Printable View
You May be a Agnostic you may be an Athiest...........But when we orgasm we are
all believers ;)
By the way most of this is You say Potato I say Tomatoe
semantics when talking about the difference between Agnostics
and Atheist.
You either believe or you dont.
I dont.
Peace brotherdoobie
You been taking spelling lessons from Dan Quayle, doob? http://www.piczonline.com/client/titey/LOL.gifQuote:
Originally posted by brotherdoobie@17 August 2003 - 03:45
You say Potato I say Tomatoe
Peace brotherdoobie
<_< I was trying to produce the effect of pronouncing the words differntly
If I were Dan Quale I would of spelled Potato Potate :P
Peace brotherdoobie
I didn't say you were DQ.... just that the spelling was reminiscent. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally posted by brotherdoobie+17 August 2003 - 09:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (brotherdoobie @ 17 August 2003 - 09:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> semantics when talking about the difference between Agnostics
and Atheist. [/b]
There is a big difference between atheism and agnosticism.
Atheist: one who denies the existence of God.
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
In other words, an agnostic is a fence sitter, one who is not going to believe one way or the other without proof.
You could certainly not accuse an atheist of being a fence sitter.
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
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.[/quote]Was there any need for that, it implies (perhaps subconciously) that people who do not concur with your views do not treat others with dignity and respect. But I doubt that you write anything without carefully considering the implications. :(
Hundreds (thousands ?) of years of persecution of non-believers have resulted in an unwillingness to challenge the 'authority' of religions, it is only relatively recently that there has been a freedom to speak openly against the unthinking dogma's imposed on the masses. The result is that the number of 'ardent' followers is rapidly diminishing.
There are still many who, if asked, state a preference to follow the norm of believing in some form of deity, but in practice the majority do nothing to follow up that stated belief. Remove those who profess belief for the sake of appearances and you are left with a realtively small core, what most would call a cult. The rest are merely the result of brainwashing from an age at which they know no better.
If children were exposed to the same sort of high pressure salesmanship with regards to junk fairies, elves, aliens from mars, etc there would rightly be an uproar, yet we here nothing when they are exposed to a constant litany exhorting them to believe in deities. Stop teaching bunkum to children and the religions will die out in less than a century.
Good point lynx. As an historical source of bloodshed, persecution, paranoia, ethnic atrocities, moral hypocricy and all out war, religion is tough to beat. I have a few quotes from a very interesting book that I'd like to share with all of you. The book is called " The Harlot By The Side Of The Road ", and I type at a blistering, snail-like pace so I'll start pecking away at it now. Hopefully, some of you will still be members here when I finally click the ' add reply ' button. :P
The theories on how the big bang came about are even more fascinating than the big bang itself.
My big difficulty with a purely scientific explanation is that it always leaves the question - but what made that happen ..... ad infinitum.
Prof Hawking, who people often quote when attempting to put forward a scientific explanation for life, the universe and everything, believes there is a God.
As an aside why do we find it so easy to accept his big bang theory, which let's be honest few of us really understand. But if we see a sign which says wet paint, we have to touch it to check.
Why is it that Stephen Hawking is often quoted when trying to convince others of the existence of God. So he has an IQ of about 160.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/whocares3.jpg
I personally do not believe the big bang theory in it's present form.
By this theory, the universe is about 15 billion years old, and has been expanding ever since.
So lets imagine conditions 14,999,999,999 years ago. The universe would have been tiny, and consequently the gravity would have been enormous. So enormous that time itself would have been affected (as in a black hole). The consequence of this is that the previous 'year' (in our current terms) would have taken billions of years to pass in terms then present. So you could go back several more billion years, and guess what, time would be even more distorted.
Since this inevitably leads to the conclusion that the universe is infintely old, it has always existed and consequently creation theories are not necessary.
What drivel.
The most intense activity directly after the big bang was in the first few fractions of a second, not year.
You post sir is preposterous and it does you no credit.
Go to your room and come down when you have thought about what you have done.
But me no buts - just go.
But couldn't the same be said of "god"?Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 06:17
My big difficulty with a purely scientific explanation is that it always leaves the question - but what made that happen ..... ad infinitum.
If nothing existed before "god" created it.... who created "god"?
But couldn't the same be said of "god"?Quote:
Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 12:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@17 August 2003 - 06:17
My big difficulty with a purely scientific explanation is that it always leaves the question - but what made that happen ..... ad infinitum.
If nothing existed before "god" created it.... who created "god"? [/b][/quote]
No - omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence cover all of that.
There cant be a nearly God, that's how infinite works, it's an all or nothing deal.
God always was, always is and always will be. No rules, no limits.
God, to put it simply is God.
Whew ! Here's the first quote.......regarding the origins of the Bible; ( sorry if this doesn't exactly fit into the appropriate spot in this thread )
" For some true believers today, the Bible is the Revealed Word Of God and nothing else need be said about its authorship.......
......A century of modern Bible scholarship suggests otherwise. Today, the Bible is regarded by most scholars as a patchwork
of legend, lore and law that was created over a thousand years or so in distant antiquity by countless unknown chroniclers,
lawgivers and storytellers, collected, compiled and corrected by generation after generation of editors ( or ' redactors ' ).............
Thus, even if we regard what we find in the bible as divinely inspired, the words themselves were spoken aloud by human voices
and set down in writing by human hands............some of the stories are so old that no one remembers when or why they were
first told; some are borrowed from the faith and folklore of travelers and sojourners, allies and enemies, invaders and conquerors;
some are concocted by bards whose motives are not much different from those of Homer or Shakespeare, Mark Twain or
Rudyard Kipling. Over the centuries, the storytelling traditions were expanded upon by priests and scribes whose goal was to
formalize the stories and make them fit into the official faith of ancient Israel. "
From THE HARLOT BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. By Jonathan Kirsch
Pish! :PQuote:
Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 06:58
God always was, always is and always will be. No rules, no limits.
God, to put it simply is God.
Then by that "logic" lynx can merely say that the universe is "god" and his supposition is suddenly fact.
Pish! :PQuote:
Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 13:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 13:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@17 August 2003 - 06:58
God always was, always is and always will be. No rules, no limits.
God, to put it simply is God.
[/b][/quote]
Try telling him that.
Oh you will - when your 3 score and 10 is done.
Oh and pish posh to you. See you in heav .... oh never mind
Pfffft... I'll croak long before I reach 70 JP... but I doubt very much I'll be a talkative corpse.Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 07:12
Oh you will - when your 3 score and 10 is done.
Oh and pish posh to you. See you in heav .... oh never mind
And I'm sure I'll burn once I'm gone... I'll be cremated. :P
Pfffft... I'll croak long before I reach 70 JP... but I doubt very much I'll be a talkative corpse.Quote:
Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 13:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 13:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@17 August 2003 - 07:12
Oh you will - when your 3 score and 10 is done.
Oh and pish posh to you. See you in heav .... oh never mind
And I'm sure I'll burn once I'm gone... I'll be cremated. :P [/b][/quote]
See you don't have the choice mate.
Eternal life isn't an opt in, opt out thing.
Unless your particular heaven is to not exist anymore, perhaps He arranges that as well.
Never looked at it that way before - thanks for that.
Life isn't eternal JP... rather it's regenerative.Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 07:20
See you don't have the choice mate.
Eternal life isn't an opt in, opt out thing.
Perhaps some of the molecules from my ashes will someday be a part of another creature, plant or person... that's as near as I will come to living once I die.
You are quoting from the irrational big bang theory when you refer so the first few seconds.Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 12:56
What drivel.
The most intense activity directly after the big bang was in the first few fractions of a second, not year.
You post sir is preposterous and it does you no credit.
Go to your room and come down when you have thought about what you have done.
But me no buts - just go.
But as I have explained, I reject that theory, because time would have been so expanded due to the immense gravitational effects that those 'first few seconds' would have had to have happened billions of years before.
Assuming a constant rate of expansion, at one year old (in our current time frame), the universe would have to fit into a volume approximately 3*10^^-28 of it's current size. The nearest star (if they existed at that time), excluding the sun, would have been 2500 kilometers away. The sun would have been 9 metres away.
Before you dismiss my post as drivel, perhaps you should research some of Einstein's thinking on the matter, much of which was originally also dismissed as nonsense, but which is now being re-examined as perhaps having more merit than at first realised.
Perhaps it is you who should go to your room, or better still a library, and do a little research on the subject before pronouncing on other people's theories.
No need to get upset.
Obviously I am not aware of your qualifications on the matter. So apologies for any offence caused. I thought it was apparent I was being light hearted, my mistake if it wasn't.
However I do know that this subject is way above my head, so I have to rely on people who appear to understand it.
Given that I do know that this is very much the theory favoured by the majority of the scientific community I tend to accept it. Until it is, almost inevitably, proven to be incorrect and replaced.
No point in my reading more about it, I wouldn't understand anyway.
i think we should all consult our local priest on this topic.
Go ahead... if you're age 13 or younger, I'm sure he'll set you on his lap and teach you a whole lot. :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Spider_dude@17 August 2003 - 09:16
i think we should all consult our local priest on this topic.
Gotcha! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 14:43
No need to get upset.
Obviously I am not aware of your qualifications on the matter. So apologies for any offence caused. I thought it was apparent I was being light hearted, my mistake if it wasn't.
However I do know that this subject is way above my head, so I have to rely on people who appear to understand it.
Given that I do know that this is very much the theory favoured by the majority of the scientific community I tend to accept it. Until it is, almost inevitably, proven to be incorrect and replaced.
No point in my reading more about it, I wouldn't understand anyway.
:lol: <_< :P :lol:
titey there you go getting your topics mixed up againQuote:
titey Posted on 17 August 2003 - 14:18
QUOTE (Spider_dude @ 17 August 2003 - 09:16)
i think we should all consult our local priest on this topic.
Go ahead... if you're age 13 or younger, I'm sure he'll set you on his lap and teach you a whole lot.
create a ride
http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=62470
i was chief alterboy. i got to watch.
I think 'bar steward' is the phrase you were looking for. :PQuote:
Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 15:23
:lol: <_< :P :lol:
I assume that Catholic bashing is considered acceptable here.
Does the same go for members who are Muslim, Jewish etc, or is it just us who are fair game.
yeah who likes the jews? brebners just been sent off.
You have to be careful how you phrase those things when the kids are around.Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 15:32
I assume that Catholic bashing is considered acceptable here.
Does the same go for members who are Muslim, Jewish etc, or is it just us who are fair game.
@ Spider_dude: I suggest you make a note of the rules:
3. There will be no racial, ethnic, or gender based insults or any other discriminatory comments or content.
You have to be careful how you phrase those things when the kids are around.Quote:
Originally posted by lynx+17 August 2003 - 15:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 17 August 2003 - 15:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@17 August 2003 - 15:32
I assume that Catholic bashing is considered acceptable here.
Does the same go for members who are Muslim, Jewish etc, or is it just us who are fair game.
@ Spider_dude: I suggest you make a note of the rules:
3. There will be no racial, ethnic, or gender based insults or any other discriminatory comments or content. [/b][/quote]
I did try to.
However titey's last comment was distinctly anti-catholic.
I doubt very much if they would have been considered acceptable had they ben aimed at various other groups.
I tend to think that in light of recent revelations, titey's posts are more topical comment.
Was there any need for that, it implies (perhaps subconciously) that people who do not concur with your views do not treat others with dignity and respect. But I doubt that you write anything without carefully considering the implications. :(Quote:
Originally posted by lynx+17 August 2003 - 11:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 17 August 2003 - 11:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There is a big difference between atheism and agnosticism.Quote:
Originally posted by brotherdoobie@17 August 2003 - 09:45
semantics when talking about the difference between Agnostics
and Atheist.
Atheist: one who denies the existence of God.
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
In other words, an agnostic is a fence sitter, one who is not going to believe one way or the other without proof.
You could certainly not accuse an atheist of being a fence sitter.
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
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.
Absolutely there was need for that. Being Agnostic, I have no Bible or scripture to define my rules of conduct (morals), so I have to decide for myself, what is right and wrong. I was defining my approach to life.
As you accuse me of implying this subconciously, I will accuse you of reading things into my post based on your personal "spin".
I have enough trouble taking my own foot out of my mouth, don't make me take your shoe out of my mouth as well. ;)
[/b][/quote]
Agree with first part. Most people who declare themselves to be Atheists are actually Agnostic.
Atheist can be literally translated "without God", but the meaning used in practice (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, etc) is defined as one who believes that God does not exist. Not all words are used in practice as their literal translations.
THAT'S ONE WORD. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul+16 August 2003 - 14:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 16 August 2003 - 14:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by i_have_a.d.d.@16 August 2003 - 19:32
<!--QuoteBegin-JPaul
Quote:
@16 August 2003 - 09:51
You can get some at speakers corner.
I assume it's woofers you need.
2 words "RADIOSHACK"
lol
NO SHIT its A joke u lamo
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 - 19:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Petri @ 16 August 2003 - 19:00)</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.
:P :P :P LOL :blink: invisible :blink: :D :D :lol: :lol:
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+16 August 2003 - 20:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 16 August 2003 - 20:00)</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".
i knew something was kinda um.... shity
lol ASS
Was there any need for that, it implies (perhaps subconciously) that people who do not concur with your views do not treat others with dignity and respect. But I doubt that you write anything without carefully considering the implications. :(Quote:
Originally posted by lynx+17 August 2003 - 02:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 17 August 2003 - 02:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There is a big difference between atheism and agnosticism.Quote:
Originally posted by brotherdoobie@17 August 2003 - 09:45
semantics when talking about the difference between Agnostics
and Atheist.
Atheist: one who denies the existence of God.
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
In other words, an agnostic is a fence sitter, one who is not going to believe one way or the other without proof.
You could certainly not accuse an atheist of being a fence sitter.
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
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.
Hundreds (thousands ?) of years of persecution of non-believers have resulted in an unwillingness to challenge the 'authority' of religions, it is only relatively recently that there has been a freedom to speak openly against the unthinking dogma's imposed on the masses. The result is that the number of 'ardent' followers is rapidly diminishing.
There are still many who, if asked, state a preference to follow the norm of believing in some form of deity, but in practice the majority do nothing to follow up that stated belief. Remove those who profess belief for the sake of appearances and you are left with a realtively small core, what most would call a cult. The rest are merely the result of brainwashing from an age at which they know no better.
If children were exposed to the same sort of high pressure salesmanship with regards to junk fairies, elves, aliens from mars, etc there would rightly be an uproar, yet we here nothing when they are exposed to a constant litany exhorting them to believe in deities. Stop teaching bunkum to children and the religions will die out in less than a century. [/b][/quote]
yes thats why ppl R so dam into there beliefes cause they think that the parents would never Ly to them
dam those brain washing sons Of guns :blink:
""wet paint, we have to touch it to check""Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 03:17
The theories on how the big bang came about are even more fascinating than the big bang itself.
My big difficulty with a purely scientific explanation is that it always leaves the question - but what made that happen ..... ad infinitum.
Prof Hawking, who people often quote when attempting to put forward a scientific explanation for life, the universe and everything, believes there is a God.
As an aside why do we find it so easy to accept his big bang theory, which let's be honest few of us really understand. But if we see a sign which says wet paint, we have to touch it to check.
this prooves some ppl R to curios to be normal
i do believe in God(not a big church goer though), but if you think about, something had to come from nothing. How did the first gas and matter to start the big bang to happen? How did the bacteria(life) come to be? I believe in evoultion and the big bang happened but not without cause.
Agree with that one. :ph34r:Quote:
theprisoner Posted on 18 August 2003 - 13:44
i do believe in God(not a big church goer though), but if you think about, something had to come from nothing. How did the first gas and matter to start the big bang to happen? How did the bacteria(life) come to be? I believe in evoultion and the big bang happened but not without cause.
So who made god ?
And why ?