The circle is complete.
As ever nigel joining in is a shortcut to the lounge.
:D :P :lol:
Printable View
The circle is complete.
As ever nigel joining in is a shortcut to the lounge.
:D :P :lol:
I am sorry I cant take part in this thread because I do not have up to date speakers.
You can get some at speakers corner.
I assume it's woofers you need.
:blink:
I cant find the park :D
fugley - haven't seen you about for a while - are you well - lost your voice perhaps ?Quote:
Originally posted by fugley@16 August 2003 - 18:52
:blink:
JP I thought FUGLEY had disappeared too. I was working on a Braille monitor for him. So its back to the drawing board.
hey wtf u stole this logo from me dude not kewl i made it and stole itQuote:
Originally posted by Spindulik@15 August 2003 - 06:05
Some people need an "invisible guy" to keep them stright. In the meantime, I'll continue on as a good person with good moral values without the aid of a "security blanket".
ffrom 1 of my other post
THIS 1
|===============================================|
|= plzzz ppl dont post anything that doesnt relate to my "subject" =|
|===============================================|
i know and this 1 time some gurl in my skewl had a cross with her and i told her whatever and shes all ew look its gona burn u i was like yea..what eveerQuote:
Originally posted by Assultsniper@15 August 2003 - 09:57
I am an Atheist too but at least Im not illiterate, I dont know why but if you say that you're an atheist people look at you like you've just commited a crime!
any wayz im not "illiterate" dont even know what it means but im not :)
and it best not to go blabberen ur beliefs or non beleifs about this kinda stuff 2 ur friends cause they start 2 act wierdOz
??? what u meanQuote:
Originally posted by RGX@15 August 2003 - 10:05
Why? Because we all have opinions, yours is no more important than anyone elses, despite what your mom might have told you
and learn how to spell "ex" rather than "X"
This is one of the few forums out there that still amazes me with their maturity and put-downs :D
keep it up
Atheistic orQuote:
Originally posted by insanebassman@15 August 2003 - 11:39
Ok, first, I was able to follow some of the flow in ADD's post... second.. are you:
Atheistic or
Adeistic?
Atheist means anti-religion
Adeist means anti God
The two are not the same. I beleive in pourposful evolution as well as random mutation in nature. I think there is a higher power beyond the physical, but can not prove it. Stephen Hawking, likely the most intelligent human in contemporary existance, believes there is a god. He found god in the numbers. The universe is far too directed for just Chaos to have produced the results we see today. Read his books to clarify as my limited mental capabilities are not up to the task of explaining it.
And please, learn to use proper sentence struture, punctuation and capitalization. Spelling is optional as I suck at that.
Adeistic? .....well im a lil bit a both but more of the 1st one
and ur the kinda mind im looking for to chat about this stuff cause u R fucken way smarter cause u read those books
anywayz
i also belive in darwens theory of evolution the random mutation in nature
because if scientist cant proove it then we cant asume anything
like my friend told me hes seen some strange things but then he say he belives in god how could he believe in god just because he said he saw some thing like a spirit what if its something else seing things and knowing things are different things
anywayz when a scientist prooves that there is a god im gona SHIT in my panziez
and read my um.. signature i think it makes some sense but dont ever let ppl make u belive in anything!!
Atheist is from greek (theos - god), atheos means no god, atheist is one who believes there is no god.Quote:
Originally posted by lynx+15 August 2003 - 12:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 15 August 2003 - 12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-insanebassman@15 August 2003 - 20:39
Ok, first, I was able to follow some of the flow in ADD's post... second.. are you:
Atheistic or
Adeistic?
Atheist means anti-religion
Adeist means anti God
The two are not the same. I beleive in pourposful evolution as well as random mutation in nature. I think there is a higher power beyond the physical, but can not prove it. Stephen Hawking, likely the most intelligent human in contemporary existance, believes there is a god. He found god in the numbers. The universe is far too directed for just Chaos to have produced the results we see today. Read his books to clarify as my limited mental capabilities are not up to the task of explaining it.
And please, learn to use proper sentence struture, punctuation and capitalization. Spelling is optional as I suck at that.
Adeist, if it even exists as a word (it isn't in my dictionary), would be a mixture of latin and greek, but the deus part would still mean god, and presumably adeus would mean no god.
There is absolutely no reason why the universe could not operate perfectly well under chaos - this is in fact the primary scientific belief.
You seem to confuse religious belief with scientific belief, there is no reason why the two cannot co-exist side by side, unless you feel constrained to believe the bible verbatim.
Why not consider this as a hypothesis:
God made the universe to be a self sustaining, freely developing entity.
Consider how much more complex that would be rather than to have created a universe which he is constantly having to control, and therefore how much more magnificant a creation it is. Why limit the capabilities of your god?
I am an atheist, but that doesn't mean I can't think and hypothesise about what a god would be like if one existed. [/b][/quote]
yup yup yup cause if there were such a being that could C ALL hear ALL and do [SIZE=3]ALL
how the fuck could he focus ALL this :blink: in his head or what ever it is to do such things
Atheist is from greek (theos - god), atheos means no god, atheist is one who believes there is no god.Quote:
Originally posted by lynx+15 August 2003 - 12:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 15 August 2003 - 12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-insanebassman@15 August 2003 - 20:39
Ok, first, I was able to follow some of the flow in ADD's post... second.. are you:
Atheistic or
Adeistic?
Atheist means anti-religion
Adeist means anti God
The two are not the same. I beleive in pourposful evolution as well as random mutation in nature. I think there is a higher power beyond the physical, but can not prove it. Stephen Hawking, likely the most intelligent human in contemporary existance, believes there is a god. He found god in the numbers. The universe is far too directed for just Chaos to have produced the results we see today. Read his books to clarify as my limited mental capabilities are not up to the task of explaining it.
And please, learn to use proper sentence struture, punctuation and capitalization. Spelling is optional as I suck at that.
Adeist, if it even exists as a word (it isn't in my dictionary), would be a mixture of latin and greek, but the deus part would still mean god, and presumably adeus would mean no god.
There is absolutely no reason why the universe could not operate perfectly well under chaos - this is in fact the primary scientific belief.
You seem to confuse religious belief with scientific belief, there is no reason why the two cannot co-exist side by side, unless you feel constrained to believe the bible verbatim.
Why not consider this as a hypothesis:
God made the universe to be a self sustaining, freely developing entity.
Consider how much more complex that would be rather than to have created a universe which he is constantly having to control, and therefore how much more magnificant a creation it is. Why limit the capabilities of your god?
I am an atheist, but that doesn't mean I can't think and hypothesise about what a god would be like if one existed. [/b][/quote]
yup yup yup cause if there were such a being that could C ALL hear ALL and do [SIZE=3]ALL
how the fuck could he focus ALL this :blink: in his head or what ever it is to do such things
2 words "RADIOSHACK"Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@16 August 2003 - 09:51
You can get some at speakers corner.
I assume it's woofers you need.
lol
I meant that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, their own beleifs.
Ive given up from explaining this, work it out yourself
2 words "RADIOSHACK"Quote:
Originally posted by i_have_a.d.d.+16 August 2003 - 19:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (i_have_a.d.d. @ 16 August 2003 - 19:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@16 August 2003 - 09:51
You can get some at speakers corner.
I assume it's woofers you need.
lol [/b][/quote]
THAT'S ONE WORD.
:D
I wasnt sure
A logical answer for this is no one knows for sure if there really is a god. Some people do believe some don't.
I'm sure.
There isn't
From my old forum, in response to a post there (for the parts that don't make sense). It is in response to Lynx, but also another poster who wondered why people disliked atheists.
I don't get you athiests.
You state that religions are societal delusions created to give the believers a sense of comfort. Life is hard, believe what I say and you will ultimately receive eternal rewards. Faith is belief without proof.
On the otherhand, Atheism is a faith of disbelief. Without proof, you aver that God does not exist. How can one deny (to declare untrue) the existence of God without proof? What is your criterion? A gut feeling, a lack of satisfaction from the provided religions. Whatever, at some point you must deny the existence of God without proof or evidence, which is the definition of faith.
Now, if I had to chose one over the other, I would go for the pain killer. What would motivate one to have the faith of Athiesm. Sounds like someone who is rather angry at the world. One who would rather draw the ire of others, over being ignored. (Most who claim to be Atheists are actually just rebellious teenagers looking to shock people with their defiance.)
Are you sure your not an agnostic? Agnostics question the existence of God in the absence of material proof. They do not have to rely on some intangible thing such as faith.
I believe, as you do, that religions are painkillers and I do not accept them at face value. How can one be right and thousands of others wrong? This becomes more tricky when one contradicts another.
It seems that those who believe, and those who deny, both must rely on faith. I prefer to hope there is something, treat others with dignity and respect, and enjoy my life, as I'm not expecting anything.
Virtually all the ancient Greeks and Romans believed there were many gods.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@16 August 2003 - 20:00
How can one be right and thousands of others wrong?
Does that mean they were right? :blink:
Virtually all the ancient Greeks and Romans believed there were many gods.Quote:
Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 02:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 02:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@16 August 2003 - 20:00
How can one be right and thousands of others wrong?
Does that mean they were right? :blink:[/b][/quote]
A religion is a "belief system" and any particular religion can have as many Gods as it wants.
So, how can "one religion" be correct, and the others incorrect.
And "yes", the ancient Greeks and Roman were "spot on". My parents Gaea and Cronos told me so. <_<
Atheism is not a faith of anything. It's the absence of faith in the existence of gods.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@17 August 2003 - 04:00
Atheism is a faith of disbelief.
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion (such as "gods exist"). It's not necessary to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place.Quote:
Without proof, you aver that God does not exist. How can one deny (to declare untrue) the existence of God without proof?
Religions may require "belief systems" and "gods", but one need not be "religious" to have beliefs. <_<Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@16 August 2003 - 21:03
A religion is a "belief system" and any particular religion can have as many Gods as it wants.
So, how can "one religion" be correct, and the others incorrect.
And "yes", the ancient Greeks and Roman were "spot on". My parents Gaea and Cronos told me so. <_<
If you believe in god... then he exists... in your mind.
(Say hello to Aphrodite for me.... I just love her! http://www.klboardimages.ath.cx/styl...s/1/icon12.gif)
Atheism is not a faith of anything. It's the absence of faith in the existence of gods.Quote:
Originally posted by Petri+17 August 2003 - 03:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Petri @ 17 August 2003 - 03:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@17 August 2003 - 04:00
Atheism is a faith of disbelief.
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion (such as "gods exist"). It's not necessary to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place.[/b][/quote]Quote:
Without proof, you aver that God does not exist. How can one deny (to declare untrue) the existence of God without proof?
Athiesm: (from Merriam-Webster)
A: a disbelief in the existence of deity B : the doctrine that there is no deity
So a denial of God without proof- aka "faith"(belief without proof)
We exist, how did we come to be?
One faction asserts that we were created by a divine being, they label him "God". How do they know, faith.
The other side asserts that God does not exist and did not create us. How do they know this, faith. They offer no explanation as to how we got here. Evolution is effective at describing modification over time, driven by geographic separation and climatic parameters, but it really just fudges the whole creation thing.
An agnostic feels that religions are manmade panaceas, and searches for answers in threads such as these.
Religions may require "belief systems" and "gods", but one need not be "religious" to have beliefs. <_<Quote:
Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 03:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 03:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@16 August 2003 - 21:03
A religion is a "belief system" and any particular religion can have as many Gods as it wants.
So, how can "one religion" be correct, and the others incorrect.
And "yes", the ancient Greeks and Roman were "spot on". My parents Gaea and Cronos told me so. <_<
If you believe in god... then he exists... in your mind.
(Say hello to Aphrodite for me.... I just love her! http://www.klboardimages.ath.cx/styl...s/1/icon12.gif)[/b][/quote]
Would that not be your "religion".
If you believe it alone, you are delusional.
If you can convince your buddies, you are a cult.
If you can promise eternal happiness and convince the world, you are a religion.
If your beliefs don't require a divine creator, then you live by philosophy, not religion.
I showed Aphrodite your picture and she was totally turned on by your "Cooter" from the "Dukes of Hazard" look, and went to find her "daisy dukes". Maybe you will get lucky tonight?
Ask your parents. <_<Quote:
We exist, how did we come to be?
They don't know... they believe... there is a difference. :PQuote:
One faction asserts that we were created by a divine being, they label him "God". How do they know, faith.
The theory of evolution was intended to explain how things change... not how they came to be. That's like saying the bible fudges the whole baseball thing. :rolleyes:Quote:
Evolution is effective at describing modification over time, driven by geographic separation and climatic parameters, but it really just fudges the whole creation thing.
Quote:
Originally posted by titey@17 August 2003 - 03:29
They don't know... they believe... there is a difference. :PQuote:
One faction asserts that we were created by a divine being, they label him "God". How do they know, faith.
Yes, exactly my point. Faith is belief without proof. My point all along has been that both Athiesm and Organized Religions must both ultimately rely on the same thing, faith.
The theory of evolution was intended to explain how things change... not how they came to be. That's like saying the bible fudges the whole baseball thing. :rolleyes:Quote:
Evolution is effective at describing modification over time, driven by geographic separation and climatic parameters, but it really just fudges the whole creation thing.
The above was posted to anticipate the "duh, we are here because of evolution" I expected from Petri. Trust me, I have gotten that response before in other threads, so I thought I would be pro-active.
hello, your hat is backwards
hello
No, the hat's ok.... it's my head that's backwards. http://www.ml20.nowinbeta.org/smilies/kid.gif
Quote:
Originally posted by "Atheism"+ Wikipedia.org--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Atheism" @ Wikipedia.org)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The term atheism is formed of the Greek prefix a- (meaning "without" or "not") and the Greek-derived theism, meaning a belief in a god (or gods). The literal meaning of the term is therefore without a belief in a god or gods, making any person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods an atheist -- including both those who believe that no god exists and those who do not take a position on the existence of god(s).[/b]
Most atheists do not claim that gods don't exist. They just don't believe that they do.
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
The other side asserts that God does not exist and did not create us. How do they know this, faith. They offer no explanation as to how we got here.[/quote]
Ever heard of the "Big Bang" theory? Anyway, "an invisible man in the sky made us" is hardly what I would call an explanation...
Ever heard of the "Big Bang" theory? Anyway, "an invisible man in the sky made us" is hardly what I would call an explanation... [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Petri+16 August 2003 - 22:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Petri @ 16 August 2003 - 22:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Most atheists do not claim that gods don't exist. They just don't believe that they do.Quote:
Originally posted by "Atheism"@ Wikipedia.org
The term atheism is formed of the Greek prefix a- (meaning "without" or "not") and the Greek-derived theism, meaning a belief in a god (or gods). The literal meaning of the term is therefore without a belief in a god or gods, making any person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods an atheist -- including both those who believe that no god exists and those who do not take a position on the existence of god(s).
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
The other side asserts that God does not exist and did not create us. How do they know this, faith. They offer no explanation as to how we got here.
And why would god be human? or a man? or a personalety at all! doesent make sence!
From Wikipedia
"The term atheism is formed of the Greek prefix a- (meaning "without" or "not") and the Greek-derived theism, meaning a belief in a god (or gods). The literal meaning of the term is therefore without a belief in a god or gods, making any person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods an atheist -- including both those who believe that no god exists and those who do not take a position on the existence of god(s).
However, in common usage, "atheism" is the denial of the existence of god(s), or the position that the concept of god is nonsensical or meaningless. And the term agnosticism (coined by T.H. Huxley in 1869) is the claim that the existence of god(s) cannot be decided, either because there is not a preponderence of evidence, or because the question is inherently undecidable, and that therefore one must suspend judgement, possibly indefinitely"
So, from your source you omitted the next line. Why did you do this? You are, therefore, charged with intellectual dishonesty and dismissed.
As for the "big bang theory", a theory is defined as "an unproven assumption". Yes, I have heard of it, BTW. Like most of us, I read "A brief history of time" and Hawkings explanation of the creation of matter and the universe.
:blink: So then belief in god is a theory then?Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@16 August 2003 - 22:41
a theory is defined "an unproven assumption".
So it should be called the "Catholic Theory" or the "Christian Theory" - no? ;)
*sigh*
No, I wasn't repeating myself to try and prove a point... it's just that this board HATES ME!!! <_<
These are what we call "technical moments".Quote:
Originally posted by titey@17 August 2003 - 04:46
No, I wasn't repeating myself to try and prove a point... it's just that this board HATES ME!!! <_<
No,(in regard to the first post, not the quoted one) because a theory admits that the proposer is "talking out of his ass" and working on proof. The Catholic church hardly takes such a stance.
May I be of assistance in correcting your craniocerivcal mal-alignment. I'm really good with torque!
Just because the Catholic church won't admit they're talking out their asses doesn't mean they're not. (That is when they're not violating someone else's ass.)Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@16 August 2003 - 22:51
No,(in regard to the first post, not the quoted one) because a theory admits that the proposer is "talking out of his ass" and working on proof. The Catholic church hardly takes such a stance.
According to your definition of a theory:belief in god would then be a theory... since there is no proof... only an assumption... regardless of whether you wish to call that assumption "faith".Quote:
a theory is defined "an unproven assumption".
Thank you titey! Is this thread closed now or is this gonna go on all night?Quote:
Originally posted by titey@17 August 2003 - 04:00
Just because the Catholic church won't admit they're talking out their asses doesn't mean they're not. (That is when they're not violating someone else's ass.)
Because I have some valuable information on this subject. :rolleyes:
Just because the Catholic church won't admit they're talking out their asses doesn't mean they're not. (That is when they're not violating someone else's ass.)Quote:
Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 05:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 05:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@16 August 2003 - 22:51
No,(in regard to the first post, not the quoted one) because a theory admits that the proposer is "talking out of his ass" and working on proof. The Catholic church hardly takes such a stance.
According to your definition of a theory:belief in god would then be a theory... since there is no proof... only an assumption... regardless of whether you wish to call that assumption "faith". [/b][/quote]Quote:
a theory is defined "an unproven assumption".
Yes, most devout religious fanatics, interchangablely refer to their beliefs as "assumptions".
Titey, I can't keep up, my endurance is fading. I have three DVDs to watch: Blair Witch Project, The Fog, and 13th Warrior. I may have to concede this discussion to you, drink beer and stare blankly at my TV.
Because the "common usage" of the word is inaccurate.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@17 August 2003 - 06:41
So, from your source you omitted the next line. Why did you do this?
Well, you wanted an explanation and that's the best science can give you at the moment.Quote:
As for the "big bang theory", a theory is defined "an unproven assumption".
No concession necessary... we can always continue when your schedule is less demanding. :PQuote:
Originally posted by hobbes@16 August 2003 - 23:15
Titey, I can't keep up, my endurance is fading. I have three DVDs to watch: Blair Witch Project, The Fog, and 13th Warrior. I may have to concede this discussion to you, drink beer and stare blankly at my TV.