G.o.d (((((((((athiest))))))))))

[brotherdoobie]

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

[titey]

Originally posted by brotherdoobie@17 August 2003 - 03:45
You say Potato I say Tomatoe

Peace brotherdoobie

You been taking spelling lessons from Dan Quayle, doob?

[brotherdoobie]

I was trying to produce the effect of pronouncing the words differntly
If I were Dan Quale I would of spelled Potato Potate

Peace brotherdoobie

[titey]

I didn't say you were DQ.... just that the spelling was reminiscent.

[lynx]

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 &#064; 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&#39;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 &#39;authority&#39; of religions, it is only relatively recently that there has been a freedom to speak openly against the unthinking dogma&#39;s imposed on the masses. The result is that the number of &#39;ardent&#39; 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.

[Riddler]

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&#39;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&#39;ll start pecking away at it now. Hopefully, some of you will still be members here when I finally click the &#39; add reply &#39; button.

[J'Pol]

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&#39;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.

[lynx]

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.


I personally do not believe the big bang theory in it&#39;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 &#39;year&#39; (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.

[J'Pol]

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.

[titey]

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.

But couldn&#39;t the same be said of "god"?

If nothing existed before "god" created it.... who created "god"?