact the lever was put there and the squirrel figured it out for himself.

However in nature animals figure out how to reach things that are out of reach, how to open things, how to escape things etc. etc. Granted not all animals.

But as to being special that will always depend on what the measurement is. Personally I think there are things in nature that have their own "specialness"

That's another thing which makes us special. We consider that we are capable of good and bad, we are that self-aware. Does anyone think that another animal can be good or bad.
I think this is a much better example with a few provisos. Perhaps it is rare for animals to know the difference between good and bad, but I am undecided on if it is impossible. First we have to define good and bad. In your example of the lion killing its food is natures method bad?. It may be from a human stance but the human method is rare in nature. It could be said it's a matter of opinion. How many animals kill for pleasure? (even without the ability to know good or bad)
Some animals have complex social systems that we don't fully understand, how do we know that they don't have good/bad rules within those systems, and would the good/bad rules match our own? We don't know everything about nature.


All this aside I note that the point gepper raised was about getting into heaven


first off, when did we become special? if you believe in evolution and heaven, do mice and amoebas go to heaven? Hasn't been answered.

Perhaps he could clarify this for me but even given the previous post It seems to me he was asking from a spiritual stance as to what was special about humans compared to other animals in regards to getting into heaven.
If that is the case our "superiority" would be irrelevant in answering the question.

If this is not what he was asking, ignore this.

I said we were special.

He asked "first off, when did we become special?" the question ends there, that's how punctuation works.

I suppose you could argue that my answer was really how we were special, rather than when it happened. However I thought that's what he was really asking.

We are special, in the animal kingdom, in many ways. Our inventiveness is one example. I agree with you that there are others, I just chose that one because it was so blindingly obvious that I didn't see how anyone could deny it.

A monkey uses a stick as a lever, cool. We invented the internal combustion engine. In fact fuck it, here's a claim. We are more inventive than every other animal added together, ever. I think that makes us pretty special.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Given enough time will other animals evolve to be as "achieved" as humans? Is it just we are at a different stage?

They had millions of years before we came along. Probably hundreds of millions.

[vidcc]

He asked "first off, when did we become special?" the question ends there, that's how punctuation works.
Looks like two connected questions to me. As I said perhaps he could clarify it, but that's how I read it and as jpol/paul (or whatever account) always say it's not what you think you say it's how it's read.
If it wasn't meant the way I read it then I am happy with the clarification. Even so the second part was not answered.

[vidcc]

Given enough time will other animals evolve to be as "achieved" as humans? Is it just we are at a different stage?

They had millions of years before we came along. Probably hundreds of millions. Which species are you referring to?

[Mr JP Fugley]

They had millions of years before we came along. Probably hundreds of millions. Which species are you referring to?

You chose, I was talking about all of them.

[Barbarossa]

Given enough time will other animals evolve to be as "achieved" as humans? Is it just we are at a different stage?

No, that's not how it works.

animals evolve to make best use of their environment and the resources available. It is also a very slow process, and so requires a long period of time where their environment is fairly stable.

Now for some reason in prehistory, it became advantageous for a proto-human species to develop a big brain. We can speculate why this was, presumably it allowed them to visualise tools, and work as teams to capture larger prey.

This all took millions of years though. It's hard to comprehend the timescales involved.

The intelligence and self-awareness was basically a by-product of the big brain. As was the ability to adapt to swift changes in environment and climate. Without the big brain, humans would probably have all perished in the last ice age.

We are only here by sheer fluke.

[manker]

Given enough time will other animals evolve to be as "achieved" as humans? Is it just we are at a different stage?

No, that's not how it works.

animals evolve to make best use of their environment and the resources available. It is also a very slow process, and so requires a long period of time where their environment is fairly stable.

Now for some reason in prehistory, it became advantageous for a proto-human species to develop a big brain. We can speculate why this was, presumably it allowed them to visualise tools, and work as teams to capture larger prey.

This all took millions of years though. It's hard to comprehend the timescales involved.

The intelligence and self-awareness was basically a by-product of the big brain. As was the ability to adapt to swift changes in environment and climate. Without the big brain, humans would probably have all perished in the last ice age.

We are only here by sheer fluke.
Nice post, Barbie.

Given the context of this thread, I think it's a good idea to bring up what I believe to be a very important by-product of the big brain.

This is an acute realisation of our own mortality.

I believe that once prehistoric man got his big brain, he became so scared of dying that he invented the afterlife and the first of many gods. He couldn't accept that altho' he was master of his domain, he would still die and exist no more - just like the animals he hunted.

This concept made him feel better about his, ultimately pointless, existence.


I find it weird that altho' we have progressed so much in terms of self-actualisation, charting the world in which we live and the exploration of both outer and inner space, most people in the world still need this security blanket of an afterlife.


I respect the values that religion teaches. I don't think a person will go far wrong if they adhere to the 10 commandments their whole life - that person will be a fine, upstanding human being. I daresay the same is true of all of the main religions, it only goes wrong when scripture is interpreted in a skewed manner to justify nefarious acts.

What I don't have any truck with is magic.

[Ava Estelle]

I don't think a person will go far wrong if they adhere to the 10 commandments their whole life -

Really? I thought you weren't religious .. :whistling

Exodus 20:
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

[manker]

I don't think a person will go far wrong if they adhere to the 10 commandments their whole life -

Really? I thought you weren't religious .. :whistling

Exodus 20:
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.The commandments are just an example I provided of Christian values but I stand by what I said. If a bloke did adhere to them, he'd probably be a decent chap.

It's not a lifestyle choice I'd make but if a person did make it, then I reckon that person would be alright. Bit boring, maybe, but at least he wouldn't be looking to steal from anyone, wouldn't be looking to kill anyone, he wouldn't try to shag my missus, wouldn't lie to me or be jealous of what I have.

He would also do lots of weird stuff like keep Sunday holy but work of a Saturday, but to each his own.

[Barbarossa]

That's the "Ethical Decalogue". The "Ritual Decalogue" is much more fun.


The commandments

To paraphrase,


Worship no other god than Yahweh: Make no covenant with the inhabitants of other lands to which you go, do not intermarry with them, and destroy their places of worship.
Do not cast idols.
Observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days in the month of Abib.
Sacrifice firstborn male animals to Yahweh. The firstborn of a donkey may be redeemed; redeem firstborn sons.
Do no work or even kindle a fire on the seventh day. Anyone who does so will be put to death.
Observe the Feast of First Fruits and the Feast of Ingathering: All males are therefore to appear before Yahweh three times each year.
Do not mix sacrificial blood with leavened bread.
Do not let the fat of offerings remain until the morning.
Bring the choicest first fruits of the harvest to the Temple of Yahweh.
Do not cook a goat in its mother's milk.

[lynx]

Do not cook a goat in its mother's milk.Jamie Oliver's got a lot to answer for.

[vidcc]

Given enough time will other animals evolve to be as "achieved" as humans? Is it just we are at a different stage?

No, that's not how it works.
I know how evolution works.

animals evolve to make best use of their environment and the resources available. It is also a very slow process, and so requires a long period of time where their environment is fairly stable.

Now for some reason in prehistory, it became advantageous for a proto-human species to develop a big brain. We can speculate why this was, presumably it allowed them to visualise tools, and work as teams to capture larger prey. Well already animals use tools and work in groups to catch larger prey


This all took millions of years though. It's hard to comprehend the timescales involved.

The intelligence and self-awareness was basically a by-product of the big brain. As was the ability to adapt to swift changes in environment and climate. Without the big brain, humans would probably have all perished in the last ice age.

We are only here by sheer fluke.

So what is to say that other animals will not "need" to evolve larger brains?
Having the larger brain is only part of it also, look at dolphins. Their physical predicament prevents them from using screwdrivers.
So given enough time it's very possible that other species could catch up with man.

[Barbarossa]

No, that's not how it works.
I know how evolution works.

So you say, but you're making it sound like the goal of evolution is intelligence, whereas in actually fact it is simply about survival.

Humans are not the pinnacle of evolution, in fact in the long term we may even be classified as an evolutionary failure, once we've succeeded in destroying our own habitat, and ultimately ourselves.

[vidcc]

I know how evolution works.

So you say, but you're making it sound like the goal of evolution is intelligence, whereas in actually fact it is simply about survival.
So what would stop other animals needing a larger "intelligence capacity" to survive? Man could have survived without the advances in intelligence he has today.
However allow me to clarify my point then, because that is not what I was saying.


Originally Posted by vidcc
Given enough time will other animals evolve to be as "achieved" as humans? Is it just we are at a different stage?
I said other animals, not all animals
There was a picture of an ape using a tool to balance (could use other animals as examples). A rudimentary act of course, but every journey begins with a first step so to speak. The brain and "Intelligence" would be but one part. It may evolve it may not.

Humans are not the pinnacle of evolution, in fact in the long term we may even be classified as an evolutionary failure, once we've succeeded in destroying our own habitat, and ultimately ourselves. I agree with you 100% there (at the risk of somehow denying humans are special)

[Barbarossa]

Theoretically, there is nothing to stop another species developing intelligence and self awareness, and the ability to invent their own religions...

In fact, I read somewhere that originally there were many species of ape-like creatures who evolved at the same time as homo sapiens, and in the same way. We just happened to be very good at killing off the competition, and eventually wiped all the others out. (or assimilated them, this is unclear)

In practice, the chances of another species doing it now are billions to one.

As JPaul said, life has been around on Earth for nearly 4 billion years, and as far as we know, it's only in the last 2 million years or so that we've been around, and probably only in the last 10000 years or so that we've learned to shape our environment to suit us better.

This is a mere eye-blink in the history of the Earth.

Also, now that we're on the scene, over 6 billion of us and increasing, other species have very little opportunity to make an impression.

Large brains are an incredible resource-hog. Alot of energy needs to be spent in maintaining them. Maybe it actually is the only way for some other species to survive the influence of humans on the planet. Whether they will be given the opportunity to do so is unlikely.

[vidcc]

So basically you agree it could happen but you think it unlikely.

I think the odds are more 50/50 myself. Ok they haven't developed yet, but all things grow at a different pace. Man himself has been able to alter genetics faster than nature. Any advance in that direction could be delayed by man because of his destructive nature, but I believe he will not prevent it. Nature will keep trying and time favors nature.
My stance takes in infinite time from this point on, the amount of time that's passed so far isn't really important IMO. It's a kind of "tortoise and the hare" approach.


Originally Posted by Barbarossa
Humans are not the pinnacle of evolution, in fact in the long term we may even be classified as an evolutionary failure, once we've succeeded in destroying our own habitat, and ultimately ourselves.I still think this is the best point on the entire subject. Added to this any other species that develops "intelligence" may do so in a different way to than we perceive it to be.

[thewizeard]

What we call the big bang was only "God" having a little flatulence.

Time is a different matter and is the internal energy flow of the all encompassing Being. It's an internal process, similar to what we experience and call, thought.

[Mr JP Fugley]

So basically you agree it could happen but you think it unlikely.

I think the odds are more 50/50 myself. Ok they haven't developed yet, but all things grow at a different pace. Man himself has been able to alter genetics faster than nature. Any advance in that direction could be delayed by man because of his destructive nature, but I believe he will not prevent it. Nature will keep trying and time favors nature.
My stance takes in infinite time from this point on, the amount of time that's passed so far isn't really important IMO. It's a kind of "tortoise and the hare" approach.


It is of course possible that other animals will develop a similar intelligence to ourselves, given enough species and enough time. However the point is they haven't. Not even close.

They may also evolve away from their basic instincts and become more self determining. They may find an evolutionary reason to have some system of morality. Who knows.

Point is we have these things and we, as a species are special. I'm not making a value judgement here, saying that we are better, worse or whatever. Just that we are, without question, special.

[ilw]

So basically you agree it could happen but you think it unlikely.

I think the odds are more 50/50 myself. Ok they haven't developed yet, but all things grow at a different pace. Man himself has been able to alter genetics faster than nature. Any advance in that direction could be delayed by man because of his destructive nature, but I believe he will not prevent it. Nature will keep trying and time favors nature.
My stance takes in infinite time from this point on, the amount of time that's passed so far isn't really important IMO. It's a kind of "tortoise and the hare" approach.


i think you're a bit overconfident with that 'haven't developed yet' there could very well have been other creatures approximately as smart as us, in fact i'd put the odds on that at 50/50 personally

[Mr JP Fugley]

So basically you agree it could happen but you think it unlikely.

I think the odds are more 50/50 myself. Ok they haven't developed yet, but all things grow at a different pace. Man himself has been able to alter genetics faster than nature. Any advance in that direction could be delayed by man because of his destructive nature, but I believe he will not prevent it. Nature will keep trying and time favors nature.
My stance takes in infinite time from this point on, the amount of time that's passed so far isn't really important IMO. It's a kind of "tortoise and the hare" approach.


i think you're a bit overconfident with that 'haven't developed yet' there could very well have been other creatures approximately as smart as us, in fact i'd put the odds on that at 50/50 personally

:h4r5h:

[vidcc]

i think you're a bit overconfident with that 'haven't developed yet' there could very well have been other creatures approximately as smart as us, in fact i'd put the odds on that at 50/50 personally
A good point which I hadn't taken into account in this thread. And I should be ashamed as a fan of the hitchhikers guide:( It's entirely possible that other animals are as smart or smarter and we are not smart enough to realise it.:shifty: I had a hard enough time suggesting that other animals have any intelligence at all.

Can we all agree then that humans are special, even if we disagree on certain aspects of what is so special about them.

Can we also try to agree that other animals are special in other ways and on other levels.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Can we also try to agree that other animals are special in other ways and on other levels.

NP, so long as you are willing to be more specific.

It's a bit nebulous just now.

[ilw]

i think you're a bit overconfident with that 'haven't developed yet' there could very well have been other creatures approximately as smart as us, in fact i'd put the odds on that at 50/50 personally
A good point which I hadn't taken into account in this thread. And I should be ashamed as a fan of the hitchhikers guide:( It's entirely possible that other animals are as smart or smarter and we are not smart enough to realise it.:shifty: I had a hard enough time suggesting that other animals have any intelligence at all.

Can we all agree then that humans are special, even if we disagree on certain aspects of what is so special about them.

Can we also try to agree that other animals are special in other ways and on other levels.

wasn't really what i meant, i was thinking along the lines of if an asteroid hit tomorrow and killed us all, the next intelligent species that came along (assuming a gap of several million years) might very well think they were the first intelligent species as there would be little evidence.

Thats the extreme scenario,but it may very well be, that there have been other very smart creatures in the past, but for whatever reason brains didn't give them the evolutionary edge that it apparently gave us. I remember reading somewhere that homo sapiens very almost died out during the ice age (better hunting due to brains vs the extra energy demand and child birth problems) and if that had happened the next intelligent species would have been in a similar position to us now in thinking they were the first

edit: homo sapiens or cro magnons in ice age? can't be bothered to check

[Mr JP Fugley]

wasn't really what i meant, i was thinking along the lines of if an asteroid hit tomorrow and killed us all, the next intelligent species that came along (assuming a gap of several million years) might very well think they were the first intelligent species as there would be little evidence.

Thats the extreme scenario,but it may very well be, that there have been other very smart creatures in the past, but for whatever reason brains didn't give them the evolutionary edge that it apparently gave us.

Obviously I'm not going to say that didn't happen. However without any evidence that is did happen it's at best conjecture. Indeed it's far from certain that another species would evolve the large brain.

As I understand it it's not just the size of the brain which is important. It's how much of the capacity is needed to run the body. Higher level stuff comes from the extra capacity. So we have a brain capacity way larger than what is needed to actually keep the body ticking over. Doing the breathing and stuff.

[Busyman™]

A good point which I hadn't taken into account in this thread. And I should be ashamed as a fan of the hitchhikers guide:( It's entirely possible that other animals are as smart or smarter and we are not smart enough to realise it.:shifty: I had a hard enough time suggesting that other animals have any intelligence at all.

Can we all agree then that humans are special, even if we disagree on certain aspects of what is so special about them.

Can we also try to agree that other animals are special in other ways and on other levels.

wasn't really what i meant, i was thinking along the lines of if an asteroid hit tomorrow and killed us all, the next intelligent species that came along (assuming a gap of several million years) might very well think they were the first intelligent species as there would be little evidence.

Or perhaps they wouldn't have the capacity to think along those lines at all....

[ilw]

neanderthals were supposed to be fairly intelligent and technically they were a different species

[Ava Estelle]

neanderthals were supposed to be fairly intelligent and technically they were a different species

Based on a 2001 Oxford University study, some commentators speculated that Neanderthals had red hair, and that some red-headed and freckled humans today share some genetic heritage with Neanderthals.

The highest proportion of redheads is found in Scotland where 13% of the population has red hair. :whistling

[bigboab]

The 'red heads' stopped the mighty Roman legions in their tracks.:rolleyes: That is why, up till about a hundred years ago we were unique. Just wait till we catch up on this new sport called football. We will show you what's what.:lol:

[lynx]

The 'red heads' stopped the mighty Roman legions in their tracks.:rolleyes: That is why, up till about a hundred years ago we were unique. Just wait till we catch up on this new sport called football. We will show you what's what.:lol:
Meanwhile, you can just keep playing that game where you hit a ball with a stick and lose it down a hole.

There's a game for neanderthal's if I ever saw one.:whistling

[Barbarossa]

snooker? :blink:

[bigboab]

A wonder who invented that game. Along with a few more. Incidentally I dont play golf anymore. Why should I pay £500 a year to get less hits at the ball than everybody else.

Ava - Most of the red heads in Scotland originated in Ireland.:rolleyes:

[bigboab]

snooker? :blink:

:lol::lol:

[Ava Estelle]

Just wait till we catch up on this new sport called football. We will show you what's what.:lol:

After the Football Association was formed, the rules were still undecided. Scotland played a skillful, passing game, the English played a rough, kicking each other game. When the first match was played between the two countries, the English players were impressed with the Scottish way of playing, and wanted it adopted into the rules. The Scottish, on the other hand, liked the English way better, and wanted those rules adopted. The result was a mix of the two, where you could trip the other player up, and barge players, including the goalkeeper, shoulder to shoulder.

[manker]

snooker? :blink:

:lol::lol:
I thought it was snooker too.

I think the Scotch are much better, on a world scale, at snooker than golf :idunno:

[bigboab]

:lol::lol:
I thought it was snooker too.

I think the Scotch are much better, on a world scale, at snooker than golf :idunno:

Snooker was 'invented' by British Officers stationed in India. It was derived from Billiards. As such I dont think there is such a thing as a Snooker table, it is a Billiard table. Then again..:rolleyes:

[Chip Monk]

:lol::lol:
I thought it was snooker too.

I think the Scotch are much better, on a world scale, at snooker than golf :idunno:

Indeed. Currently Scotland have the World's number 1 and 3.

[vidcc]

gratuitous youtube

0DtP4ovja3s

I can't explain why I find this funny, but I do :unsure:

[Busyman™]

gratuitous youtube

0DtP4ovja3s

I can't explain why I find this funny, but I do :unsure:
:glag:

Ya damnnnn right! Shut yo mouth!

[MagicNakor]

I can't explain why I find this funny, but I do :unsure:

Because it is.

:shuriken:

[Snee]

Wrong, there is a fourth ... Neither 1 nor 2 can be proven, therefore I neither believe nor disbelieve. This isn't the same as 3, which admits either 1 or 2 could be right, but that you haven't decided which one.



This is a contradiction of what you said in an earlier post ...




I find SnnY's posts quite confusing, an atheist says, I don't believe in God[s], SnnY says ..

.. I don't believe in God either ..

Where is this atheist 'doctrine' you disassociate yourself with?

It was very early in the morning, however, if you'd read all of what I said, instead of the bits you thought made for nice cutouts, you'da' understood what I said.

However, once more for the hard of reading:

I don't don't believe, or believe in God the way JP, Dave, or vid does.

I know that there is a possibility that God exists, but I also know that there is a possibility that one doesn't, this knowledge doesn't equal believing in, or not beliving in God the way a religious person, or an atheist does. I know neither can be proven, and therefore I'm open to the fact that either possibility may be true, or false.

Therefore I don't believe in God, but I also don't "don't believe in God" the way vid does, since what he's saying really is that he believes that God doesn't exist. My not believing doesn't mean the same thing as an atheists believing. (I explained this, tho', and stopped saying that "I don't believe", since that became confusing.)

He believes in something. I don't. In this case. (vid would say I believe in possibilities or sth, which I disagree on, as I say I know that neither possibility can be disproven at this point in time. This is because of there's plenty of empirical evidence that not all is known, and that since it isn't, we don't have the means to know everything, and so on.)

The only reason I didn't go over it and clarify, was because vid had already quoted me, and I'd already made an amendment to clarify the context in which that was posted in a later post.


And dave, no.

The odds for Martians existing here and now would most likely be far worse than the existence of a God somewhere, at some level of existence, somewhere.

As I've been saying, there's a lot to reality that isn't known, and therefore the odds for a God existing, or not existing, can't be determined at all, and until they can, no one can say however it's improbable or not, whereas the Martians we can say something about.

Parallel universes, m-space, eleven dimensions (not the same as parallel dimensions, btw), holographic universe, ever-changing laws of physics, near (from our POV) infinite time, and space, or possibly just infinite.

And at any point in time, or that space, a god, or godlike creature, could exist, or start existing.

As for the martians:

We (think we) know something of Mars, today, in this space, we know that there have been no known observations of martians, we know that skin is mostly just carbon, and that can be found anywhere, as can all of the elements constituting a human body, so there'd not be much of a point in collecting that for fuel, so they most likely wouldn't go here for that, 'cos it'd be insane, and so on.

EDit: And it's also fairly specific, and for each detail: Time, space, purpose, point of origin, etc, it becomes less probable.

You're agnostic.

Yep, I am.

And Billy: What JP said.

[Snee]

i understand the whole 10th dimension thing and infinity and shizzle. the point is that even if a godlike creature came to exist in another universe. if it came into our universe it would obey our physics. now an alien with great technology but poor common sense could exist. even if it came from another dimension's planet mars, it breaks no laws here

No mang, as far as I understand it, there's a possibility, given the nature of the universe, and so forth, that such an entity could stand outside our universe or current time (if the laws of physics vary with time), looking in. Thus its existence wouldn't be restricted to our current physical laws, although its actions would be, if it was to affect us directly, now.

---

Also, two more things for whomever it may concern:

*What people don't understand is often classified as magic, or something supernatural, looking back in history. And, as I know we don't know all there is to know yet, it's entirely possible for something that seems unreal now, to become fact later on.

*And two, until something is falsified, the possibility for it being true exists, although it may be somewhat determinable how good the odds for it being true are. And again, knowing that a possibillity exists does not equal "just" believing in it.

So Billy, I wasn't phrasing it to look superior, I was illustrating a dichotomy between knowing and merely believing.

It's strange that you don't see the distinction between the two.

[Ava Estelle]

And Billy: What JP said.

When?