God

[LSD]

Vote!

[Forward Union]

No! there is no god
yay first one to vote. :rolleyes:

[violencia.Proletariat]

Of course not, and how does that piece of graffiti go, "even if god existed he'd have to be suppressed" :lol:

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Poll
Is there a "God"?

No there isn't.

[RedAnarchist]

I'm an Agnostic, but I see little possibility of there actually being a god, so I voted "dunno". Even so, he/she/it/they won't stop the revolution, and he/she/it/they won't stop me living as I please.

[More Fire for the People]

‘No.’ While the existence of God is unknowable, the same could be said about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. Of course, if God existed it would be necessary to abolish him.

[Jazzratt]

I don't know, I don't really care because His existance is entirely moot If he does exist he isn't doing much with his existance and thus doesn't affect us, if he doesn't exist well it's even easier. I tend to do everything as if there was no God, after all 'God' isn't stopping me from doing it.

[CCCPneubauten]

A short and sweet NO

[which doctor]

I highly doubt it, but if there is a god it isn't one that has been represented by any religion thus far.

[which doctor]

I highly doubt it, but if there is a god it isn't one that has been represented by any religion thus far.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 22 2006, 07:01 PM
I highly doubt it, but if there is a god it isn't one that has been represented by any religion thus far.
I doubt you have enough knowledge of religions to even state that opinion sir.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 22 2006, 07:01 PM
I highly doubt it, but if there is a god it isn't one that has been represented by any religion thus far.
I doubt you have enough knowledge of religions to even state that opinion sir.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Despite thousands of years of looking, no evidence whatsoever. The Abrahamic god cannot exist because of it's self-contradictory nature.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:36 PM
Despite thousands of years of looking, no evidence whatsoever. The Abrahamic god cannot exist because of it's self-contradictory nature.
Yes and that is the only religion in the world. :wacko:

[apathy maybe]

What is "God"? All the gods I've heard of could not exist.

However, that is not to say that a 'God' couldn't exist. But I find the prospect unlikely and more to the point it doesn't matter anyway.

[apathy maybe]

What is "God"? All the gods I've heard of could not exist.

However, that is not to say that a 'God' couldn't exist. But I find the prospect unlikely and more to the point it doesn't matter anyway.

[apathy maybe]

What is "God"? All the gods I've heard of could not exist.

However, that is not to say that a 'God' couldn't exist. But I find the prospect unlikely and more to the point it doesn't matter anyway.

[Cult of Reason]

I am pretty sure that a little green goblin who is omnipotent over all coffee drinks in the world does not exist, so why would God exist?

No.

[Cult of Reason]

I am pretty sure that a little green goblin who is omnipotent over all coffee drinks in the world does not exist, so why would God exist?

No.

[Cult of Reason]

I am pretty sure that a little green goblin who is omnipotent over all coffee drinks in the world does not exist, so why would God exist?

No.

[RaiseYourVoice]

I dont believe in any higher power. any more i gotta add, i was raised christian but i never really "felt the presence of god" i was told to feel :P

[RaiseYourVoice]

I dont believe in any higher power. any more i gotta add, i was raised christian but i never really "felt the presence of god" i was told to feel :P

[RaiseYourVoice]

I dont believe in any higher power. any more i gotta add, i was raised christian but i never really "felt the presence of god" i was told to feel :P

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 23 2006, 05:31 AM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 23 2006, 05:31 AM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 08:36 PM
Despite thousands of years of looking, no evidence whatsoever. The Abrahamic god cannot exist because of it's self-contradictory nature.
Yes and that is the only religion in the world. :wacko: [/b]
Well show me evidence of the existance of any other god from any other religion. Go on.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 23 2006, 05:31 AM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 23 2006, 05:31 AM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 08:36 PM
Despite thousands of years of looking, no evidence whatsoever. The Abrahamic god cannot exist because of it's self-contradictory nature.
Yes and that is the only religion in the world. :wacko: [/b]
Well show me evidence of the existance of any other god from any other religion. Go on.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 23 2006, 05:31 AM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 23 2006, 05:31 AM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 08:36 PM
Despite thousands of years of looking, no evidence whatsoever. The Abrahamic god cannot exist because of it's self-contradictory nature.
Yes and that is the only religion in the world. :wacko: [/b]
Well show me evidence of the existance of any other god from any other religion. Go on.

[FriedFrog]

No. The God concept doesn't make sense.

[FriedFrog]

No. The God concept doesn't make sense.

[FriedFrog]

No. The God concept doesn't make sense.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:28 AM
No. The God concept doesn't make sense.
Whats the concept of God?

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:28 AM
No. The God concept doesn't make sense.
Whats the concept of God?

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:28 AM
No. The God concept doesn't make sense.
Whats the concept of God?

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 23 2006, 10:37 AM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 23 2006, 10:37 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 10:28 AM
No. The God concept doesn't make sense.
Whats the concept of God? [/b]
A supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient being.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 23 2006, 10:37 AM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 23 2006, 10:37 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 10:28 AM
No. The God concept doesn't make sense.
Whats the concept of God? [/b]
A supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient being.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 23 2006, 10:37 AM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 23 2006, 10:37 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 10:28 AM
No. The God concept doesn't make sense.
Whats the concept of God? [/b]
A supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient being.

[RedAnarchist]

How can you have free will if God is always around and able to see what you are doing all the time? Would a naughty school pupil be naughty in front of a teacher who saw everything he/she did?

[RedAnarchist]

How can you have free will if God is always around and able to see what you are doing all the time? Would a naughty school pupil be naughty in front of a teacher who saw everything he/she did?

[RedAnarchist]

How can you have free will if God is always around and able to see what you are doing all the time? Would a naughty school pupil be naughty in front of a teacher who saw everything he/she did?

[Comrade J]

Philosophers like St Augustine and Irenaeus have thought of ideas that say evil and free-will can exist alongside God, but it's still all a load of crap. A definite 'No' from me for this poll.
Technically speaking, nobody knows if God exists, so we should all be voting the third option... but it's incredibly unlikely and utterly illogical that God exists.

[Comrade J]

Philosophers like St Augustine and Irenaeus have thought of ideas that say evil and free-will can exist alongside God, but it's still all a load of crap. A definite 'No' from me for this poll.
Technically speaking, nobody knows if God exists, so we should all be voting the third option... but it's incredibly unlikely and utterly illogical that God exists.

[Comrade J]

Philosophers like St Augustine and Irenaeus have thought of ideas that say evil and free-will can exist alongside God, but it's still all a load of crap. A definite 'No' from me for this poll.
Technically speaking, nobody knows if God exists, so we should all be voting the third option... but it's incredibly unlikely and utterly illogical that God exists.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 23 2006, 03:37 PM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 23 2006, 03:37 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 10:28 AM
No. The God concept doesn't make sense.
Whats the concept of God? [/b]
I'm still waiting for proof of the existence of non-Abrahamic deities, you know.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 23 2006, 03:37 PM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 23 2006, 03:37 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 10:28 AM
No. The God concept doesn't make sense.
Whats the concept of God? [/b]
I'm still waiting for proof of the existence of non-Abrahamic deities, you know.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 23 2006, 03:37 PM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 23 2006, 03:37 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 10:28 AM
No. The God concept doesn't make sense.
Whats the concept of God? [/b]
I'm still waiting for proof of the existence of non-Abrahamic deities, you know.

[Donnie]

The reason why I'm an atheist is because I believe we go to the same place as we came from before birth which is 'nowhere'.

If there was a god we would have been concious of the god because a higher power would have placed a god idea within our head.

Unfortunatly our behavoir and idea's are shaped externally to ourselves and are not born.

All babies are atheists.

[Donnie]

The reason why I'm an atheist is because I believe we go to the same place as we came from before birth which is 'nowhere'.

If there was a god we would have been concious of the god because a higher power would have placed a god idea within our head.

Unfortunatly our behavoir and idea's are shaped externally to ourselves and are not born.

All babies are atheists.

[Donnie]

The reason why I'm an atheist is because I believe we go to the same place as we came from before birth which is 'nowhere'.

If there was a god we would have been concious of the god because a higher power would have placed a god idea within our head.

Unfortunatly our behavoir and idea's are shaped externally to ourselves and are not born.

All babies are atheists.

[Noah]

Well show me evidence of the existance of any other god from any other religion. Go on.


I'm still waiting for proof of the existence of non-Abrahamic deities, you know.

Mandaeanism, the last gnostic religion left on the earth believes in a different God.

The Abrahamic God is known as 'Ptahil' who is evil because he created matter but the 'Lord Of Light' is the God they worship.

I was born into the Middle-Eastern gnostic religion (is very hermetic and has been under constand persecution), it's interesting to read nothing but bullshit though. Beautiful though, they've got their own religious langauage (a form of Aramaic) and art. Nothing more than a primitive arty thing..

[Noah]

Well show me evidence of the existance of any other god from any other religion. Go on.


I'm still waiting for proof of the existence of non-Abrahamic deities, you know.

Mandaeanism, the last gnostic religion left on the earth believes in a different God.

The Abrahamic God is known as 'Ptahil' who is evil because he created matter but the 'Lord Of Light' is the God they worship.

I was born into the Middle-Eastern gnostic religion (is very hermetic and has been under constand persecution), it's interesting to read nothing but bullshit though. Beautiful though, they've got their own religious langauage (a form of Aramaic) and art. Nothing more than a primitive arty thing..

[Noah]

Well show me evidence of the existance of any other god from any other religion. Go on.


I'm still waiting for proof of the existence of non-Abrahamic deities, you know.

Mandaeanism, the last gnostic religion left on the earth believes in a different God.

The Abrahamic God is known as 'Ptahil' who is evil because he created matter but the 'Lord Of Light' is the God they worship.

I was born into the Middle-Eastern gnostic religion (is very hermetic and has been under constand persecution), it's interesting to read nothing but bullshit though. Beautiful though, they've got their own religious langauage (a form of Aramaic) and art. Nothing more than a primitive arty thing..

[Comrade Don]

This is the thing I find one of the most annoying things ever, Sure their are alot of Atheists as well as Religious people, But why even debate it? I mean its very possible that there is a God and it is very possible that there is not a God , So why waste your breathe on something that you can not possibly prove?

No matter what moral religious person can say, They still do not know for sure if there is a God, Sure it would explain alot of things but the reality is that how could God create himself?

With that said, Atheism is just as narrow minded, For several reasons.

1} The universe did not create itself nor was it always there, There is a beginning and a end to everything.

2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God, If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

There is so much that makes no sense, that its completely idiotic to even try and debate it, My theory is to just wait and see, Hell if there is no God then who cares, You wont be around anymore you will be dead.

If there is a God , Then everyone on this board is invited to my Toga party, BYOB of course, Cause we will be partying with the big guy..... Mao! lol.

End statement is this: Stop wasting your life trying to prove something that is not provable and enjoy the life you have cause it may be you last.

[Comrade Don]

This is the thing I find one of the most annoying things ever, Sure their are alot of Atheists as well as Religious people, But why even debate it? I mean its very possible that there is a God and it is very possible that there is not a God , So why waste your breathe on something that you can not possibly prove?

No matter what moral religious person can say, They still do not know for sure if there is a God, Sure it would explain alot of things but the reality is that how could God create himself?

With that said, Atheism is just as narrow minded, For several reasons.

1} The universe did not create itself nor was it always there, There is a beginning and a end to everything.

2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God, If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

There is so much that makes no sense, that its completely idiotic to even try and debate it, My theory is to just wait and see, Hell if there is no God then who cares, You wont be around anymore you will be dead.

If there is a God , Then everyone on this board is invited to my Toga party, BYOB of course, Cause we will be partying with the big guy..... Mao! lol.

End statement is this: Stop wasting your life trying to prove something that is not provable and enjoy the life you have cause it may be you last.

[Comrade Don]

This is the thing I find one of the most annoying things ever, Sure their are alot of Atheists as well as Religious people, But why even debate it? I mean its very possible that there is a God and it is very possible that there is not a God , So why waste your breathe on something that you can not possibly prove?

No matter what moral religious person can say, They still do not know for sure if there is a God, Sure it would explain alot of things but the reality is that how could God create himself?

With that said, Atheism is just as narrow minded, For several reasons.

1} The universe did not create itself nor was it always there, There is a beginning and a end to everything.

2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God, If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

There is so much that makes no sense, that its completely idiotic to even try and debate it, My theory is to just wait and see, Hell if there is no God then who cares, You wont be around anymore you will be dead.

If there is a God , Then everyone on this board is invited to my Toga party, BYOB of course, Cause we will be partying with the big guy..... Mao! lol.

End statement is this: Stop wasting your life trying to prove something that is not provable and enjoy the life you have cause it may be you last.

[RevMARKSman]

2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God, If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

1. Humans have essentially thwarted natural selection within our species using medical treatment.
2. Evolution takes millions of years. Surprisingly, I don't think you've been around that long.

[RevMARKSman]

2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God, If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

1. Humans have essentially thwarted natural selection within our species using medical treatment.
2. Evolution takes millions of years. Surprisingly, I don't think you've been around that long.

[RevMARKSman]

2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God, If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

1. Humans have essentially thwarted natural selection within our species using medical treatment.
2. Evolution takes millions of years. Surprisingly, I don't think you've been around that long.

[Comrade Don]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 11:11 PM

2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God, If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

1. Humans have essentially thwarted natural selection within our species using medical treatment.
2. Evolution takes millions of years. Surprisingly, I don't think you've been around that long.
Still its not proven what so ever, nor is god. So someone arguing for evolution is at a lack of evidance the same with someone arguing for god.

[Comrade Don]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 11:11 PM

2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God, If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

1. Humans have essentially thwarted natural selection within our species using medical treatment.
2. Evolution takes millions of years. Surprisingly, I don't think you've been around that long.
Still its not proven what so ever, nor is god. So someone arguing for evolution is at a lack of evidance the same with someone arguing for god.

[Comrade Don]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 11:11 PM

2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God, If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

1. Humans have essentially thwarted natural selection within our species using medical treatment.
2. Evolution takes millions of years. Surprisingly, I don't think you've been around that long.
Still its not proven what so ever, nor is god. So someone arguing for evolution is at a lack of evidance the same with someone arguing for god.

[ummProfessional]

would you guys consider another being with powers beyond our beliefs, as a "god" literally? say some alien lifeform from another galaxy that can actually create a planet or heal somebody! i don't know, that could be a god to "us", i guess :blush: ...

[ummProfessional]

would you guys consider another being with powers beyond our beliefs, as a "god" literally? say some alien lifeform from another galaxy that can actually create a planet or heal somebody! i don't know, that could be a god to "us", i guess :blush: ...

[ummProfessional]

would you guys consider another being with powers beyond our beliefs, as a "god" literally? say some alien lifeform from another galaxy that can actually create a planet or heal somebody! i don't know, that could be a god to "us", i guess :blush: ...

[Hegemonicretribution]

The term "god" is meaningless in any real sense. Even as a vague notion, none of the conceptions I have heard are remotely plausible. (I have heard thousands)

Whilst some see me as a weaker or less millitant atheist than others, if I accepted the possibility of god I would have abandoned any basis for knowledge, preference, action or existence. So no, there is no god.

As it has been said, any existing god would have to be endured. As Nietzche put it, "If there was a god, how could you endure not to be one?" I agree, the concept of god invokes some kind of metaphysical hierarchy and is something that we should never support, and (as it reflects prior society in order to survive) never promote.

[Hegemonicretribution]

The term "god" is meaningless in any real sense. Even as a vague notion, none of the conceptions I have heard are remotely plausible. (I have heard thousands)

Whilst some see me as a weaker or less millitant atheist than others, if I accepted the possibility of god I would have abandoned any basis for knowledge, preference, action or existence. So no, there is no god.

As it has been said, any existing god would have to be endured. As Nietzche put it, "If there was a god, how could you endure not to be one?" I agree, the concept of god invokes some kind of metaphysical hierarchy and is something that we should never support, and (as it reflects prior society in order to survive) never promote.

[Hegemonicretribution]

The term "god" is meaningless in any real sense. Even as a vague notion, none of the conceptions I have heard are remotely plausible. (I have heard thousands)

Whilst some see me as a weaker or less millitant atheist than others, if I accepted the possibility of god I would have abandoned any basis for knowledge, preference, action or existence. So no, there is no god.

As it has been said, any existing god would have to be endured. As Nietzche put it, "If there was a god, how could you endure not to be one?" I agree, the concept of god invokes some kind of metaphysical hierarchy and is something that we should never support, and (as it reflects prior society in order to survive) never promote.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 11:49 AM
How can you have free will if God is always around and able to see what you are doing all the time? Would a naughty school pupil be naughty in front of a teacher who saw everything he/she did?
come to a school in the inner city and see it happen all the time. the kids will act up in front of teacher, princiapl, super intendedant, mayor, govenor, president, they dont give a hell. :lol:

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 11:49 AM
How can you have free will if God is always around and able to see what you are doing all the time? Would a naughty school pupil be naughty in front of a teacher who saw everything he/she did?
come to a school in the inner city and see it happen all the time. the kids will act up in front of teacher, princiapl, super intendedant, mayor, govenor, president, they dont give a hell. :lol:

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 11:49 AM
How can you have free will if God is always around and able to see what you are doing all the time? Would a naughty school pupil be naughty in front of a teacher who saw everything he/she did?
come to a school in the inner city and see it happen all the time. the kids will act up in front of teacher, princiapl, super intendedant, mayor, govenor, president, they dont give a hell. :lol:

[violencia.Proletariat]

But why even debate it?

Because, its a fight between a rational society and a society based on irrationality. That is VERY important.


mean its very possible that there is a God

No it's not. God does not exist, you cannot debate that FACT unless you have evidence to counter it. That evidence does not exist, unless you would like to be the first in the world to show it.


1} The universe did not create itself nor was it always there, There is a beginning and a end to everything.

...and the same could be said for a God. It cant come from "nothing." There are many scientific theories based on rational thought and evidence as to how the universe was created. There is no evidence that a "god" did it. Things being "complicated" is not evidence of a god.


2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God

Evolution is proven, there is fossil evidence. Do you not believe in fossils?


If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

We could well be evolving. But its a process that takes a LONG time, it doesn't happen overnight. I'm not sure if this is based in fact but I've heard that humans are taller as a whole then we used to be.


would you guys consider another being with powers beyond our beliefs, as a "god" literally? say some alien lifeform from another galaxy that can actually create a planet or heal somebody! i don't know, that could be a god to "us", i guess ...

That could be "possible" but it would be on a purely technological basis. They wouldn't have any "supernatural" powers as we attribute to a god.

[violencia.Proletariat]

But why even debate it?

Because, its a fight between a rational society and a society based on irrationality. That is VERY important.


mean its very possible that there is a God

No it's not. God does not exist, you cannot debate that FACT unless you have evidence to counter it. That evidence does not exist, unless you would like to be the first in the world to show it.


1} The universe did not create itself nor was it always there, There is a beginning and a end to everything.

...and the same could be said for a God. It cant come from "nothing." There are many scientific theories based on rational thought and evidence as to how the universe was created. There is no evidence that a "god" did it. Things being "complicated" is not evidence of a god.


2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God

Evolution is proven, there is fossil evidence. Do you not believe in fossils?


If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

We could well be evolving. But its a process that takes a LONG time, it doesn't happen overnight. I'm not sure if this is based in fact but I've heard that humans are taller as a whole then we used to be.


would you guys consider another being with powers beyond our beliefs, as a "god" literally? say some alien lifeform from another galaxy that can actually create a planet or heal somebody! i don't know, that could be a god to "us", i guess ...

That could be "possible" but it would be on a purely technological basis. They wouldn't have any "supernatural" powers as we attribute to a god.

[violencia.Proletariat]

But why even debate it?

Because, its a fight between a rational society and a society based on irrationality. That is VERY important.


mean its very possible that there is a God

No it's not. God does not exist, you cannot debate that FACT unless you have evidence to counter it. That evidence does not exist, unless you would like to be the first in the world to show it.


1} The universe did not create itself nor was it always there, There is a beginning and a end to everything.

...and the same could be said for a God. It cant come from "nothing." There are many scientific theories based on rational thought and evidence as to how the universe was created. There is no evidence that a "god" did it. Things being "complicated" is not evidence of a god.


2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God

Evolution is proven, there is fossil evidence. Do you not believe in fossils?


If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

We could well be evolving. But its a process that takes a LONG time, it doesn't happen overnight. I'm not sure if this is based in fact but I've heard that humans are taller as a whole then we used to be.


would you guys consider another being with powers beyond our beliefs, as a "god" literally? say some alien lifeform from another galaxy that can actually create a planet or heal somebody! i don't know, that could be a god to "us", i guess ...

That could be "possible" but it would be on a purely technological basis. They wouldn't have any "supernatural" powers as we attribute to a god.

[ahab]

no GOD.

[ahab]

no GOD.

[ahab]

no GOD.

[Comrade Don]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:11 AM

But why even debate it?

Because, its a fight between a rational society and a society based on irrationality. That is VERY important.


mean its very possible that there is a God

No it's not. God does not exist, you cannot debate that FACT unless you have evidence to counter it. That evidence does not exist, unless you would like to be the first in the world to show it.


1} The universe did not create itself nor was it always there, There is a beginning and a end to everything.

...and the same could be said for a God. It cant come from "nothing." There are many scientific theories based on rational thought and evidence as to how the universe was created. There is no evidence that a "god" did it. Things being "complicated" is not evidence of a god.


2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God

Evolution is proven, there is fossil evidence. Do you not believe in fossils?


If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

We could well be evolving. But its a process that takes a LONG time, it doesn't happen overnight. I'm not sure if this is based in fact but I've heard that humans are taller as a whole then we used to be.


would you guys consider another being with powers beyond our beliefs, as a "god" literally? say some alien lifeform from another galaxy that can actually create a planet or heal somebody! i don't know, that could be a god to "us", i guess ...

That could be "possible" but it would be on a purely technological basis. They wouldn't have any "supernatural" powers as we attribute to a god.
You are pretty adament that there is no God, yet you show aboslutely no evidance.

Yes we have fossils but none have proven that we can from monkeys, Not one piece of evidance exists for either theory , therefore your arguing for the cause of Atheism is just as laughable as the notion of a greater power.

The thing with atheists is that you spend your entire life searching for a reason were here, and you miss out on the life your in.

[Comrade Don]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:11 AM

But why even debate it?

Because, its a fight between a rational society and a society based on irrationality. That is VERY important.


mean its very possible that there is a God

No it's not. God does not exist, you cannot debate that FACT unless you have evidence to counter it. That evidence does not exist, unless you would like to be the first in the world to show it.


1} The universe did not create itself nor was it always there, There is a beginning and a end to everything.

...and the same could be said for a God. It cant come from "nothing." There are many scientific theories based on rational thought and evidence as to how the universe was created. There is no evidence that a "god" did it. Things being "complicated" is not evidence of a god.


2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God

Evolution is proven, there is fossil evidence. Do you not believe in fossils?


If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

We could well be evolving. But its a process that takes a LONG time, it doesn't happen overnight. I'm not sure if this is based in fact but I've heard that humans are taller as a whole then we used to be.


would you guys consider another being with powers beyond our beliefs, as a "god" literally? say some alien lifeform from another galaxy that can actually create a planet or heal somebody! i don't know, that could be a god to "us", i guess ...

That could be "possible" but it would be on a purely technological basis. They wouldn't have any "supernatural" powers as we attribute to a god.
You are pretty adament that there is no God, yet you show aboslutely no evidance.

Yes we have fossils but none have proven that we can from monkeys, Not one piece of evidance exists for either theory , therefore your arguing for the cause of Atheism is just as laughable as the notion of a greater power.

The thing with atheists is that you spend your entire life searching for a reason were here, and you miss out on the life your in.

[Comrade Don]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:11 AM

But why even debate it?

Because, its a fight between a rational society and a society based on irrationality. That is VERY important.


mean its very possible that there is a God

No it's not. God does not exist, you cannot debate that FACT unless you have evidence to counter it. That evidence does not exist, unless you would like to be the first in the world to show it.


1} The universe did not create itself nor was it always there, There is a beginning and a end to everything.

...and the same could be said for a God. It cant come from "nothing." There are many scientific theories based on rational thought and evidence as to how the universe was created. There is no evidence that a "god" did it. Things being "complicated" is not evidence of a god.


2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God

Evolution is proven, there is fossil evidence. Do you not believe in fossils?


If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

We could well be evolving. But its a process that takes a LONG time, it doesn't happen overnight. I'm not sure if this is based in fact but I've heard that humans are taller as a whole then we used to be.


would you guys consider another being with powers beyond our beliefs, as a "god" literally? say some alien lifeform from another galaxy that can actually create a planet or heal somebody! i don't know, that could be a god to "us", i guess ...

That could be "possible" but it would be on a purely technological basis. They wouldn't have any "supernatural" powers as we attribute to a god.
You are pretty adament that there is no God, yet you show aboslutely no evidance.

Yes we have fossils but none have proven that we can from monkeys, Not one piece of evidance exists for either theory , therefore your arguing for the cause of Atheism is just as laughable as the notion of a greater power.

The thing with atheists is that you spend your entire life searching for a reason were here, and you miss out on the life your in.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 24 2006, 12:23 AM




You are pretty adament that there is no God, yet you show aboslutely no evidance.

Who has the burden of proof?

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457


Yes we have fossils but none have proven that we can from monkeys, Not one piece of evidance exists for either theory , therefore your arguing for the cause of Atheism is just as laughable as the notion of a greater power.

...this is fucking pathetic and I'm not going to try and argue with you any longer. PS It's a common ancestor of course we didnt come from a fucking chimpanzee. :rolleyes:


The thing with atheists is that you spend your entire life searching for a reason were here, and you miss out on the life your in.

Really? You know exactly what I do with my life now do you? I actually don't spend any time searching for a "reason" we are here, if I did I would be a theist. Atheists might look for "how" we are here, if they are interested in that. I support scientific investigations into that matter but it's not fundemental because in the long run it doesn't effect me. Nor does it give me a reason to think there is a god.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 24 2006, 12:23 AM




You are pretty adament that there is no God, yet you show aboslutely no evidance.

Who has the burden of proof?

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457


Yes we have fossils but none have proven that we can from monkeys, Not one piece of evidance exists for either theory , therefore your arguing for the cause of Atheism is just as laughable as the notion of a greater power.

...this is fucking pathetic and I'm not going to try and argue with you any longer. PS It's a common ancestor of course we didnt come from a fucking chimpanzee. :rolleyes:


The thing with atheists is that you spend your entire life searching for a reason were here, and you miss out on the life your in.

Really? You know exactly what I do with my life now do you? I actually don't spend any time searching for a "reason" we are here, if I did I would be a theist. Atheists might look for "how" we are here, if they are interested in that. I support scientific investigations into that matter but it's not fundemental because in the long run it doesn't effect me. Nor does it give me a reason to think there is a god.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 24 2006, 12:23 AM




You are pretty adament that there is no God, yet you show aboslutely no evidance.

Who has the burden of proof?

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457


Yes we have fossils but none have proven that we can from monkeys, Not one piece of evidance exists for either theory , therefore your arguing for the cause of Atheism is just as laughable as the notion of a greater power.

...this is fucking pathetic and I'm not going to try and argue with you any longer. PS It's a common ancestor of course we didnt come from a fucking chimpanzee. :rolleyes:


The thing with atheists is that you spend your entire life searching for a reason were here, and you miss out on the life your in.

Really? You know exactly what I do with my life now do you? I actually don't spend any time searching for a "reason" we are here, if I did I would be a theist. Atheists might look for "how" we are here, if they are interested in that. I support scientific investigations into that matter but it's not fundemental because in the long run it doesn't effect me. Nor does it give me a reason to think there is a god.

[KC]

You are pretty adament that there is no God, yet you show aboslutely no evidance.


"Show me evidence that invisible unicorns that control all our moves don't exist!"
"I can't."
"HA! You can't disprove that they exist!"

Have you ever thought that, when something doesn't exist, there is also no evidence for its nonexistance? Does this mean we should entertain the idea that god exists? Only to the same extent that we entertain the idea that those unicorns exist, which I doubt you've even considered.


Not one piece of evidance exists for either theory

How about the fact that we can plainly see evolution taking place with our own eyes on the microscopic level?



The thing with atheists is that you spend your entire life searching for a reason were here, and you miss out on the life your in.

Actually, the thing with atheists is that we recognize the fact that our lives are pointless and therefore we make the most out of our lives, much more than anyone wasting time going to church or praying to "god".

[fitzcarraldo]

our lives are pointless
Blanket assumption. Where is your proof? Doesn't skepticism rely upon proof?

[KC]

Blanket assumption. Where is your proof? Doesn't skepticism rely upon proof?

I don't think you're capable of handling the truth; therefore, I won't waste my time.

[fitzcarraldo]

I don't think you're capable of handling the truth; therefore, I won't waste my time.

You want the truth? Communism doesn't work! Now who's not capable of handling the truth?

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:43 AM


I don't think you're capable of handling the truth; therefore, I won't waste my time.

You want the truth? Communism doesn't work! Now who's not capable of handling the truth?
How do you know? Proof?

Nobody has proven that our lives have a "point" so we assume they are "pointless" until someone provides evidence for a "point."

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:11 AM
Because, its a fight between a rational society and a society based on irrationality. That is VERY important.


I always thought it was a fight between a rational society, and one where we deal with our almost inescapable irrationality as rationally as possible.


No it's not. God does not exist, you cannot debate that FACT unless you have evidence to counter it. That evidence does not exist, unless you would like to be the first in the world to show it.
I agree.


...and the same could be said for a God. It cant come from "nothing." There are many scientific theories based on rational thought and evidence as to how the universe was created. There is no evidence that a "god" did it. Things being "complicated" is not evidence of a god.
Yes but if they were surely there would have been a truth established? At this point it is almost as plausible to invisage the creation theory of the deists as it is the unaided big bang etc... Actual creation is one area where, whilst talk of an intervenist god is irrelevant, talk of some creating force is not. I am an atheist, but the atheists don't have answers for everything. It seems that you act as if they do so that it fits with your massive over-kill of anything (regardless of implication in really life) that suggests the metaphysical.


Evolution is proven, there is fossil evidence. Do you not believe in fossils?
Evolution is the best tool we have, despite a few problems...However on its own it does not account for the beginning of existence.


We could well be evolving. But its a process that takes a LONG time, it doesn't happen overnight. I'm not sure if this is based in fact but I've heard that humans are taller as a whole then we used to be.
We are evolving, and the height thing is probably mostly down to diet and healthcare...Although I this isn't my strongest point.


That could be "possible" but it would be on a purely technological basis. They wouldn't have any "supernatural" powers as we attribute to a god.
Ah, you mean monotheistic, generally western faiths then?

The god of the philosophers, and the god(s) of most major religions do follow this pattern, but assuming that this is always the case shows a misunderstanding of the individual nature of what many people perceive as their "faith" it also neglects minor religions such as deism.

[guerillablack]

Prove that your great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather climbed a tree or even didnt climb a tree when he was under 10 years old. Do you know how impossible that is to prove? Does that mean it didn't happen?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:28 PM
Prove that your great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather climbed a tree or even didnt climb a tree when he was under 10 years old. Do you know how impossible that is to prove? Does that mean it didn't happen?
How the hell is that related to evolution or the non/existance of god?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Jun 24 2006, 11:06 AM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Jun 24 2006, 11:06 AM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 03:43 AM


I don't think you're capable of handling the truth; therefore, I won't waste my time.

You want the truth? Communism doesn't work! Now who's not capable of handling the truth?
How do you know? Proof? [/b]
Before some loony jumps on this one: there is a difference between asking for proof that god doesn't exist and for proof that communism won't work. One is an entity posited by various people (Sun God Priests, Biblical writers, any theist really...) and the other is a socio economic theory that is still being refined and thought on. yes I will admit attempts at communism have failed (if you can even call them attempts, look at the CCCP) but this is neither here nor there when discussing a theoretical socio-economic system that has yet to be put into practice in its many variants. This however is not a discussion of communism it is about god. As I have stated god is an entity that has been posited and therfore must be proved to exist. After all if I told you that I was being followed by an intangible lion you would want me to prove that it existed. Fuck it, you would want such proof even if I was telling the truth about something (for example if I claimed I had a sister you would have no reason to believe me until I showed you posityive proof of her.).

Hope that makes sense, I've had a long and tedious day.

[ummProfessional]

That could be "possible" but it would be on a purely technological basis. They wouldn't have any "supernatural" powers as we attribute to a god

aren't supernatural powers, powers beyond our beliefs? :huh:

[Comrade-Z]

I am God.

But back to the topic...Jesus, ah, the poor slow-witted son that he is, he got it all mixed up. Actually, people who worship me will be sent to hell for eternity. God, I hate that pathetic crap. Ha! Isn't it funny that I use my own name in vain? Ah, this great stuff, being God and all.

Oh yeah, and I should also mention that anyone who says that I, Comrade-Z, am not God will also be sent to hell. Also, you must each pay me $1000, or I am sending you to hell. You can mail checks or money orders (no cash, please) to:

God
P.O. Box 1337
Hoover, AL 35226

[RevMARKSman]

Given Jesus = God
and God = omnipotent and omniscient:


The principle foundation of Christianity is that God sacrificed himself to himself so that he could forgive sins made by his own creations that he easily could have prevented himself.

[which doctor]

Jesus doesn't equal God.

[RevMARKSman]

I'm assuming that Christianity is true for a reducto ad absurdum.

[which doctor]

Jesus is only 1/3 of God.

[RevMARKSman]

According to Christianity, each "person" in the Trinity is entirely and wholly God, but they are not three gods. Therefore, if Christianity is true:
1 = 3
3 - 1 = 3
3 - 2 = 3
1 + 1 = 3

I was once a Catholic and am still being taught this BS.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 07:37 PM
According to Christianity, each "person" in the Trinity is entirely and wholly God, but they are not three gods. Therefore, if Christianity is true:
1 = 3
3 - 1 = 3
3 - 2 = 3
1 + 1 = 3

I was once a Catholic and am still being taught this BS.
I think your reasoning is a bit off.

Jesus, himself, is not God. Remember, Jesus is supposed to be God's son. Although Jesus is part of God, God is not part of Jesus.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by NoXion+Jun 24 2006, 04:24 PM--> (NoXion @ Jun 24 2006, 04:24 PM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 08:28 PM
Prove that your great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather climbed a tree or even didnt climb a tree when he was under 10 years old. Do you know how impossible that is to prove? Does that mean it didn't happen?
How the hell is that related to evolution or the non/existance of god? [/b]
Because everyone here has a fetish of if you can't prove it happened it didnt happen. IE, prove Jesus walked on water, prove God did this/that.

[RedAnarchist]

Jesus probably walked on ice rather than water. Recent studies have shown that the Middle East was a bit colder in the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived.


http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060404_jesus_ice.html

[encephalon]

Didn't the reincarnation of Jesus post here not too long ago, only to be summarilly banned? :lol:


Jesus, himself, is not God. Remember, Jesus is supposed to be God's son. Although Jesus is part of God, God is not part of Jesus.

No, most christians believe that Jesus was in fact God on earth. Jesus wasn't part of god, he was god (so they said, anyhow). Those of us that were raised in religious christian families have the unfortunate burden of knowing this :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 25 2006, 06:58 AM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 25 2006, 06:58 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:24 PM

[email protected] 24 2006, 08:28 PM
Prove that your great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather climbed a tree or even didnt climb a tree when he was under 10 years old. Do you know how impossible that is to prove? Does that mean it didn't happen?
How the hell is that related to evolution or the non/existance of god?
Because everyone here has a fetish of if you can't prove it happened it didnt happen. IE, prove Jesus walked on water, prove God did this/that. [/b]
And what the hell is wrong with substantiating claims rather than taking any old bullshit at face value?

Skepticism is healthy.

[ummProfessional]

god in the form and the way depicted in the bible and other religious groups-Highly doubt it

beings that could be considered by us humans as gods-Highly possible

[Sanjee]

God does exist.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:26 PM
God does exist.
Prove it.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Originally posted by Skinz+Jun 26 2006, 11:28 AM--> (Skinz @ Jun 26 2006, 11:28 AM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 12:26 PM
God does exist.
Prove it. [/b]
i tend to disagree this is an opinion thread, no reason for another debate

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 11:34 AM
i tend to disagree this is an opinion thread, no reason for another debate
Oh but it's inevitable. I would like to see some proof of this magical sky wizard though,

[Sanjee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 11:28 AM
Prove it.
I can't prove it, but you can't disaprove it either. That's why I believe in Him.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Sanjee+Jun 26 2006, 07:12 AM--> (Sanjee @ Jun 26 2006, 07:12 AM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 11:28 AM
Prove it.
I can't prove it, but you can't disaprove it either. That's why I believe in Him. [/b]
Can you disprove leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, invisible pink unicorns, or a teapot orbiting the sun?
No?
I thought so.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jun 26 2006, 11:36 AM--> (Additives Free @ Jun 26 2006, 11:36 AM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 11:34 AM
i tend to disagree this is an opinion thread, no reason for another debate
Oh but it's inevitable. I would like to see some proof of this magical sky wizard though, [/b]
'Magical sky wizard' is now my favourite term for God.

[Vladislav]

The tooth fairy exists.

Proof :The Tooth Fairy (http://www.atlantajugglers.org/images/gh2002/06%20tooth%20fairy.jpg)

However, God doesn't. So my vote is a NO.

[Sanjee]

Ok you're trying to be funny huh? Tell me, do you know how small the chance is that a single cel (in this case the smallest and moste simple one "The Mycoplasm Hominis H39") exists by coinsedence, and has created its self out of nothing? It's a chance of 1 on 1 followed by 950 zeros. 'If anything is ten to the 50th power (A 1 followed by 50 Zeros) or less chance, it will never happen, even cosmically, in the whole universe'. (Emile Borel, Nobel Prize Winner, Probabilities and Life. New York Dover 1962. Ch. 1 to 3) You see that it's imposible that we are here by coinsedence, I believe that there has been a creator, and in this case we call that creator "God". I don't completley believe the creation-story (or whatever it's called, excuse me for my bad English) from the Bible or Q'oraan or whatever, because it's just to simply told. But I do believe that there is a reason why it's so simply told. In the time that the those storys were told, there was no science, and if there is no science the people can't understand the details. And that wasn't important at that time, the main goal was to make it clear that there is a creator. We as people have the abbility to think and find it out for our selves. We do think we are so freakin smart, but we're not! Science is just like a kid that has learned his first words. In the future we will see wich one of us is right, science will proove that too. But for now we can only believe what we want to, and I don't think you should forbid someone to believe what it does want to, I don't believe we are just material creatures, I believe we have soules too. But this is just what I believe, and you can believe what you want to, as long as you have respect for what I believe, than I've got no problem with any person if it's an Atheist, Jew, Buddist, Muslim Christian etc etc.

[gilhyle]

Your reference to Borel misses the point - even if there was a creator, such a creator would be of no moral significance : no being owns anything just be creating it - watch Black Rain, read Frankenstein.

It does not matter to you if you were created, unles you give it significance.

Furthermore, as unlikely as the original emergence of life might have been.....you can multiply the odds for the postulation of of a prior all-powerful being.

I also gather from your argument that you dont think God is alive.

Only your reference to a soul makes sense of what you claim - the claim that we have souls is a claim that this is not our real life: try to do the math on that one !!

[bisclavret]

I believe in God. Fortunately, I do not experience myself as just a rational being but also an irrational one. A delicious mixture of both rationality and irrationality makes me love, think, fear, believe, summon energies and creativity without thinking of proofs all the time and I do believe in the Devil and to quote A.N. Whitehead, "He is the Homogeneous". God is therefore the opposite, he/she is the Diverse. He/She is Allah, Jehovah, Natural Selection, the Classless State, the unceasing human zeal. He/She is mercy and empathy for the proletariat and the different. I don't think He/she is merely Catholic but 'He/She Who Cannot be Named' yet I like calling him/her God coz we've been good pals since I was Catholic and started calling him/her God.

[Sanjee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 05:38 PM
Your reference to Borel misses the point - even if there was a creator, such a creator would be of no moral significance : no being owns anything just be creating it - watch Black Rain, read Frankenstein.

It does not matter to you if you were created, unles you give it significance.

Furthermore, as unlikely as the original emergence of life might have been.....you can multiply the odds for the postulation of of a prior all-powerful being.

I also gather from your argument that you dont think God is alive.

Only your reference to a soul makes sense of what you claim - the claim that we have souls is a claim that this is not our real life: try to do the math on that one !!
If you make a painting, is it yours? If you make a car, do you have the right to call it yours? If you have made a neklace, don't you call it yours? And if you don't call it yours, do you call yourself the "creator" of it? I do, and I call the one that created me also my creator. I believe that God doesn't own us completly (because else he wouldn't give us this freedom we have in life). But this is a completley other discussion, the point is if we do/don't believe in God. And well... you know my oppinion.

[Eleutherios]

The answer I always give to this question is "What exactly do you mean by 'God'?" Throughout human history, there have been thousands of different definitions, some of which clearly exist, most of which clearly don't, and some which cannot be shown either way. For example, if you define God as simply the universe or the laws of physics, then it would be quite naïve to deny the existence of such a thing. However, I consider these types of definitions quite misleading and disregard them in any serious discussion of the topic.

A deistic conception of God as a very smart intelligence which somehow started the Big Bang is something I find highly improbable but not entirely impossible. I don't know for a fact that our universe didn't start as a science experiment in the laboratory of a scientist in a previous universe; it just doesn't seem very likely to me, and I don't see the point in even thinking about such an unfalsifiable and unverifiable assertion since it would have no discernable effect on our reality.

Most people, however, believe in a God which is an infinitely smart, infinitely powerful being that interacts with our world on a daily basis. This is clearly false. Everything we observe scientifically seems to be explainable through matter and energy operating in spacetime according to the laws of physics. There simply is not one shred of evidence that such a God exists. If it does, it doesn't seem to care about me or my repeated requests that this being definitively prove its existence to me if it wants me to believe in it.

The Judeo-Christian God most people in my society believe in is one such clearly false notion, and having read much of the Bible, I do not see why anyone would even want to believe in such a sexist, homophobic, racist, cruel totalitarian dictator of the cosmos that has the temper of a four year old.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 10:10 AM
Ok you're trying to be funny huh? Tell me, do you know how small the chance is that a single cel (in this case the smallest and moste simple one "The Mycoplasm Hominis H39") exists by coinsedence, and has created its self out of nothing? It's a chance of 1 on 1 followed by 950 zeros. 'If anything is ten to the 50th power (A 1 followed by 50 Zeros) or less chance, it will never happen, even cosmically, in the whole universe'. (Emile Borel, Nobel Prize Winner, Probabilities and Life. New York Dover 1962. Ch. 1 to 3) You see that it's imposible that we are here by coinsedence, I believe that there has been a creator, and in this case we call that creator "God". I don't completley believe the creation-story (or whatever it's called, excuse me for my bad English) from the Bible or Q'oraan or whatever, because it's just to simply told. But I do believe that there is a reason why it's so simply told. In the time that the those storys were told, there was no science, and if there is no science the people can't understand the details. And that wasn't important at that time, the main goal was to make it clear that there is a creator. We as people have the abbility to think and find it out for our selves. We do think we are so freakin smart, but we're not! Science is just like a kid that has learned his first words. In the future we will see wich one of us is right, science will proove that too. But for now we can only believe what we want to, and I don't think you should forbid someone to believe what it does want to, I don't believe we are just material creatures, I believe we have soules too. But this is just what I believe, and you can believe what you want to, as long as you have respect for what I believe, than I've got no problem with any person if it's an Atheist, Jew, Buddist, Muslim Christian etc etc.
If material living is so unrealistic, how the fuck was your creator created?

[ummProfessional]

how the fuck was your creator created?

hahaha thats when they shut up and think about it...

funny because the main argument is : " So you just think things happen and pop out of the blue?", "Everything has an architect, like a bulding didn't just grow out of the earth, it had an architect"...so yes if you use the same analogy on them, then who created god, because surely he didn't just "pop" out of the blue did he? they shut up and retrieve to their own little world..

[bisclavret]

I think it would be futile to prove or disprove God's existence rationally. The eager person would end up, as Voltaire said of Leibniz and his attempt to provide a mathematical proof of God's existence, "making big fat books to confuse himself". I could equally say of anybody who attempts to disprove God rationally.
I view religious experiences, cultures, rituals and practices like biological species that need to be preserved or else they go extinct and mankind/womankind shall be in the danger of falling prey to "The Homogeneous!"(insert Wagner's Twilight of the Gods) already showing its ugly head in Fascism. Hence, however irrational, the existence of God has to be sustained to preserve these practices. It is the homo sapiens' expression of that which cannot be fully expressed. Besides if we are wise enough to establish a stateless society, we would already be wise enough to ascertain which religious/moral practices will bring about oppression. :)

[which doctor]

I am my own god.

[Pawn Power]

The 'Magical sky wizard' is getting his ass kicked 48 to 5. :lol:

with 7 spectators

[Ali.Cat]

how the fuck was your creator created?hahaha thats when they shut up and think about it...

funny because the main argument is : " So you just think things happen and pop out of the blue?", "Everything has an architect, like a bulding didn't just grow out of the earth, it had an architect"...so yes if you use the same analogy on them, then who created god, because surely he didn't just "pop" out of the blue did he? they shut up and retrieve to their own little world..

Hahahaha - I love that!

I voted NO - there is no "god" - there is absolutely no scientific proof that there is or ever was a "god" and until there is, I will simply continue to say "there is no "god".

[*[email protected]*]

Good (but predictable) to see the majority of the opinion against the existance of a god.



Woooooooooooooooh, watch the poll make Christians look stupid!! :lol:

[C_Rasmussen]

Yes I believe that God exists but at the same time I also respect your beliefs against God and religion(s).

[Sanjee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 09:31 PM
If material living is so unrealistic, how the fuck was your creator created?
I don't know how the "fuck" my creator is created. But who are you to tell, that the creator is a material beeing? The moste of the people do call the creator "He", "Him" or "Father", but they don't know if God is man, women, cat, dog, fish or whatever. Maybe God isn't (and this is what I believe) even a material beeing, maybe it's something we can never imagine with our minds. You are acting like you allready know everything, but friend we allmoste know nothing! Like I said before, we can compare science with a child that has just learned its first words.


PS: If you think this poll is representative for whole mankind, you are wrong. This is a left-wing (communistic) forum. No wonder that almoste all te people that voted, voted against.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 07:44 AM
I don't know how the "fuck" my creator is created. But who are you to tell, that the creator is a material beeing?




Who are you to tell there is a creator? The cosmological argument inevitably results in an infinite regress.

As for the early comments, they demonstrate reducto ad absurdum the ridiculous nature of a god capable of worship. At best you can get "we don't know for sure" if the god in question is more towards the deist kind, that of major religions is a bit of a joke. Essentially the arguments justifying belief in god are invalid because they can be used to justify anything.

Also sanjee, do you know what the chances of there actually being the sort of god that you believe in existing in any sense other than a metaphorical one? Borel would probably calculate it as so remote that it is impossible, or at least they should :P


Maybe God isn't (and this is what I believe) even a material beeing, maybe it's something we can never imagine with our minds.
If Kant taught us anything, it is that existence is not a predicate. If god is not material, then in what sense do they exist? Are they merely an idea? You seem to think they are beyond this.


You are acting like you allready know everything, but friend we allmoste know nothing!
I know this wasn't addressed to me...but anyway...

If we are to give ourselves any basis for knowledge, which is handy for survival purposes, then we have to roughly establish what it is to "know" or not know something. It is conceivable that most things could exist in a multitude of ways, skepticism could reduce what we "know" to pretty much nothing. However as humans, we only (correctly) assert "knowledge" of something if we have a very good reason for doing so. Asserting knowledge based on the presence of doubt is an abandonment of the conditions of the mind that are necessary for revolutionary success, and even continued survival.


Like I said before, we can compare science with a child that has just learned its first words.
Science, contrary to what at times I take for popular belief here, does not have all the answers, so I agree. However, this doesn't mean that there must be a god. Science comes accross problems, it changes, and it overcomes them, the god of the gaps has been used throughout history where science has fell down, and at times has asserted authority over a working/observable scientific process.


PS: If you think this poll is representative for whole mankind, you are wrong. This is a left-wing (communistic) forum. No wonder that almoste all te people that voted, voted against.
LMAO :lol:

I doubt too many people take this representative of all of mankind, or even the revolutionary movement. This poll is here to show the change in direction of the board as a whole since the last poll.

Personally I don't care if you believe in god or not, as far as I am concerned a preference for one creation theory against another is amongst lay men like a preference of a particular colour or number.

When this belief because an influential element in ones life, and shapes their attitude, actions and approach towards others then their belief because a public issue. If the attitudes are reactionary (as they often are, especially according to the main churches) then I oppose them as millitantly as I oppose all such reaction. In the majority of cases, religion does perpetuate reaction, hence the anti-religious sentiment present here. If you are an exception to the rule then fair enough..they are fairly rare, but I am open minded.

[bisclavret]

I have to admit that a lot of the atheist arguments here are pretty heavy duty and I think the character of such arguments are fitting to deal capitalism an iconoclastic blow and in that aspect we are all comrades. However, I personally think that full-blast rationality/materialism, although a superb tool does not give us a complete picture of Reality/Everything(please don't attach Ken
Wilber notions here, I am in no way related to the guy). Having said this, let me use as an analogy a rephrased version of Godel's second Incompleteness Theorem If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent. The analogy may be loose, but my point still stands, that rationality might be consistent(relatively) but it can never be complete and a religion might ambitiously think of itself as complete but sadly, it is bound to be inconsistent. This is a rather pessimistic, but humbling fact of our abilities to provide a mental picture of Reality, that there will always be loopholes. Wherein lies the existence of God in all these? the loopholes maybe? Naah, I am not that opportunistic..truth is I don't know, but I do know that the idea of God has stayed with us long enough to leave, not just bad and painful experiences but good ones as well,(at times better than weed or LSD). My concern is, in our sometimes roguish/irrational rush to do away with the current system and transition to our precious stateless communism, that we might not only scrap the evil but the good as well..and not tolerating religious practices, beliefs, spurts of irrationality might just leave our asses more bare for Entropy to do the kicking than tolerating them..hastening our eventual(probable) halt as a society to homogeneiety and equilibrium..Hail all-powerful, crippled, one-legged Materialism whose certainty and determinism is ever revealed in quantum mechanics and whose unfailing character of providing Value and morals shames even the gods!

[violencia.Proletariat]

I don't know how the "fuck" my creator is created.

Why am I not suprised :lol:


But who are you to tell, that the creator is a material beeing?

Because the only things that exist are material beings.


Maybe God isn't (and this is what I believe) even a material beeing, maybe it's something we can never imagine with our minds.

...then this is utterly pointless. These questions don't mean anything to us if we couldn't possibly figure it out.


You are acting like you allready know everything, but friend we allmoste know nothing! Like I said before, we can compare science with a child that has just learned its first words.

...lets look at what we have going here, one hand we have science which actually WORKS. On the other we have this "idea" that maybe we can't comprehend anything and that there is some being that is all powerful yet we don't know where it comes from and we have no evidence whatsoever to support this. Hmmm, choose your side folks. :lol:


PS: If you think this poll is representative for whole mankind, you are wrong. This is a left-wing (communistic) forum.

Captain obvious strikes again!

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:40 PM
'Magical sky wizard' is now my favourite term for God.
me too :D

[bisclavret]

lets look at what we have going here, one hand we have science which actually WORKS. On the other we have this "idea" that maybe we can't comprehend anything and that there is some being that is all powerful yet we don't know where it comes from and we have no evidence whatsoever to support this. Hmmm, choose your side folks

Im actually a chicken-shit type of guy so Im not just taking one side but both sides :wub: ...but wait.. there's more! :o ...Priests and Programmers by J Stephen Lansing, wonderful book and case study on complex adaptive systems..Science vs. Religion..the arena.. Bali, Indonesia. Round 1, ting3x, scientists(rice experts to be exact) with their beaming overconfident, Colgate smiles bring the then most Rational and amazing "miracle rice" fresh from IRRI(International Rice Research Institute), Philippines the biggest, baddest, jampacked-with-Rational-Men rice building known to man. The Rational Men initiated a Green Revolution throughout Southeast Asia that was supposed to be the salvation of the developing countries from frequent famine since the Rational Men were of course using infallible Rational methods..In a matter of weeks, the miracle ricefields were miraculously consumed by not so miraculous rodents and locusts..enter the Bali folk with their irrational pantheon of Gods, their Jero Gde and their creepy rituals..also enter J. Stephen Lansing Professor in the Departments of Anthropology and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona, and Research Professor at the Santa Fe Institute and his programmer friend whose name I forgot..blah..blah..long story short, the religious Bali folks and their water temples won the day saving Bali from utter hunger with Lansing and friend proving their methods optimal via game theory and computer simulation forcing World Bank to give them funding on their studies. Moral of the story? Science may have almost always been right but we might learn a lot from religion and God as well..By the way, there was no extrem oppression in the Balinese setting and if there was it was infinitely smaller compared to states that have tried to be Rational and Communist.

[violencia.Proletariat]

First of all that hunk of shit you call a post was almost unreadable and second of all what scientists claim that green revolution seeds were rodent proof? :huh:

[bisclavret]

First of all that hunk of shit you call a post was almost unreadable and second of all what scientists claim that green revolution seeds were rodent proof?

I understand comrade, and the hunk of shit I just wrote will remain a hunk of shit unless you read the slim book by Lansing titled Priests and Programmers. My defense is for religious practices considered by many to be irrational but are really complex adaptive systems that can be useful and must necessarily have a spiritual being/beings as a component. However, let my post remain as a hypothesis in this forum until you've at least read a summary of Lansing's work online. Hopefully a kindred spirit who migt have read the book would have also ready my posts.

PS: the green revolution seeds were not rodent proof but the scientific/capitalist motive of the green revolution to plant3x and yield3x didn't result to the optimal cycle of flooding and planting causing fatal pest infestation among a complex network of ricefields and irrigation systems and the balinese achieved the optimal method(according to game theory) through centuries of tradition and religious practices. Really, it was a case of production without ritual is lame, ritual without production is blind. Comrade, i personally think that strict materialism is a lame view of reality, it simply doesn't have the other leg. :)

[Delta]

The idea of God is so silly that it&#39;s really a pointless thing to talk about (except for the fact that belief in one is one of the paralyzing factors in the forming of solidarity between different peoples). I&#39;m usually surprised that some people can throw off their capitalist and/or statist upbringings (which at least in my case were much more deeply ingrained than my religious beliefs) and yet still believe in this magic fairy type of stuff. I guess it all depends on how you were raised and your own life experiences though <_<

[STI]

the hunk of shit I just wrote will remain a hunk of shit unless you read the slim book by Lansing titled Priests and Programmers.

I&#39;ve always wondered why people come on here, make assertions, then say "read this book&#33;" when somebody disagrees.

Is it that the author just didn&#39;t take the time to rebutt any possible objections to his hypothesis? Can you not think of any yourself?

...Then why do you still believe it?.

Long and short, we just don&#39;t have the time to go hunt for and read titles thrown at us as a sorry excuse for a response. Most of us have jobs. Or at least school. But more often than not, we have both.


My defense is for religious practices considered by many to be irrational but are really complex adaptive systems that can be useful and must necessarily have a spiritual being/beings as a component

...Like what? Name ten things.


However, let my post remain as a hypothesis in this forum until you&#39;ve at least read a summary of Lansing&#39;s work online.

What are you, his publicist?


Hopefully a kindred spirit

No such thing :lol:



PS: the green revolution seeds were not rodent proof but the scientific/capitalist motive of the green revolution to plant3x and yield3x didn&#39;t result to the optimal cycle of flooding and planting causing fatal pest infestation among a complex network of ricefields and irrigation systems and the balinese achieved the optimal method(according to game theory) through centuries of tradition and religious practices.

...Now, were these "optimal methods" able to produce the yeild necessary to support the growing burden on Earth&#39;s carrying capacity associated with the population increases of the 20th century?

Well, I guess we all could have just prayed harder or something.


materialism is a lame view of reality, it simply doesn&#39;t have the other leg.

Good thing people have used materialist methods to develop prosthetics.

[bisclavret]

I&#39;ve always wondered why people come on here, make assertions, then say "read this book&#33;" when somebody disagrees.

Is it that the author just didn&#39;t take the time to rebutt any possible objections to his hypothesis? Can you not think of any yourself?

...Then why do you still believe it?.

I am relatively new in this forum but old enough to have seen a lot of posts where only an article title which is a link to the actual article is posted as a defense but nevertheless moderators do not delete the post. Anyway, to humor you comrade, I shall explain my point further. The last post was part of a series of posts i&#39;ve made in this thread. If you had read them and even the last one, its obvious I have nothing against science. Its full-blast materialism that I have misgivings to. I am glad that
people have used materialist methods to develop prosthetics(forgiving sarcasm) but it is when people forget about the reality of the non-material that I could not forgive. I assume your level 4 profile(4 squares under your avatar) would already make you intelligent enough to accept that &#39;metaphors&#39;, &#39;ideas&#39;(platonic and non-platonic), &#39;spirit&#39;, basically, non-material stuff have always played an important role in the development of science. I personally appreciate people who recognize the reality of this non-material world because they have always saved science from a seemingly long drought of ideas by conceiving something revolutionary and at their own time even considered irrational. My same appreciation goes to the field of anthropology which does not only have physical anthropology(material dimension) but also cultural anthropology(non-material dimension). The &#39;two legs&#39; is probably a bad metaphor since it dichotomizes the non-material from the material(whereas it should be embodied), thus leading to reductionism(another evil of full-blast materialsm). It is a mistake in full-blast materialism to see everything as a simplistic &#39;sum of their parts&#39;.
Anyway, back to the topic, I am not in anyway advocating a patriarchal, sadistic, thunderbolt-wielding god who smites disobedient nations. I am simply pointing out that in a communist, stateless, society, our ideal society, religious practices should be tolerated but monitored, of course because religion has its own contribution to metaphors, along with literature, music and art and gives us tools of grasping(but sad to say crude at times) the non-material, the realm of the &#39;yet to be explained by science&#39;(hopefully) and it is with the careful choice of these metaphors, that we hopefully lead scientific programmes. Again, as I implied earlier in my posts, full-blast materialism may serve as an excellent iconoclastic tool to topple capitalism over(and boy I wish it happens as soon as possible) but it is unfortunately not a complete description of Reality, and to completely describe Reality has always been in our list of &#39;to do&#39; things and will always be even in a communist society. :)

[Sentinel]

It was a good thing to have a new poll on this, LSD, to see how the thinking of members has evolved since the start of the old one. And I think the results are impressive&#33; :)

Is there a "god"?

See my sig, quoting the Internationale, on the authentic communist position on "god".


No saviour from on high delivers

There is no god..


No faith have we in prince or peer

and we don&#39;t respect any "earthly" authority either. Therefore..


Our own right hand the chains must shiver

we must fight for the liberation of mankind ourselves, here and now..


Chains of hatred, greed and fear

from all the crap holding us back from realising our potential as human beings. Religion being one of the most fervent reactionary forces we face in that struggle.

I see that KC&#39;s excellent, good old Burden of Proof-thread has already been linked to. But I&#39;d like to link to one more page, one on which one of our all-time most knowledgeable members has collected his thoughts on proletarian struggle, not least against religion and other "old crap", as he calls it.

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/)

Enjoy, folks. What you&#39;ll find within has opened many a comrades eyes.

(Edit - to correct grammar)

[Sanjee]

You know I&#39;m feeling so pissed right now on my self that I haven&#39;t paied attention during my English classes, because I can&#39;t follow you guys, and even if I could, I still wouldn&#39;t be able to write down what I really have in mind to say. You&#39;ll just have to forgive me for that comrades.

[Goatse]

Yes.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 26 2006, 10:06 PM
I am my own god.
Metapor is the last refuge of religion- bring on the metaphors, fill religion with them and it will turn into a hollow vessel and simply crumble into nothing.

[Soviet Militia]

This is the most debated topic ever.

Yes there very well could be a god, No its not likey, No there is no proof for God nor is there for evolution.

Basically , Who cares? This argument can and will NEVER be won, so why bother? we should focus on our political ideology first.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Yes there very well could be a god

NO, there cannot&#33;


No its not likey

You just contradicted yourself, could there very well be a good or is it not likely? The fact is THERE IS NO GOD.


No there is no proof for God nor is there for evolution.

What fucking planet have you people been living on for the past 200 years? Of course there is proof for evolution.


This argument can and will NEVER be won, so why bother?

This arguement has been won already, the atheists have the victory. Godsuckers can deny the material world all they want but at the end of the day they are still full of shit.


we should focus on our political ideology first.

This arguement is completely related to political idealogy and it&#39;s a necessity that we discuss it.

[ummProfessional]

NO, there cannot&#33;

that is just as ridiculous as those who blindly say THERE IS&#33;&#33; :rolleyes: how can you prove that there isn&#39;t a god scientifically? sure logically as humans we can "infer" or hypothesize that there isn&#39;t one at least in the way it&#39;s talked about and portrayed in the Bible and other "Holy Books", but other then that your absolute confident answer of "NO THERE CAN&#39;T BE A GOD", is pretty baseless



You just contradicted yourself, could there very well be a good or is it not likely? The fact is THERE IS NO GOD.

the "FACT", hahaha let me see your supposed FACT......look like iv said before in previous posts in this very thread....i belive, well it&#39;s not a matter of belief actually at this moment, it&#39;s a matter of "I KNOW", there are other lifeforms out there in the infiniteness of space...now, it is very possible that there are organisms out there which could be considered by us humans as "gods"....this is more believable then all of our "god" stories.. well the possibility of an "alien being" which can have supernatural powers beyond our beliefs is not very far off, this is very highly possible, and this can be what we can consider as "gods"....like i said , it&#39;s unlikely a god as spoken in the Bible can exist, but very likely beings which we can consider as "gods"...i say unlikely and very lilkely because like i said there are no scientific evidences for me to speak surely like you yourself speak violencia.Proletariat, but i think these are educated guesses, after all there is so much we are still to understand in our own galaxy, imagine whats out there&#33; all i know is we don&#39;t even understand everything about our planet so...


What fucking planet have you people been living on for the past 200 years? Of course there is proof for evolution

hahaha yeah i must agree there 100%, the guy defenitaly was on something to say such rubbish



This arguement has been won already, the atheists have the victory. Godsuckers can deny the material world all they want but at the end of the day they are still full of shit.

we have won? you mean here in this virtual world of the "left", hahaha&#33; lol because in the real world you do understand that we are the minority...and full of shit? dude you don&#39;t accept tolerance at all do you? why do you care what another human chooses to believe? specially when it&#39;s about his or her spirituality? you should not intervene on that....


This arguement is completely related to political idealogy and it&#39;s a necessity that we discuss it.

yeah that is true, and we all understand there should be separation between state and religion, religion being practiced at home and so on...although we all know many political figures are not atheists, and many are deeply religious and probably bias..although their stances are probably more on homosexuality and abortion more then anything...

[bombeverything]

how can you prove that there isn&#39;t a god scientifically? sure logically as humans we can "infer" or hypothesize that there isn&#39;t one at least in the way it&#39;s talked about and portrayed in the Bible and other "Holy Books", but other then that your absolute confident answer of "NO THERE CAN&#39;T BE A GOD", is pretty baseless

You cannot prove that something "doesn&#39;t exist" unless it is meant to exist within a particular space and it&#39;s existence could thus be seen/verified, etc. Asking someone to prove that god doesn&#39;t exist is is as silly as asking someone to prove that some other mythical creature does not exist.

I answered no, obviously.

[ummProfessional]

You cannot prove that something "doesn&#39;t exist" unless it is meant to exist within a particular space and it&#39;s existence could thus be seen/verified, etc. Asking someone to prove that god doesn&#39;t exist is is as silly as asking someone to prove that some other mythical creature does not exist.

I answered no, obviously.

you can&#39;t prove something doesn&#39;t exist unless it is "meant" to exist within a particular space and it&#39;s existance could thus be seen/verified? :huh: what do you mean it&#39;s meant to exist? how do you explain atoms and so on? how do you explain mass? how do you explain anti-matter?

anyways, i know saying to prove the god of the "Bible" is the same as saying to prove a mythical creature.....

although i am an atheist, i have to admit there are some weird things in this world which seem unexplainable and rather quite interesting....for example have you heard of the Bible Codes? also i heard scientists have found some sort of distortion in the Red Sea reminiscent of the supposed actions of Moses in which he opened the Red Sea..also how do you explain the story of a boy who was born in India with a particular mark on his forehead, and he said it was from the man he was reincarnated from, because in his past life he had gotten shot in the forehead, and he was able to tell when and how and who the man was, and it was verified as truth&#33; how could he have known this? i don&#39;t know there are so many weird things in this world which can&#39;t really be explained scientifically...

[violencia.Proletariat]

that is just as ridiculous as those who blindly say THERE IS&#33;&#33; :rolleyes:

And yet now matter how many times you say that there still is no god.


how can you prove that there isn&#39;t a god scientifically?

I don&#39;t need to, no evidence exists for it. We have a pretty good understanding of the fundementals of the world. There is no proof that any being influences these fundementals, therefore this all powerful god can&#39;t alter and change material reality.


is pretty baseless

All scientific knowledge begs to differ

[ummProfessional]

well violencia my stance is that you say absolutly no god&#33;

and to me a supernatural being , or a being with supernatural powers beyond our beliefs is very highly possible

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:43 PM
and to me a supernatural being , or a being with supernatural powers beyond our beliefs is very highly possible
Dear sir,

I am a Nigerian Prince who finds himself unable to transport my sizaeble fortune out of the country due to certainrestrictions. If you can provide me with your banking details and password I wire my fortune to your account before moving it on from there. For your services I can leave seven million dollars in your account. Thanks you very much and please send your bank details and password to [email protected]

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 06:43 PM


and to me a supernatural being , or a being with supernatural powers beyond our beliefs is very highly possible
To you it might be, to material reality IT&#39;S NOT. There is NO evidence whatsoever of god. Since we have an understanding of the world and how it functions and yet we find no influence of a supernatural being, this shows that it is NOT highly possible for there to be one.

[ummProfessional]

To you it might be, to material reality IT&#39;S NOT. There is NO evidence whatsoever of god. Since we have an understanding of the world and how it functions and yet we find no influence of a supernatural being, this shows that it is NOT highly possible for there to be one.

you don&#39;t understand me do you? im talking about a beings from another galaxy or something&#33; an alien being that can be regarded as a "god", not as talked about in the Bible dumb nuts&#33; but i dont know&#33;? a freaking being that can do supernatural things that our minds can&#39;t even grasp&#33; and you yourself said it, we know about our planet&#33; not even all of it&#33;

[violencia.Proletariat]

im talking about a beings from another galaxy or something&#33; an alien being that can be regarded as a "god"

Such a being could only have "extoirdinary" powers because of technology. That is not out of the question. But they wouldn&#39;t be "supernatural" in creation, just in apperance.

[ummProfessional]

Such a being could only have "extoirdinary" powers because of technology. That is not out of the question. But they wouldn&#39;t be "supernatural" in creation, just in apperance.

why? why technology? how do you know? there are animals that can sense movement miles away, do they have a radar attached to their body or something? other animals that can see infrared or whatever, and others that can see during the night, do they have nightgoogles? :huh: dude you have to understand that every little star you see in the sky is a sun just like the one in our solar system, which means that those suns are surrounded quite possibly by just as many planets as in our solar system, and the possibility of life is logically HIGH&#33; and of intelligence who knows? and of powers that we can&#39;t even imagine&#33; maybe having eyes is something extraordinary to a speicies&#33; who the hell knows&#33; maybe there is a being that can create a planet&#33; or shoot lightinging thorugh his ass i don&#39;t fucking know&#33;&#33; but the possibilities of beings with natural "powers" if you will, beyond our beliefs is very high if you ask me

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 12:19 AM

Such a being could only have "extoirdinary" powers because of technology. That is not out of the question. But they wouldn&#39;t be "supernatural" in creation, just in apperance.

why? why technology? how do you know? there are animals that can sense movement miles away, do they have a radar attached to their body or something? other animals that can see infrared or whatever, and others that can see during the night, do they have nightgoogles? :huh: dude you have to understand that every little star you see in the sky is a sun just like the one in our solar system, which means that those suns are surrounded quite possibly by just as many planets as in our solar system, and the possibility of life is logically HIGH&#33; and of intelligence who knows? and of powers that we can&#39;t even imagine&#33; maybe having eyes is something extraordinary to a speicies&#33; who the hell knows&#33; maybe there is a being that can create a planet&#33; or shoot lightinging thorugh his ass i don&#39;t fucking know&#33;&#33; but the possibilities of beings with natural "powers" if you will, beyond our beliefs is very high if you ask me
This is all speculation. This is not proof nor does it make proof likely that there is a "god." Species with special dvelopment has nothing to do with god.

[ummProfessional]

what im trying to say is that

GOD=SUPERNATURAL POWERS= understood
SUPERNATURAL POWERS=ALIEN BEINGS=very likely

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:07 PM
what im trying to say is that

GOD=SUPERNATURAL POWERS= understood
SUPERNATURAL POWERS=ALIEN BEINGS=very likely
"supernatural" refers to those things existing outside of the natural world. So no, alien beings cannot posses "supernatural" powers. Supernatural powers don&#39;t exist.

And by the way, the logical likelyhood of another sentient race existing isn&#39;t as high as you might think; the chance that they would have any contact with us is miniscule.

[ummProfessional]

"supernatural" refers to those things existing outside of the natural world. So no, alien beings cannot posses "supernatural" powers. Supernatural powers don&#39;t exist.

umm no , supernatural powers refers to powers not natural to humans, or maybe to all animals in the planet...

beings cannot posses supernatural powers? who says? you? they don&#39;t exist? well here take a look at this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQWxIrSRDQQ

id say thats pretty impressive, and it makes you wonder, if it happens in this planet, what other "powers" can other beings posses?


And by the way, the logical likelyhood of another sentient race existing isn&#39;t as high as you might think; the chance that they would have any contact with us is miniscule.

miniscule? lol you call miniscule billions upon billions of galaxies? lmao :rolleyes: well i guess that explains the thousands of sightings each year of UFO&#39;s and so on...

[CubaSocialista]

If anyone&#39;s seen the "Root of All Evil" with Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins, they&#39;ll know what to say.

There could be a God, true. Personally, I think the whole universe is a living entity/deity that ought to be respected, and we are all collectively meant to find personal spirituality but reject organized religion and baseless superstition.

While there could be a God, since we can&#39;t disprove it, there could also be a teapot rotating about 300 miles away from the sun, in orbit around it. We can&#39;t prove or disprove it, but it&#39;s so incredibly unlikely, one of so many trillions of possible (likely or unlikely) substances that it&#39;s just plain negligible.

To me, "God" is my own conscience, but there&#39;s no supernatural governing warlords.

Except for Xenu, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Monkees.

[bombeverything]

you can&#39;t prove something doesn&#39;t exist unless it is "meant" to exist within a particular space and it&#39;s existance could thus be seen/verified? what do you mean it&#39;s meant to exist? how do you explain atoms and so on? how do you explain mass? how do you explain anti-matter?

Sorry if I was confusing there. I basically meant that there is no evidence to prove that god exists so why believe in something that cannot be proven?


although i am an atheist, i have to admit there are some weird things in this world which seem unexplainable and rather quite interesting....for example have you heard of the Bible Codes? also i heard scientists have found some sort of distortion in the Red Sea reminiscent of the supposed actions of Moses in which he opened the Red Sea..also how do you explain the story of a boy who was born in India with a particular mark on his forehead, and he said it was from the man he was reincarnated from, because in his past life he had gotten shot in the forehead, and he was able to tell when and how and who the man was, and it was verified as truth&#33; how could he have known this? i don&#39;t know there are so many weird things in this world which can&#39;t really be explained scientifically...

I am not sure. I have never heard this story, but I am sure there could be some explanation found. You sound agnostic not atheist. What do you mean by his past life? How was this “verified as truth”? I am confused.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Is there a "God"? Absolutely. :)

The other night, whilst I was on the toilet, like Zinedine Zidane, I had a vision&#33; And, ladies and gents, that vision was of The Creator. It spoke to me for fifteen minutes and to show what a nice thing it was, it even wiped my botty for me. It told me it would visit today, but it phoned earlier to say that it got held up in inter-galactic traffic and, therefore, it&#39;ll be visiting sometime soon.

And that, my friends, is conclusive proof that there is a God.

[LSD]

Oh my&#33; You&#39;re like a Prophet&#33; :o

Can you now write down a list of arbitrary laws for me to follow so I don&#39;t have to put any thought into running my own life, &#39;cause that would be awesome.

Also, please specify which minority group I should hate the most. :)

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:00 AM
Oh my&#33; You&#39;re like a Prophet&#33; :o

Can you now write down a list of arbitrary laws for me to follow so I don&#39;t have to put any thought into running my own life, &#39;cause that would be awesome.

Also, please specify which minority group I should hate the most. :)
A) No happiness or sex, or you&#39;ll be beaten with pool noodles for eternity. So follow what I say, do what I do, and believe that of all the things in the world that I could be proverbially holding in my closed hand behind my back, is in fact, a (insert any possible metaphysical form/entity/object/noun.)
B) Um, gypsies?

[kurt]

umm no , supernatural powers refers to powers not natural to humans, or maybe to all animals in the planet...

beings cannot posses supernatural powers? who says? you? they don&#39;t exist?

No sir, "supernatural" refers to that which exceeds or violates natural laws. In other words, it&#39;s not possible. Only in fairy tales.

How exactly do you propose a natural being could posess powers which violate natural laws? It&#39;s not logically possible.


miniscule? lol you call miniscule billions upon billions of galaxies? lmao :rolleyes: well i guess that explains the thousands of sightings each year of UFO&#39;s and so on...

Well, you can roll your eyes all you want, but here&#39;s something you might want to look into: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Equation

I&#39;m fairly sure it&#39;s still credible, but not certain. The chances of actually coming into contact with a species that did happen to form is fairly low, given our technology.

"UFO" sightings? And you&#39;re rolling your eyes at me? Extrodinary claims require extrordinary evidence; so far all these thousands of people can offer is mere anecdote.

[Avtomatov]

hmm I propose a way a being can possess supernatural powers. The supernatural can exist. Its quite simple, if everything in this universe is a simulation. Then think of god as a sort of admin or mod. If its built into the programming, like counterstrike when the mods slap me or something.

Its quite possible that life could be a simulation. Dont just automatically reject the idea because you are told its absurd or crazy. Dont think so narrow.

Im not religious, i think if god doesnt offer us proof of his existence, how can we be expected to beleive in him. If life is some sort of selection process, god is selected idiots who dont think rationally, now what use would he have for that?&#33;?&#33; If its a selection process, then IMO it is more likely he is using organized religion to identify the fools he doesnt want. Im agnostic.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:05 PM




Its quite simple, if everything in this universe is a simulation. Then think of god as a sort of admin or mod. If its built into the programming, like counterstrike when the mods slap me or something.

Well aside from that fact that the universe is not a simulation (to say otherwise is indeed absurd), if it was "built into the programming", it would indeed be natural.


Its quite possible that life could be a simulation. Dont just automatically reject the idea because you are told its absurd or crazy. Dont think so narrow.

There&#39;s nothing "narrow" about rejecting absurd assertions outright. Do you have any evidence to offer in light of this assertion?

However, there is something to be said about those who believe life is a "simulation". We usually call them delirious.


Im agnostic.

Indeed...

[Avtomatov]

How do you know life is not a simulation. You dont need evidence it is, because i never claimed it was. I said it can be, and i said the supernatural can exist. You cant prove life can not be a simulation, therefore as far as we KNOW it could be.

Knowledge is beleif+truth+justification for beleif. You dont know shit, youre reactionary. You beleive things without a justification. Youre as foolish as a theist.

Theists say the same things to back up their beleifs. They say they cant picture life existing without god, therefore god exists. There minds are small, they cant understand much. Same with you.

The fact is there is no proof that the natural is all that exists, it is impossible for us to go beyond our existence, we are inside our existence. If something is born into a supernatural existence, that would make our existence artificial, and there existence may in fact be the natural one.

So im not really saying that the supernatural can exist, i am saying that we may be unnatural, and the supernatural may indeed be natural.

I hope I communicated this all right.

[ummProfessional]

most humans are stuck into a paradigm of belief that it&#39;s unthinkable or understandable for them to get out, therefore Generalissimo if he doesn&#39;t understand spare him this argument please...

[Sense-A]

I voted yes. However i cannot offer you evidence so you must choose for yourself. I consider my entire life as evidence.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by Sense&#045;[email protected] 7 2006, 02:16 AM
I voted yes. However i cannot offer you evidence so you must choose for yourself. I consider my entire life as evidence.
Ah cool, I consider my life to be evidence for a leprechaun conspiracy to take over Scandinavia using fork-lift trucks, we should get together sometime and debate our perfectly logical beliefs and assumptions.

[mandedani]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 23 2006, 06:14 PM
Philosophers like St Augustine and Irenaeus have thought of ideas that say evil and free-will can exist alongside God, but it&#39;s still all a load of crap. A definite &#39;No&#39; from me for this poll.
Technically speaking, nobody knows if God exists, so we should all be voting the third option... but it&#39;s incredibly unlikely and utterly illogical that God exists.
Yes, we will never know if a God does exsist, but you are ignorant to say that he probobly doesn&#39;t exsist. You, me, nobody, has ANY idea of what this God is all about. From what you have seen, heard, felt, and expirienced, you believe that there probobly isn&#39;t a God. However, your expiriences, along with all the others, are nothing on a completely lower level than the concept of God.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 09:59 PM
However, your expiriences, along with all the others, are nothing on a completely lower level than the concept of God.
Hmm, coming from an agnostic we know this arguement is crap :lol: What level does god think on? How do you know we wouldn&#39;t understand? This bullshit does mean a damn thing until you have proof to support it. Until then GOD DOES NOT EXIST&#33;

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by mandedani+Jul 8 2006, 01:59 AM--> (mandedani @ Jul 8 2006, 01:59 AM)
Comrade [email protected] 23 2006, 06:14 PM
Philosophers like St Augustine and Irenaeus have thought of ideas that say evil and free-will can exist alongside God, but it&#39;s still all a load of crap. A definite &#39;No&#39; from me for this poll.
Technically speaking, nobody knows if God exists, so we should all be voting the third option... but it&#39;s incredibly unlikely and utterly illogical that God exists.
Yes, we will never know if a God does exsist, but you are ignorant to say that he probobly doesn&#39;t exsist. You, me, nobody, has ANY idea of what this God is all about. From what you have seen, heard, felt, and expirienced, you believe that there probobly isn&#39;t a God. However, your expiriences, along with all the others, are nothing on a completely lower level than the concept of God. [/b]
Yes but we also don&#39;t know if flying pink fairies live on the moon, but logic and lack of evidence tells us that they do not. Similarly, logic and lack of evidence tells me God does not exist.

[mandedani]

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+Jul 8 2006, 03:56 AM--> (violencia.Proletariat &#064; Jul 8 2006, 03:56 AM)
[email protected] 7 2006, 09:59 PM
However, your expiriences, along with all the others, are nothing on a completely lower level than the concept of God.
Hmm, coming from an agnostic we know this arguement is crap :lol: What level does god think on? How do you know we wouldn&#39;t understand? This bullshit does mean a damn thing until you have proof to support it. Until then GOD DOES NOT EXIST&#33;[/b]
It would be arrogant to think that every idea that humans have not expirienced or are just ignorant about is non-exsistant. God, eternal life, and life after death are beyond the power of the human mind to conceive. Don&#39;t look at the situation as; "Well I&#39;m either going to heaven and living forever or im just gonna die and thats gonna be the end of me." Those seem to be the two rational choices of what comes after death from what we have seen, but you can&#39;t look at it like this.

Theres no rational evidence proof or anything of how the universe began. This cannot be explained; and therefore should not be ignored. From what we know, it takes something to make something. So why doesn&#39;t this prove that something had to create the universe and being.

So use of evidence doesn&#39;t really work here;

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Nothing is beyond human conception, imagination is theoretically limitless. At least, that was my understanding. And by the way, big bang theory is one of the more sound scientific theories IMO.

-Alex

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I do not know if we can say there is a God or not.

However, what we can be certain of, is that religion has been used for thousands of years as a power tool. If I recall correctly, class societies slowly began with farmers giving some food to the priests, voluntarily or not. Then their power grew, and soon it became a law that people was to give a share of their food for the priests.

Soon, the power of the elite grew further, and the farmers sustained an elite of thousands of bureaucrats, priests, warriors.

And even though technological advances improved, it affected the peasants little, if at all, since the excess food always were taken by the ruling class.

That&#39;s where it begun. And we still see religion being used to supress independent thought and rationality.

[mandedani]

Yes, the big bang is a pretty solid theory. A whole bunch of matter collapsed into a small little thing; then it exploded and created atoms and what not. But what made this initial matter?

Also; to start about evolution: Scientists are 99 percent sure that evolution occurs, as it has been proven over and over again. However, when you get down to it, science can&#39;t explain everything. Such as the complex protein patterns seen in all living things. The only way science can explain this is that it happened by chance. However, it is such a minute chance that these would form by accident, and this is where i became agnostic. What created these proteins, or did everything happen by luck of the draw.

[violencia.Proletariat]

God, eternal life, and life after death are beyond the power of the human mind to conceive.

Obviously they aren&#39;t or else we wouldn&#39;t have those ideas out there. But this is just another excuse for someone who has no evidence to support their pro god arguement.


Those seem to be the two rational choices of what comes after death from what we have seen, but you can&#39;t look at it like this.

Of course I can. I know that we think because our brain is functioning, once that stops happening we are no longer conciously alive.


Theres no rational evidence proof or anything of how the universe began.

Yes there are scientific theories based on facts. While it&#39;s still primitive these CAN be expanded on unlike god which there is no evidence what so ever.


From what we know, it takes something to make something. So why doesn&#39;t this prove that something had to create the universe and being.

This is a paradox, what made god if he created the universe?

[skaoi]

[COLOR=red]God exists the problem is church those people think they are the best just because they read the bible which is also a lie... everyone in here can write a bible.So people start to use God inm a way they shouldn&#39;t and there&#39;s the confusion.If there were no chuerch this type of discussions wouldn&#39;t be generated.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 10:06 AM
[COLOR=red]God exists the problem is church those people think they are the best just because they read the bible which is also a lie... everyone in here can write a bible.So people start to use God inm a way they shouldn&#39;t and there&#39;s the confusion.If there were no chuerch this type of discussions wouldn&#39;t be generated.
Well then, what is the "proper" way to use the word God? Just saying "God exists" doesn&#39;t really answer anything, especially if you&#39;re also claiming that this God is not what most people think God is. There are about as many conceptions of what God is as there are theists.

I could just as easily say "Floobagrum exists" and it would be just as meaningful. You have to actually define what you mean, and show your evidence for why you think this thing exists, otherwise your statement means nothing.

[Black Dagger]

No Gods No Masters&#33; :AO:

Même si Dieu existait il faudrait le supprimer.
Even if God existed he would have to be suppressed. :)



Originally posted by NoXion

Well show me evidence of the existance of any other god from any other religion. Go on.


I&#39;m fairly sure other gods would inevitably fall into the trap of self-contradiction that afflicts the Abrahamic god - so yeah, case closed :P

[Janus]

No. And if one did somehow exist, it would be in our best interests to oppose "it".

[ZACKist]

It&#39;s 2006 and people still believe in fairy-tales past the age of childhood.

This is depressing.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 23 2006, 05:56 PM
Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God, If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?
The reason monkeys are not evolving into humans is because humans did not come from moneys. The came from proto-ape. One branch when one way, the other went another.

If you are still confused, go read "The Descent of Man"

Humans, and everything else, are still evolving. Just very, very, slowly terms of human time frame.

Evolution is as proved as gravity. And if you don&#39;t get my point, go read some physics. We still don&#39;t know WHY gravity works, but every piece of evidence supports it, and no evidence contradicts it.

Hell, we even found the "bear-whale"&#33; This was one of Darwin&#39;s theories that the creationists always attacked as absurd. But 150 years after he published it, they found the fossils in Asia.



As it happens, I actually do believe in God. But I agree with Nietzsche, in that it isn&#39;t that important to debate. On the subject of an afterlife, he said
Even if the existence of such a world were never so well demonstrated, it is certain that knowledge of it would be the most useless of all knowledge: more useless even than knowledge of the chemical composition of water must be to the sailor in danger of shipwreck."


That being said, there&#39;s a slight flaw to that argument. Knowledge of the chemical composition of water would be slightly useful. You have different buoyancy in salt water and fresh water. But in a way, I think that is perfect. Knowledge of such a thing might be slightly useful, but not worth staying up nights. Deism, now there&#39;s a good perspective. Not mine, but a good one.

[Marukusu]

I am a fervent believer in reason and science. I belive in what I deem as right (which is left), and have a very materialistic/nihilistic view on the world.

There is no such a thing as God, nor any gods.

Nothing is "supernatural". Even if supernatural things such as ghosts should be prooved to exist, they would in that case be completely natural: only hard for science to explain.

You only have one life. When you die, you die and are dead forever. There is no purgatory nor heaven. There will be no religious "Armageddon" that will purge the world from sinners. In fact, there is no sins at all. Everything is a lie.

I don&#39;t have much "proof" of what I belive, only something I call common sense and reason.

I woted NO.

[Free Left]

You only have one life. When you die, you die and are dead forever. There is no purgatory nor heaven.

If there was an afterlife I would be scared shitless&#33;
I mean, in my view, existence is suffering, so when you die and there is nothing afterwards, it&#39;s bliss.

[Sentinel]

I agree completely that the post-death non-existance is bliss. The thought gives me comfort when I feel I messed up with something.. Who gives a shit about some regular minor fuckup after just one hundred years? :D

I&#39;ll be gone and propably forgotten.

The idea that I actually once will be gone forever also gives me the strength and willingness to strive for a better life for myself and others, now.

It&#39;s now that it matters&#33;

[Eleutherios]

Yeah, the afterlife would probably not be much fun. I mean, who wants to be alive for all eternity? You&#39;d eventually experience everything there is to experience...an infinite number of times&#33; That would get really really boring, to the point where you would be begging God to cease your consciousness. I&#39;d rather go to hell for a trillion years than to heaven for all eternity. Your existence is temporary, and you should be thankful for that&#33;

The Christian heaven as described by the Bible would be totally über-lame if it really existed. I mean, I get to be close to this masochistic dictator of the universe who has the temper of a four year old. Whoopee. And I get to spend my time in "perfect bliss" while knowing for a fact that many of my loved ones are being tortured for all eternity because they did something God didn&#39;t like (working on the Sabbath, making graven images, being atheists, lying from time to time...) and didn&#39;t get on their knees and grovel about it afterwards. I suppose I&#39;d have to join the RCAH (Revolutionary Communist Alliance of Heaven) to overthrow the dictator Yahweh and the unjust system of authority and torture that he has imposed on the cosmos.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:54 PM
Yeah, the afterlife would probably not be much fun. I mean, who wants to be alive for all eternity?

The Christian heaven as described by the Bible would be totally über-lame if it really existed.
A couple of interesting theological and historical points:

1. For a moment, assume that "the afterlife" (place) exists. Now, by all major religions, if you got in a spaceship and went off to explore the whole universe, you wouldn&#39;t find heaven because it isn&#39;t "here". So, if it doesn&#39;t exist in the three dimensional universe, then it doesn&#39;t exist in time (movement through time is an expression of movement through space). So if the afterlife does exist, it doesn&#39;t so much last forever, rather it is one moment of non-time. Just thought I&#39;d share that observation, not relevant.

2. The Bible actually has very very very little to say on the subject of heaven. There are a very small number of vague references which say almost nothing. The conception of heaven that exists in our society was made up much more recently. In fact, quite a lot of it is from the past century, the vision of heaven changes a fair bit with each generation. So much of the description is rather silly. [Clouds, Light, Marble Buildings, three-dimensional topography]. One thing I always find amazing is the number of people who subscribe to Christian religions that think you become an angel when you go to heaven. Nowhere in the Bible nor in the writtings of any classic prophet or theologian has ever said this (with the exception of the Mormons, but they are pretty wacked out). When you tell them this, they scratch their heads, flip through the Bible, and swear they read it somewhere.

One subject that is fun (well, I find it fun) to read about are the things that people THINK are in the Bible, or THINK their religion teaches, but are in fact the theological equivalence of pop culture.

One of my favorite points of trivia is that the Old Testament doesn&#39;t condem Lesbianism :D Nor do the Gospels. It&#39;s all St. Paul&#39;s fault, spoil sport.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by rev&#045;[email protected] 26 2006, 11:40 AM
1. For a moment, assume that "the afterlife" (place) exists. Now, by all major religions, if you got in a spaceship and went off to explore the whole universe, you wouldn&#39;t find heaven because it isn&#39;t "here". So, if it doesn&#39;t exist in the three dimensional universe, then it doesn&#39;t exist in time (movement through time is an expression of movement through space). So if the afterlife does exist, it doesn&#39;t so much last forever, rather it is one moment of non-time. Just thought I&#39;d share that observation, not relevant.
True. I&#39;ve actually been thinking about this kind of thing recently (what the afterlife would be like if it wasn&#39;t physically real). For instance, in heaven, how can you see anything if you don&#39;t have eyes with retinas that catch photons and transfer the information into neural signals?

Without spacetime, I think there are some insurmountable conceptual hurdles to the Christian heaven idea. If heaven is just a single point in spacetime, where nothing changes or moves because distance and time can&#39;t exist outside a physical world, then aren&#39;t the atheists right when we say that all consciousness and experience cease once the body dies? I mean, without time, you can&#39;t experience anything new or have a train of thought. Your disembodied mind, stripped of its abilities to gather and analyze new information, is stuck in its most recent configuration in the singularity of heaven, completely indistinguishable from the billions of other minds stuck in the same singularity since there is no distance or time to separate them as individual entities.

Not exactly the kind of heaven you hear Christians going on about these days, huh? From what I gather, they seem to envision it as another physical world, but in a parallel dimension or something so we can&#39;t observe it here. But if heaven is a real physical world where things like spacetime, gravity, photons and retinas work the same way they do here, then we run into a whole slew of logical problems. For example, if the second law of thermodynamics still holds, how is immortality possible?

[The Rover]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 07:50 PM
But what made this initial matter?


Elementary, my dear mandedani. Matter (and energy, for that matter) cannot be destroyed. Therefore, the big bang was merely the continuation of a cycle that has always existed, and always will exist.

And on your statement on evolution being an accident, it wasn&#39;t. Even if it was, the number of places evolution can happen is infinite. So, it would eventually happen somewhere, no matter the odds. Anyway, nothing happens by accident. There are always factors that went into that situation that could have been different. Whether or not the different factors would actually lead to another outcome is another matter, however.

[The Rover]

You&#39;re all taking this far too literally. God is simply a symbolic expression of your point of view. One simply has to realise that things written in the Qur&#39;an, the Bible, the Torah, the Hindu epics, the Buddhist parables: none of these are historical facts, they are symbolic stories (generally) created in an attempt to improve one&#39;s sense of fraternity to the rest of humanity.

One should not conform to one religion, but should adopt ideas from various religions into what you feel is right. If atheism is what feels right to you, your God is no God. If matrixism feels right to you, your God is fighting against the Matrix using narcotics (yes, they DO exist). I personally follow aspects of Christianity (the love and peace teachings of Jesus, not the beauraucratic bullshit that came before and after), a small amount of the dogma of Islam, Hinduism (although I find most of it to be too mystical), and Buddhism.

Gandhi taught that we should all search for our satya, a Hindi word for truth, and become an intellectual individual, but not allow it to create bad karma in the universal organic whole by trying to force it on others. It all depends on your point of view. One man hears the clock strike "four". Another man finds it strange that the clock struck "one" four times. Find your own beliefs and let others have theirs

I&#39;m sorry if this sounds like I&#39;m preaching, or forcing my ideas onto you, I only meant to have my opinion heard.

[Eleutherios]

I don&#39;t think many Christians or Muslims or Hindus would agree that God is just a symbolic expression of their point of view. Most of them, at least the ones I&#39;ve talked to, think that God is a real existing entity, a person whose decisions affect our lives here on earth and to whom we owe infinite obedience (even if his commands are a bit hard to decode).

[wad1224]

I don&#39;t really know if there is a god. I am leaning towards science because it is the more logical explanation for our existence. Not only that but there are christians out there that are just as dvout as the christians in the U.S., but they suffer from malnourishment and diseases everyday. In my opinion god wouldn&#39;t let people who believe in him soo strongly live lives that miserably.

[The Rover]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 05:19 AM
Most of them, at least the ones I&#39;ve talked to, think that God is a real existing entity.
That&#39;s an expression of your point of view. It might come from insecurity, the wish that there is something more to life than being eventually created from some proteins, a way to get rid of guilt, or a way to feel better about oneself. There may be other reasons, these are just an example. They might believe that because that is what feels right to them. It&#39;s still an expression of one&#39;s beliefs.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 11:19 PM
I don&#39;t think many Christians or Muslims or Hindus would agree that God is just a symbolic expression of their point of view. Most of them, at least the ones I&#39;ve talked to, think that God is a real existing entity, a person whose decisions affect our lives here on earth and to whom we owe infinite obedience (even if his commands are a bit hard to decode).
Indeed. Religious persons suffer from mass psychosis. They are genuinely convinced of their belief in a higher being.

[LittleMao]

This does make me wonder if relgion can exist in a communist socity. Perhaps if it can only be practiced in the privacy of ones home?
It could cause much dispute, and lead many people to reject the government if relgion was banned.

[Janus]

Perhaps if it can only be practiced in the privacy of ones home?
In a revolutionary society, people will most likely only adopt religion as some sort of hobby. It is already obsolete now though it has proven cunning in its adaption to modern day life but this will definitely change ina new progressive society. There will be no need to actually ban it.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by LittleMao+Aug 1 2006, 10:21 PM--> (LittleMao @ Aug 1 2006, 10:21 PM) This does make me wonder if relgion can exist in a communist socity. Perhaps if it can only be practiced in the privacy of ones home?
[/b]
If people want to worship they can do it in their homes, but the likelyhood is that they would give up such belifes for a more rational line of thought because of the improved material conditions.


LittleMao Posted on Aug 1 [email protected] 10:21 PM
It could cause much dispute, and lead many people to reject the government if relgion was banned.

I&#39;n a communist society there would be no government so no way to ban religion.

[LittleMao]

Originally posted by Comrade Don+Jun 23 2006, 11:26 PM--> (Comrade Don @ Jun 23 2006, 11:26 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 11:11 PM

2} Evolution is the most unproven thing next to God, If Evolution were true then why are we still not evolving? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans?

1. Humans have essentially thwarted natural selection within our species using medical treatment.
2. Evolution takes millions of years. Surprisingly, I don&#39;t think you&#39;ve been around that long.
Still its not proven what so ever, nor is god. So someone arguing for evolution is at a lack of evidance the same with someone arguing for god. [/b]
Personaly, I find evolution unlikely. I do not think we have discovered the orgin of our existance just yet. God is just as likely as evolution.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:33 PM
Personaly, I find evolution unlikely. I do not think we have discovered the orgin of our existance just yet. God is just as likely as evolution.
Evolution has more merit than a "god(s)" because it atleast has some evidence.

[deadlyseven]

there is a god but not in the sense that they try to sell to us as someone who has had several spiritual experiences i assure there is a god

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 22 2006, 09:38 PM
‘No.’ While the existence of God is unknowable, the same could be said about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. Of course, if God existed it would be necessary to abolish him.
there is a very small possibility that the tooth fairy exists.

however, that doesn&#39;t justify a belief in her.

so, for practical purposes, i consider god, along with many other things, non-existent. but, i do allow for the tiny possibility that i may be wrong.. of course, i won&#39;t hold my breath for it.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by The Rover+Aug 1 2006, 02:59 PM--> (The Rover &#064; Aug 1 2006, 02:59 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 05:19 AM
Most of them, at least the ones I&#39;ve talked to, think that God is a real existing entity.
That&#39;s an expression of your point of view. [/b]
No, that&#39;s what they actually told me that they believe. It&#39;s not my point of view; it&#39;s a real fact based on actual observations of reality. Jeez, what are you, some kind of postmodernist? "God" is not just whatever someone wants God to be. If I say God is a cheesecake, that does not mean there is an actual cheesecake that is God, or that the cheesecake God is "just an expression of my point of view". If we want to use the word "God" in our conversations and actually want to have our statements mean something, we have to agree on some basic definition for what that word means, and I think most people have a pretty similar idea of what it means. God is supposed to be a really smart, really powerful person that created the universe. God cannot be a cheesecake, an electron, or an "expression of a point of view", or whatever, unless we want to start redefining words. And if we&#39;re going to start using words however the hell we feel like in spite of how everybody else uses them, then charcoal spork dimension yo-yo sleep crinkle asteroid pajamas mustache forensics.

[The Rover]

Originally posted by sennomulo+Aug 2 2006, 04:09 AM--> (sennomulo &#064; Aug 2 2006, 04:09 AM)
Originally posted by The [email protected] 1 2006, 02:59 PM

[email protected] 1 2006, 05:19 AM
Most of them, at least the ones I&#39;ve talked to, think that God is a real existing entity.
That&#39;s an expression of your point of view.
No, that&#39;s what they actually told me that they believe. It&#39;s not my point of view; it&#39;s a real fact based on actual observations of reality. Jeez, what are you, some kind of postmodernist? "God" is not just whatever someone wants God to be. If I say God is a cheesecake, that does not mean there is an actual cheesecake that is God, or that the cheesecake God is "just an expression of my point of view". If we want to use the word "God" in our conversations and actually want to have our statements mean something, we have to agree on some basic definition for what that word means, and I think most people have a pretty similar idea of what it means. God is supposed to be a really smart, really powerful person that created the universe. God cannot be a cheesecake, an electron, or an "expression of a point of view", or whatever, unless we want to start redefining words. And if we&#39;re going to start using words however the hell we feel like in spite of how everybody else uses them, then charcoal spork dimension yo-yo sleep crinkle asteroid pajamas mustache forensics.[/b]

What I meant was that it was that particular person&#39;s point of view, not yours. I apologize for my poor choice of wording. And, many people throughout history have sided with me on my opinions of what god is. your definition of god is not the only one, and to think so is incredibly narrow-minded.

And, there have been many strange, albeit sometimes small, religions. I would not be surprised if someone actually called a cheesecake god. I feel that way about cheesecake sometimes.

[The Rover]

And yes, I am a postmodernist.

[Eleutherios]

Of course I don&#39;t think my definition of "God" is the only one. There are thousands of different conceptions of what God is supposed to be, but we can&#39;t seriously use the one word to describe all of them at the same time, because nobody even knows what they all are&#33; We have to agree on some standard definition if we want the word to not be completely meaningless in our conversations. And for the purposes of most conversations, "a really smart, really powerful person that created the universe" is a good enough definition, since that&#39;s what most people think God is. If you want to use a different definition for whatever reason, you&#39;ll have to tell me what it is so I can understand what the hell you&#39;re talking about.

If we can&#39;t even agree that God, if God exists, is supposed to be a real entity of some kind, then just what the hell are we talking about? I don&#39;t get it. Too often postmodernist thought seems to be the complete annihilation of meaningful dialogue. If a word means something completely different to everybody who uses it, then what&#39;s the point of even having that word in our language?

Linguistics is my main field of study, and it&#39;s pretty well established in that particular science that words exist because groups of people come to a consensus on what the word means, which makes it useful in communicating ideas to others. If a word is no longer useful for that purpose, it drops out of use and is no longer part of the language. People use the word "God" in our society to mean a really smart, really powerful person who created the universe, just as they use the word "cheesecake" to refer to a particular kind of delicious dessert. Even if some tiny minority of people didn&#39;t use the word "cheesecake" to refer to that kind of dessert, that wouldn&#39;t mean their definition should always be taken into account whenever somebody wants to talk about cheesecakes.

[afrikaNOW]

I don&#39;t know too many religions that believe God to be a "really smart person who created the universe". Maybe some people may think that God is a person sitting on a cloud, but i don&#39;t know of any main religions that teach that. Correct me if im wrong.

[The Rover]

So, therefore, according to what you&#39;re saying, my definition is just as good as yours, because large groups of people agree with my point of view.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2006, 05:19 AM
So, therefore, according to what you&#39;re saying, my definition is just as good as yours, because large groups of people agree with my point of view.
What definition? If you&#39;d be willing to tell me what you mean by the word "God", I&#39;d be happy to entertain that alternative definition for the purposes of our conversation, as long as that definition is logically coherent.

I&#39;m just saying, if you start to talk to a random person on the street about God, they&#39;ll most likely assume you mean a really smart, really powerful person who created the universe, and you can&#39;t meaningfully redefine that word unless you explicitly say what your new definition is. Especially if you capitalize the word or use it without articles. In English that happens to carry a heavy connotation that you are talking about the Abrahamic deity. I think it would be in your best interest to invent a new word if you want to talk about a new concept instead of trying to redefine an existing word. If you want to have meaningful conversations with others, you have to always take into account the traditional definitions and connotations that words typically have in whatever language you&#39;re speaking.

I don&#39;t know too many religions that believe God to be a "really smart person who created the universe".
Christianity? Islam?

Maybe some people may think that God is a person sitting on a cloud, but i don&#39;t know of any main religions that teach that. Correct me if im wrong.
I didn&#39;t mean "person" as in a human being, although I probably should have clarified that. Here I am using that particular word in a broader context to refer to any cognizant personality.

[The Rover]

All right, my definition of god is an expression of one&#39;s beliefs and truths. I thought I stated that earlier...

[Eleutherios]

Okay, that&#39;s a pretty weird definition. And by that definition, I guess I believe in God, since I think people express their beliefs (but "truths"? Are you implying that people have their own "truths"? I thought objective reality determined what truth is, but then again you&#39;re a postmodernist so I guess objective reality doesn&#39;t exist...unless your point of view is that it does).

Anyways, I don&#39;t see why you would want to call that phenomenon "God". "Self-expression" seems like a good enough term for me. It&#39;s readily understandable to everybody and it&#39;s much less confusing.

[The Rover]

By truths, I mean exactly that. If some one thinks they can fly, and they truly believe it, from their point of view, they can.

How long they will live is another matter though....

And, I didn&#39;t write my definition as well as I should have. I do a really poor job at such things. What I mean by that is that god is an expression of a certain set of beliefs, usually pertaining to divinity. So that means "god" can be a "really smart person who created the universe", a non-existant thing used by power-mongers, or the universal oganic whole.

And I should also have stated that god is simply one of your truths.

[Eleutherios]

By truths, I mean exactly that. If some one thinks they can fly, and they truly believe it, from their point of view, they can.

How long they will live is another matter though....
Ugh, are we redefining the word "truth" now? That&#39;s called delusion, not truth. No matter how thoroughly someone believes something, that doesn&#39;t change what the truth (objective reality) is. If someone thinks they can fly, that doesn&#39;t change the truth that they can&#39;t. They may think the truth is not what the truth actually is, but that doesn&#39;t make it "true" in any meaningful sense of the term.

And, I didn&#39;t write my definition as well as I should have. I do a really poor job at such things. What I mean by that is that god is an expression of a certain set of beliefs, usually pertaining to divinity.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/divinity
di·vin·i·ty Pronunciation Key (dĭ-vĭn′ĭ-tē)
n. pl. di·vin·i·ties
1. The state or quality of being divine.
2. a. Divinity The godhead; God. Used with the.
b. A deity, such as a god or goddess.
3. Godlike character.
4. Theology.
5. A soft white candy, usually containing nuts.

So basically, God is an expression of a certain set of beliefs which usually pertain to godlike things or the state of being godlike? That&#39;s a circular definition if I&#39;ve ever heard one, and unnecessarily confusing to boot. I still don&#39;t get what you&#39;re talking about.

So that means "god" can be a "really smart person who created the universe",
Okay...

a non-existant thing used by power-mongers,
A non-existent thing? :blink: How can a thing be non-existent? If it doesn&#39;t exist, it&#39;s not a thing and can&#39;t be used by anybody.

or the universal oganic whole.
Universal organic whole? What the hell is that?

Like I said before, we can&#39;t use the one word to talk about all the different weird definitions people have constructed for it at the same time. We have to pick some subset of those beliefs and talk about those, since nobody has surveyed all the beliefs about "God" and thoroughly understood them all. Even if someone did, they couldn&#39;t meaningfully talk about all of them at the same time, since they differ from each other so radically that there really is nothing you could say that would apply to everybody&#39;s definition of "God", and the term would quickly become completely meaningless in any attempt to do so.

I simply find it easiest to talk about "God" in terms of the majority conception of what God is. Not only does my definition work when I actually talk to God-believers, it allows the conversation to actually go somewhere and achieve at least some understanding of each other&#39;s points of view.

And I should also have stated that god is simply one of your truths.
God is one of my truths? Wow, this postmodernism stuff is fun&#33; Tomato ashtray symbiosis mosquito belch retina flagpole miniskirt zebra, and that&#39;s why existentialism is flawed but just as valid as any other viewpoint.

[The Rover]

Ugh, are we redefining the word "truth" now? That&#39;s called delusion, not truth. No matter how thoroughly someone believes something, that doesn&#39;t change what the truth (objective reality) is. If someone thinks they can fly, that doesn&#39;t change the truth that they can&#39;t. They may think the truth is not what the truth actually is, but that doesn&#39;t make it "true" in any meaningful sense of the term.

Of course it does. Just because you&#39;re telling me that god can only mean one thing at a time and everything is objective doesn&#39;t mean it is. That&#39;s just like saying that if everyone believed that racism was right and normal, with the exception of a few, that racism could be considered right and normal by rule. Just because a majority believe god (or the idea of god) to be some singular, omnipotent being does not mean that everyone should accept it as such. If you were talking to a Hindu, would you expect them to agree with you that there is one god instead millions of them?? Or, if talking to a buddhist, you would expect them to believe that karma simply didn&#39;t exist in this conversation, and god is the only possible idea we could possibly be talking about, because a majority believes in that definition

I&#39;m not redefining truth, just restating it&#39;s definition in it&#39;s less individualistic form.


So basically, God is an expression of a certain set of beliefs which usually pertain to godlike things or the state of being godlike? That&#39;s a circular definition if I&#39;ve ever heard one, and unnecessarily confusing to boot. I still don&#39;t get what you&#39;re talking about.

I thought that part was relatively obvious. Circular definitions are everywhere. I&#39;ve only had basic physics and chemistry, so correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but I do believe mass and matter are an example. Mass is the amount of matter something has, where matter is anything that has mass and volume.



QUOTE

a non-existant thing used by power-mongers,


A non-existent thing? How can a thing be non-existent? If it doesn&#39;t exist, it&#39;s not a thing and can&#39;t be used by anybody.

God is not a thing to those people, it is an idea that can be used as a tool with which to bend the will of the masses.



Universal organic whole? What the hell is that?

An idea used in many eastern philosophical religions, much of which is along the same basic lines of one of Einstein&#39;s theories and Newton&#39;s Laws of Motion.





And I should also have stated that god is simply one of your truths.


God is one of my truths?

I didn&#39;t mean yours personally, but eveyone&#39;s. Everyone has their own truth as to what god is.

If we choose to only talk about one subset of beliefs at a time, we ignore everyone else&#39;s, and therefore do not include everyone, when one of those people with a different set of beliefs may have a useful and interesting point. If it were not for such people giving their own view of the world in a conversation that did not concern their beliefs, I might have still been a capitalist today, tricked by society into believing &#39;communist&#39; and &#39;socialist&#39; is synonomous with &#39;Nazi&#39;.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2006, 08:30 PM

If someone thinks they can fly, that doesn&#39;t change the truth that they can&#39;t. They may think the truth is not what the truth actually is, but that doesn&#39;t make it "true" in any meaningful sense of the term.

Of course it does.
No, there is such a thing as objective truth.

And, talking about Ghandi, you did know that he was a wife-beater didn&#39;t you??


Just because you&#39;re telling me that god can only mean one thing at a time and everything is objective doesn&#39;t mean it is. That&#39;s just like saying that if everyone believed that racism was right and normal, with the exception of a few, that racism could be considered right and normal by rule. Just because a majority believe god (or the idea of god) to be some singular, omnipotent being does not mean that everyone should accept it as such. If you were talking to a Hindu, would you expect them to agree with you that there is one god instead millions of them?? Or, if talking to a buddhist, you would expect them to believe that karma simply didn&#39;t exist in this conversation, and god is the only possible idea we could possibly be talking about, because a majority believes in that definitionWhat a confused handful of sentences. You seem to be arguing that there is no objective truth, because otherwise people would get upset :lol: Thought that through for a long time, have you :rolleyes:

[The Rover]

And, talking about Ghandi, you did know that he was a wife-beater didn&#39;t you??

Yes, but I wouldn&#39;t exactly call it "beating". He ws just as strict on her as he was on himself.




QUOTE (The Rover @ Aug 2 2006, 08:30 PM)
QUOTE
If someone thinks they can fly, that doesn&#39;t change the truth that they can&#39;t. They may think the truth is not what the truth actually is, but that doesn&#39;t make it "true" in any meaningful sense of the term.



Of course it does.


No, there is such a thing as objective truth.

I have concede that, in a sense, you are correct. If I believe in subjective truth, I have to believe in objective truth as well, because from one&#39;s point of view, everything may be objective. However, since not everyone agrees on what truth is, it is subjective.



What a confused handful of sentences. You seem to be arguing that there is no objective truth, because otherwise people would get upset :lol: Thought that through for a long time, have you :rolleyes:

I&#39;m really sorry, but I don&#39;t get it. Call me stupid, but I don&#39;t understand what you&#39;re saying because of the way you are wording it :blush:

[afrikaNOW]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2006, 08:30 PM


Ugh, are we redefining the word "truth" now? That&#39;s called delusion, not truth. No matter how thoroughly someone believes something, that doesn&#39;t change what the truth (objective reality) is. If someone thinks they can fly, that doesn&#39;t change the truth that they can&#39;t. They may think the truth is not what the truth actually is, but that doesn&#39;t make it "true" in any meaningful sense of the term.

Of course it does. Just because you&#39;re telling me that god can only mean one thing at a time and everything is objective doesn&#39;t mean it is. That&#39;s just like saying that if everyone believed that racism was right and normal, with the exception of a few, that racism could be considered right and normal by rule. Just because a majority believe god (or the idea of god) to be some singular, omnipotent being does not mean that everyone should accept it as such. If you were talking to a Hindu, would you expect them to agree with you that there is one god instead millions of them?? Or, if talking to a buddhist, you would expect them to believe that karma simply didn&#39;t exist in this conversation, and god is the only possible idea we could possibly be talking about, because a majority believes in that definition

I&#39;m not redefining truth, just restating it&#39;s definition in it&#39;s less individualistic form.


So basically, God is an expression of a certain set of beliefs which usually pertain to godlike things or the state of being godlike? That&#39;s a circular definition if I&#39;ve ever heard one, and unnecessarily confusing to boot. I still don&#39;t get what you&#39;re talking about.

I thought that part was relatively obvious. Circular definitions are everywhere. I&#39;ve only had basic physics and chemistry, so correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but I do believe mass and matter are an example. Mass is the amount of matter something has, where matter is anything that has mass and volume.



QUOTE

a non-existant thing used by power-mongers,


A non-existent thing? How can a thing be non-existent? If it doesn&#39;t exist, it&#39;s not a thing and can&#39;t be used by anybody.

God is not a thing to those people, it is an idea that can be used as a tool with which to bend the will of the masses.



Universal organic whole? What the hell is that?

An idea used in many eastern philosophical religions, much of which is along the same basic lines of one of Einstein&#39;s theories and Newton&#39;s Laws of Motion.





And I should also have stated that god is simply one of your truths.


God is one of my truths?

I didn&#39;t mean yours personally, but eveyone&#39;s. Everyone has their own truth as to what god is.

If we choose to only talk about one subset of beliefs at a time, we ignore everyone else&#39;s, and therefore do not include everyone, when one of those people with a different set of beliefs may have a useful and interesting point. If it were not for such people giving their own view of the world in a conversation that did not concern their beliefs, I might have still been a capitalist today, tricked by society into believing &#39;communist&#39; and &#39;socialist&#39; is synonomous with &#39;Nazi&#39;.
Hindu&#39;s dont beleive in millions of Gods. They are called devas, which is not the same as Gods, but often get translated as such.

[Eleutherios]

Just because a majority believe god (or the idea of god) to be some singular, omnipotent being does not mean that everyone should accept it as such. If you were talking to a Hindu, would you expect them to agree with you that there is one god instead millions of them?? Or, if talking to a buddhist, you would expect them to believe that karma simply didn&#39;t exist in this conversation, and god is the only possible idea we could possibly be talking about, because a majority believes in that definition
That&#39;s not what I&#39;m saying at all. I&#39;m saying we have to take all of these ideas on their own and analyze them independently. If we&#39;re talking about whether or not Yahweh exists, we don&#39;t need to concern ourselves with the attributes of Zeus or Ra or Gaia or the cheesecake god. It is simply impossible to talk about all the different gods simultaneously with one term if there is nothing they all have in common. We can talk about the multitude of gods when we are discussing Shinto, the monotheistic God when we are talking about Islam, and the tritheistic gods when we are talking about Christianity, but to pretend that you&#39;re talking about all of them at the same time, as well as all the other gods that humanity has ever invented, is simply absurd. I&#39;m willing to bet the vast majority of the world&#39;s gods have come and gone without a single trace in the historical record.

If we choose to only talk about one subset of beliefs at a time, we ignore everyone else&#39;s, and therefore do not include everyone, when one of those people with a different set of beliefs may have a useful and interesting point. If it were not for such people giving their own view of the world in a conversation that did not concern their beliefs, I might have still been a capitalist today, tricked by society into believing &#39;communist&#39; and &#39;socialist&#39; is synonomous with &#39;Nazi&#39;.
We can&#39;t possibly include everyone&#39;s ideas. We can only talk about the ideas we know about. I&#39;m not familiar with everybody&#39;s conception of God and neither are you. I only know about the deities in the major religions and a couple of the minor ones. If somebody with a different set of beliefs has a useful and interesting point, they can chime in and we can talk about that. But most of the time when we say "God" we mean a pretty specific idea of a very smart, very powerful person who created the universe. If we want to talk about some other idea that somebody calls "God", they have to explain what it is first and then we can discuss that idea, redefining the word temporarily for the purposes of the one conversation. But we can only talk about one subset of beliefs at a time if we want the word to have any meaning at all. I can&#39;t think of a practical situation in which it would be useful to define "God" as "every single idea anybody has ever called &#39;God&#39; or will ever call &#39;God&#39; in the entire universe".

[The Rover]

Hindu&#39;s dont beleive in millions of Gods. They are called devas, which is not the same as Gods, but often get translated as such.

Thanks for correcting me. I didn&#39;t know that. If that statement sounds sarcastic, I didn&#39;t mean for it to be.



If we want to talk about some other idea that somebody calls "God", they have to explain what it is first and then we can discuss that idea, redefining the word temporarily for the purposes of the one conversation.

Ummmm, I redefined what I believe to be god, and you are still insisting that it can only mean one thing in this conversation, despite what you just said.


If we&#39;re talking about whether or not Yahweh exists

Why didn&#39;t some one say we were discussing yahu-wahu? All it says is god, so i started discussing god.

[Eleutherios]

Ummmm, I redefined what I believe to be god, and you are still insisting that it can only mean one thing in this conversation, despite what you just said.
I&#39;m insisting it can only mean one thing at a time, and it has a default meaning that most people will assume you are talking about unless you specifically say otherwise. I still don&#39;t understand what you think "God" is, if anything. Saying that "God" is defined as whatever anybody feels like calling "God" gets us nowhere and serves no practical purpose. I can&#39;t even think of a sentence where using the word "God" like that actually communicates a coherent idea.

Of course people have ideas about things that they call "God"; nobody doubts that. The question at hand is: is there actually such an entity in existence, and if so, what are its attributes?

[The Rover]

That&#39;s what I&#39;m saying, it has so many meanings, that arguing about it meaningless.

[The Rover]

Whether or not god exists is not important. There are other, more important, things that should be absorbing our time. Religion is fine and harmless, one just has to destroy religious organizations, because those are a threat.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 3 2006, 07:05 PM
That&#39;s what I&#39;m saying, it has so many meanings, that arguing about it meaningless.
No. Each one of those meanings is worth arguing if somebody believes it is true. Even more so if there are large organizations that believe it is true and act on those beliefs. It&#39;s only meaningless when you try to cram all those definitions into one word at the same time.

Whether or not god exists is not important.
Of course it is&#33; Does it not matter if there is an intelligent creator of the universe who intervenes in our daily affairs? Does it not matter if there is an absolute divine code of morals woven into the fabric of the universe? Does it not matter if we burn for eternity if we don&#39;t follow them? Some of these gods, if they exist, would be very much worth knowing about, and their existence would have very profound effects on how we should act here and now.

There are other, more important, things that should be absorbing our time. Religion is fine and harmless, one just has to destroy religious organizations, because those are a threat.
And you&#39;re saying it doesn&#39;t matter what these religious organizations are teaching, or whether their claims are actually true? :wacko:

[hoopla]

The Rover: Are you saying there is no objective truth practically speaking?

IMO disagreement puts no logical restriction on the coherence of a concept. Neither ought it prevent one from exploring a thing&#39;s meaning, so that practically we may still use the concept "truth"

Sorry, I wasn&#39;t calling you stupid. However it is, unconventional, to say that there is no objective truth, I would think.


from their point of view, they can.This is a misuse of language.


If I believe in subjective truth, I have to believe in objective truth as well, because from one&#39;s point of view, everything may be objective. However, since not everyone agrees on what truth is, it is subjective.Here again, you seem to be ignoring the laws of discourse (?). Are you saying that truth is objective and subjective. How?

[Eleutherios]

The fact that people do not agree on what the truth is, does not mean that truth is subjective. All it means is that people have misinterpreted or are ignorant of some aspects of reality. If you&#39;re unwilling to reject some points of view as falsities, then why are you even a communist? Some people think the truth is that capitalism is non-exploitative and the freest possible economic system. Either you have to reject their point of view as untrue, or you have to concede that their viewpoint is just as truthful as yours. Which is it? Basic logic dictates that capitalism cannot be exploitative and non-exploitative at the same time, so one of you has to be wrong.

[kifl]

the main problem with the question "Does god exist?" is in most religions they say that you can&#39;t describe G-D in any language because it limits G-D in fact they never use an official. So G-D does exist and G-D doesn&#39;t exist, And what I wrote limits the one.

[DPCC2002]

I&#39;ve been an Agnostic since I could begin to think for myself, but my family and my friends who all live in the Dominican Republic all are practicing Catholics. The Catholic faith is one of the only way people from my village survive, which is too bad that they feel they have to wait until death to be given what they deserve, but it also makes me sometimes wonder if there is still some validity in the faith. But for me, it is a definent I don&#39;t know.

[Tarik]

I vote No, because the concept of God is not a natural concept.But a concept made by the human culture.

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:26 AM
Some people think the truth is that capitalism is non-exploitative and the freest possible economic system.
From the point of view of the employing class, capitalism is "non-exploitative and the freest possible economic system", because it doesn&#39;t oppress or exploit them. It&#39;s only from our point of view as workers that capitalism is exploitative and oppressive. In that sense, it is a subjective point of view on both sides.

The existence or non-existence of God, however, is objective, either he exists or he doesn&#39;t.

He doesn&#39;t, by the way :)

[Ivory Apparition]

No.

God does not exist because it is highly irrational to think some "supernatural," being exists within nature, and or some "imaginary heavnly land."

God is a crutch used by emotionally and psychologically weak people.

[Afrikan Erbsman]

Greetings

Yes.

Jah exists how can Jah not exist how can everything you touch and feel not be divine??

Also religion is bad religion is evil and corrupt they do not listen to Jah at all.

Satta ames-seggene Amlak, ulaghize

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by Ivory [email protected] 10 2006, 04:24 PM
No.

God does not exist because it is highly irrational to think some "supernatural," being exists within nature, and or some "imaginary heavnly land."

God is a crutch used by emotionally and psychologically weak people.
Hitler wasn&#39;t exactly smashing the Church my friend...

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by Afrikan [email protected] 10 2006, 04:41 PM
Greetings

Yes.

Jah exists how can Jah not exist how can everything you touch and feel not be divine??

Also religion is bad religion is evil and corrupt they do not listen to Jah at all.

Satta ames-seggene Amlak, ulaghize
Dude, isn&#39;t Jah part of the pot-smoking Rastafarian religion?

Don&#39;t you worship the Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia?

Sorry, but that religion is just kooky.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by CCCPneubauten+Aug 10 2006, 05:02 PM--> (CCCPneubauten @ Aug 10 2006, 05:02 PM)
Afrikan [email protected] 10 2006, 04:41 PM
Greetings

Yes.

Jah exists how can Jah not exist how can everything you touch and feel not be divine??

Also religion is bad religion is evil and corrupt they do not listen to Jah at all.

Satta ames-seggene Amlak, ulaghize
Dude, isn&#39;t Jah part of the pot-smoking Rastafarian religion?

Don&#39;t you worship the Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia?

Sorry, but that religion is just kooky. [/b]
you mean ethiopian-orthadox?

[TheGreatOne]

Sure there is a god...in the minds of a couple billion lunatics.

[Cryotank Screams]

"The gods retain the threefold task: they must exorcize the terrors of nature, they must reconcile men to the cruetly of Fate, particularly as it is shown in death, and they must compensate them for the sufferings and privations which a civilized life in common has imposed on them."-The Future of an Illusion, pg. 18.

[Communism And Freedom]

What does one mean by "God"?

If you mean "God" in the sense of the Platonistic, anthropomorphic Abrahamic God, then I say No. If you mean "God" in the sense of Ultimate Reality or the conscient Universe, I&#39;d say Yes.

But then, one must ask the question can this be answered with a "Yes" or "No" answer? What does it mean to exist or not exist? How can one measure existence or non-existence by means other than subjective measurements? Things can exist subjectively and not exist objectively and vice versa.

My answer is like that of Nagarjuna&#39;s answer to whether or not the world exists: Neither X (Yes) nor Y (No), nor both, nor neither. Wrap your mind around that. :P

[The Rover]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:26 AM
The fact that people do not agree on what the truth is, does not mean that truth is subjective. All it means is that people have misinterpreted or are ignorant of some aspects of reality. If you&#39;re unwilling to reject some points of view as falsities, then why are you even a communist? Some people think the truth is that capitalism is non-exploitative and the freest possible economic system. Either you have to reject their point of view as untrue, or you have to concede that their viewpoint is just as truthful as yours. Which is it? Basic logic dictates that capitalism cannot be exploitative and non-exploitative at the same time, so one of you has to be wrong.
If you&#39;re implying that I don&#39;t have a point of view, that&#39;s wrong. I believe capitalism is exploitative and wrong. I also understand that while I may feel very strongly about something, someone may feel just as strongly about it as I do, but with an opposing view. I&#39;m not saying that you shouldn&#39;t argue with them: you should, in hopes that they will see things the way you do. But, you still have to understand that from their point of view, you are just as wrong as they seem to you. I would love to believe in objectivism. I would love to say that socialism and pacifism and freedom of speech and equality is all completely and utterly right, and everyone who believes the contrary is evil. But, if they believe it, then they see it as true, and I have no ability to prove them false. To be more understanding of others one has to give up one&#39;s naive worldview of good and bad.

[The Rover]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Aug 14 2006, 06:26 PM--> (LeftyHenry @ Aug 14 2006, 06:26 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 05:02 PM

Afrikan [email protected] 10 2006, 04:41 PM
Greetings

Yes.

Jah exists how can Jah not exist how can everything you touch and feel not be divine??

Also religion is bad religion is evil and corrupt they do not listen to Jah at all.

Satta ames-seggene Amlak, ulaghize
Dude, isn&#39;t Jah part of the pot-smoking Rastafarian religion?

Don&#39;t you worship the Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia?

Sorry, but that religion is just kooky.
you mean ethiopian-orthadox? [/b]
No, the Rastafari movement is different from, though closely associated with in many cases, the Ethiopian orthodox church

[RedAnarchist]

The problem of evil, which Christian apologist William Lane Craig has called atheism&#39;s killer argument. The argument is that the presence of evil in the world disproves the existence of any god that is simultaneously benevolent and omnipotent, because any benevolent god would want to eliminate evil, and any omnipotent god would be able to do so.

The related argument from nonbelief, also known as the argument from divine hiddenness, which states that if an omnipotent God existed and wanted to be believed and praised by all, he would invariably be able to do so, but there are unbelievers. So God does not exist, or prefers to remain hidden from mankind and therefore doesn&#39;t require belief.

Theological noncognitivism which is the argument that religious language, and specifically words like "God" (capitalized), are not cognitively meaningful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Can any theists disprove these arguments for atheism?

[The Rover]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 02:52 PM
The problem of evil, which Christian apologist William Lane Craig has called atheism&#39;s killer argument. The argument is that the presence of evil in the world disproves the existence of any god that is simultaneously benevolent and omnipotent, because any benevolent god would want to eliminate evil, and any omnipotent god would be able to do so.

The related argument from nonbelief, also known as the argument from divine hiddenness, which states that if an omnipotent God existed and wanted to be believed and praised by all, he would invariably be able to do so, but there are unbelievers. So God does not exist, or prefers to remain hidden from mankind and therefore doesn&#39;t require belief.

Theological noncognitivism which is the argument that religious language, and specifically words like "God" (capitalized), are not cognitively meaningful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Can any theists disprove these arguments for atheism?
Well, what happens if there is no such thing as good or evil?

[praxis1966]

Well, what happens if there is no such thing as good or evil?

I&#39;m assuming you mean good or evil people, in which case I would say that there are none, only people who take actions with either positive or negative repercussions. As Freire would argue, it is of vital necessity not to view the oppressor as inherintly evil (or the revolutionary as inherintly righteous), otherwise the revolutionary runs the risk of just becoming a stand in for him when he takes power.

At any rate, I voted I don&#39;t know. It&#39;s the only scientific way to approach the question. Saying no requires just as much faith as saying yes, since both hypotheses are equally unfalsifiable.

PS Just for good measure, a rather amusing quote I came across recently:

"Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one&#39;s eyes shut and wailing &#39;does not&#33;&#39;" - [email protected]

[Postteen]

People created god(s) when they couldnt explain nature.Back then science didnt exist, now it exists, so believe in it&#33;&#33;

[Xiao Banfa]

I can understand voting "I don&#39;t know", but "no" is a bit much.
How can anyone know there isn&#39;t a god when there are concepts indeciferable to human levels of conciousness?

How tangible is something called love?

Why is it that when a human blots out negative thoughts and asks their conscience an answer comes- one that feels "right"?

[violencia.Proletariat]

I can understand voting "I don&#39;t know", but "no" is a bit much.
How can anyone know there isn&#39;t a god when there are concepts indeciferable to human levels of conciousness?

Because there is absolutely no empirical evidence of god. This being would have to manifest itself physically to change our world or "create" it, but if he only exists in that 432nd demention of conciousness that no one knows about ( :rolleyes: ), how could he do these things?

Besides, you would be hard pressed to come up with a group of people who can even agree on what our "counciousness" is.


Why is it that when a human blots out negative thoughts and asks their conscience an answer comes- one that feels "right"?

Because this isn&#39;t what people are really doing. There is no voice in your head (unless you are having mental issues) telling you what to do. What you are doing is taking past and present expierences/knowledge to decide what you think is best to do. Most people are not doing this in a rational way however, and use illogical crap they&#39;ve learned (faith, god, w/e) to base their decisions off of.

Are you hearing voices? :unsure:

[Xiao Banfa]

Because there is absolutely no empirical evidence of god. This being would have to manifest itself physically to change our world or "create" it, but if he only exists in that 432nd demention of conciousness that no one knows about ( ), how could he do these things?


This logic is very scrambled, it presumes to know how the workings of a universe with a god would operate (which is ridiculous).

I&#39;m stating that, undoubtedly, there are concepts which are intangible to people that cannot be explained by science. They are just too way out for human intelligence to grasp.

What is the nature of existence?

What is the nature of infinity?

How can you be sure there isn&#39;t a god? You can&#39;t prove to me that there is no god just as you can&#39;t prove to me that there is a god.


Are you hearing voices?

I&#39;m describing how a healthy human conscience operates, not a psychiatric condition where a person hears voices. If you have trouble telling the difference, that is worrying.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 26 2006, 12:04 AM








This logic is very scrambled, it presumes to know how the workings of a universe with a god would operate (which is ridiculous).

Here is the situation, you have no evidence of any of this. I am denying that what you proposes exists because there is no evidence of it. You have no ground to argue from. I could say just about anything and claim it as possible by saying we couldnt figure it out.


I&#39;m stating that, undoubtedly, there are concepts which are intangible to people that cannot be explained by science.

And what are they? What can the scientific method not be applied to except that for which does not exist?


You can&#39;t prove to me that there is no god just as you can&#39;t prove to me that there is a god.

Read the stickied thread, Burden of Proof.


What is the nature of existence?

What is the nature of infinity?

We know the basic mechanics of why we exist. We figuered that out long ago. What makes you think there is anything more to it? The "nature of existence" doesn&#39;t mean anything when there is no evidence of any non-scientific being making that existence.

[The Rover]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 11:27 AM

Well, what happens if there is no such thing as good or evil?

I&#39;m assuming you mean good or evil people, in which case I would say that there are none, only people who take actions with either positive or negative repercussions. As Freire would argue, it is of vital necessity not to view the oppressor as inherintly evil (or the revolutionary as inherintly righteous), otherwise the revolutionary runs the risk of just becoming a stand in for him when he takes power.

At any rate, I voted I don&#39;t know. It&#39;s the only scientific way to approach the question. Saying no requires just as much faith as saying yes, since both hypotheses are equally unfalsifiable.

PS Just for good measure, a rather amusing quote I came across recently:

"Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one&#39;s eyes shut and wailing &#39;does not&#33;&#39;" - [email protected]
But what happens when there are no positive or negative repercussions? What if we simply viewed everything from a neutral standpoint, and whatever happens, happens?

[Tommy-K]

I&#39;m agnostic. Thomas Henry Huxley said "We can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God." So I voted &#39;I Don&#39;t Know&#39;. I will remain agnostic untill I see proof either way.

I do however have a major problem with religion, but that&#39;s not for this thread :D

[Eleutherios]

Sure we can, provided we know which god we&#39;re talking about. You just have to define the term first. It is notoriously difficult to disprove the existence of all "gods", since the term is so vague that people can&#39;t agree what it means. But if you get talking to a theist about what god they believe in, it usually becomes pretty easy to show where the idea breaks down.

For instance, if "God" is supposed to be some higher power who answers our prayers to him, it would be trivial to set up an experiment to prove it.

[LoneRed]

God Is Like Santa Clause For Adults

Heard that somewhere, don&#39;t remember where, but it sums up the truth quite well

[Darth Revan]

No god is as real as the tooth fairy to me

[Purple]

God is created by intuition, a sense or a belief that something is "correct", and since nothing can be proven in either direction, wether he exists or not, such a question cannot be answered.