Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Akroma]

In this topic we celebrate our freedom not to take a side


Gods existance is neither proven nor disproven. Until then, picking a side is nothing else but giving each other more fuel to dislike eachother based on our believes.

Sure, Atheists like to say that scientific proves have proven the bible to be as reliable as windows 98, but I'd like to say that just because christianity didn't get it right, doesn't mean there is nothing like a god, or something god-like at all.

Sure enough, omnipotence in itself is strictly against any logic, but who sais that god is omnipotent in the absolute sense of the word ?



Science does nothing that can disprove god, it only disproves the most popular versions of him.

Even with physical laws being absolute, one has to admit that many parts of modern creation theories, especially when explaining quantum mechanics, mention the word "at random" often enough.

It is not entirely impossible that "at random" can be influenced, well within the laws of physics.

And even if that is not the case, there is, so far, nothing that disproves the big bang from being caused by Zeus.


So until it random has been proven to be actually random, taking a side and defending it with all your diplomatic might is premature.
Call me once it is proven, but before that don't you dare call yourself right.

[Yanlin]

I'm an atheist by definition. I don't believe in god by definition. I believe he is not as we defined him. If he exists.

You could say I'm an Agnostic. If I actually knew what that means.

Personally, I wont believe anything until I see some proof. But you wont see me shouting "GOD IS FAKE! GO DIE IN FIRE!"

You will hear me shout "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!" though. Occam's razor man.

[Akroma]

I think that the one demanding proves should also be able to provide a prove against what needs to be proven

if he can not, he is not a wise judge.


okay, in many many cases, proving one thing means disproving another
for instance proving that the earth is older than 5000 years at the same time proves that the bible is not true word for word.

however disproving the bible does not disprove the possibility of a god existing

but hey, we wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions, now wouldn't we ?
afterall, we are thinking rationaly and logicaly, and don't express opinion as fact, or would we ?

[MrWiggles]

Pansies.

>.>
In a strict sense, I'm agonistic. Since intellectual honesty requires me to be. (DAmn honesty), but for all purposes, god doesn't exist. I say I'm an atheist, as its true. I am, as it doesn't allow for that annoying wiggle room. Like almost being punished for being intellectually honest.

You can say you don't know something for certain but the certainty it is known is equal to zero. Might as well be zero. 

But again.

Pansies.

[Tormy]

I think that the one demanding proves should also be able to provide a prove against what needs to be proven

if he can not, he is not a wise judge.

That sounds weird. Example: How could we prove, that there is no God...or that there is a God? We cannot do that, because we don't have any proofs, and it's true for both cases. It's simple....since we have no proof that there is a God = I say that there is no God.

[Akroma]

Tormy, that is exactly the point

neither has the right to say they are right

[Aldaris]

I'm an agnostic ahteist. I think there aren't any gods/supernatural entities, but becasue of the aformentioned lack of proof, I can't be sure.

[Antioch]

Tormy, that is exactly the point

neither has the right to say they are right

but of course that would mean that we should not deny the existence of anything, so we may not say that purple dragons don't exist, because despite the fact that there is no evidence that they ever did, it is also impossible to prove that they didn't.

If there is no proof to suggest that something ever existed we should for all purposes see it as non existing. Because acting on a theory that can not be proven right and can not be proven wrong, we should logically act on every theory that can not be proven wrong, as there is the same ammount of evidence for it as the other theories.
So if we say that we should act as if there was a god, we should also act as if there were pink invissible elephants floating in the sky.
Because these unproven theories contradict each other it is impossible to follow them all we should follow non at all, because deciding what theories we should follow requires arguments, that don't exist, as there is no proof of the theory beeing right.
=> we should view god as non existing untill his existence is proven, not existing till it is proven otherwise

[Akroma]

stop fagging up my thread

it is meant as a protest against the enormous amount of intolerance going on on this forum


if you are going to try to ridicule my believes by the usage of out-of-context


there is no contradiction of a god existing and all laws of physics being correct

I am not saying that we should act as if there is a god
I am just saying if you keep harrassing people because they think there is, and you don't, it makes you a douchebag


you can etch the words "I am right" on the surface of the moon, it doesn't make you more right, it only shows that you are the kind of guy that one would call a "bad winner"
you know, the kind of guys that like to mention what throphies they all won on every occasion, just like, you know, douchebags


atheism does in no way make you in any way better than any other person.

keep in mind that all scientific view-points are just as much a pre-made opinion as religion is.
From the time you learn what + and - are to the day you read interesting articles about quantum physics, it is all presented to you pre-made
you read and replicate it, and nothing of it is your own idea

militant atheists like to talk as if they were the ones who invented the light bulp, just because they like to associate themselves with people they look up to

but in the end, only a tiny tiny minority of them actually contributes to science.


so either you stop ridiculing other peoples believes, or you leave this thread
alone
if you want a logik-cock comparison, go to the atheist thread



I am very well aware of the irony, but let me close this with a very nice pre-made opinion

I know that I don't know anything

[Antioch]

I find your reaction somewhat surprising as I never even said that there is no god, it was a logical statement about the need to proof something before acting upon it, what actually does not contradicts your own beliefs.

But I will apologize and leave this thread.

[Akroma]

it's not about god or not, but about you comparing the belief in a possible god to the belief in urple dragons and pink elephants

[Antioch]

it's not about god or not, but about you comparing the belief in a possible god to the belief in urple dragons and pink elephants

are you stating that believing that purple dragons exist is inferior to believing a god exists? Please elaborate

[woose1]

it's not about god or not, but about you comparing the belief in a possible god to the belief in urple dragons and pink elephants

are you stating that believing that purple dragons exist is inferior to believing a god exists? Please elaborate

The Pink elephants union supports you, Antioch.

[Akroma]

I won't

I know that you are very well aware of the implications, and that you deliberately chose purple dragons and pink elephants as examples to ridicule the belief in any form of higher existance.


Everything that you don't believe in is ridiculous to you. You hear of it, think that it is bullshit, and then compare it to things that are actual bullshit, like the pink elephant, probably the most famous symbol for hallucinations and constructs of fantasy.


Don't act as if you are not aware of this under the premise of fooling me to lead a discussion, just so you can drill a hole into anyone elses belief to build up the confidence in your own belief.


This thread is not competetive, and being right is not the goal.
The goal is acknowledgement that there is no absolute truth, and that people should tolerate others believes.


You don't belief that something that can not be explained by physical laws could possibly exist.
Fine. All signs point to it, so hey, believe in it all you want.
But don't you dare look down on people who say otherwise.

Don't say that you don't - you have already shown that you do by trying to ridicule my believes.


And now, please prove one thing: that you can stick to your own word.
remember:

But I will apologize and leave this thread.

you said that 15 minutes before coming back for more

[Antioch]

you said that 15 minutes after coming back for more

ohw that is just mean, you replied......

But in any case you indeed TOTALLY misread my intentions, I did not mean to ridicule anyones believe.

I am just VERY curious about what the cause is of describing the believe in purple dragons as totally ridiciulous but the believe in god as something that is not? (Am I a moron when I believe in purple dragons?(no I am not saying that you are a moron when you believe in a god) What is the border when describing something as ridiciulous, when for both no(?) proof exists?

That brings me back to my original post, I will abstract it to make it clearer

Theory A is a theory is a theory that has nothing to prove or disprove it.
Theory B is a theory is a theory that has nothing to prove or disprove it.
Theory C is a theory is a theory that has nothing to prove or disprove it.

Theory C contradicts theory A
Person 1 believes in theory A
Should person 1 also logically believe in theory B as it has the same reasons to believe in it?

Should person 1 believe in theory C because of the same reasons? Even though it contradicts with the original Theory A, thus believing at least in 1 theory that must be false? (A and C cannot be true at the same time)

The Pink elephants union supports you, Antioch.

not helping.....