Print

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

[Akroma]

first of all, I don't believe your motives.
You did choose purple dragons and pink elephants as ridiculous examples, because they are ridiculous

and now you ask me to either fight against them or to defend them, either tying me up in contradictions, or making myself sound ridiculous.

anyway, read carefully what I will write now


I did NOT say that everyone is right

what I am saying is that no one is right


I am not saying that one should believe in everything, but rather, in nothing.
I do neither believe in a god, nor in dragons.
Nor do I believe that science has the last word when it sais that everything can be explained by it.

NOTHING is absolute, and shouldn't be presented as such.

[Antioch]

first of all, I don't believe your motives.
You did choose purple dragons and pink elephants as ridiculous examples, because they are ridiculous

Not true, I came up with those examples because of a discussion about Descartes I once had, it was about his prove of god existing. But the proof could be used to proof the existence of anything so had to be faulty.

and now you ask me to either fight against them or to defend them, either tying me up in contradictions, or making myself sound ridiculous.

true

anyway, read carefully what I will write now

I did NOT say that everyone is right

what I am saying is that no one is right

I am not saying that one should believe in everything, but rather, in nothing.
I do neither believe in a god, nor in dragons.
Nor do I believe that science has the last word when it sais that everything can be explained by it.

NOTHING is absolute, and shouldn't be presented as such.

Actually that was my entire point, so I am confident enough to say that we actually agree mostly.

Nor do I believe that science has the last word when it sais that everything can be explained by it.

Well perhaps not about this part, as science  does not actually make any statements about the existence of a god, it describes laws and theories after observation.

[Akroma]

haha, what an asshole

how can you say we agree for the most part when you simply pick out the part where I say all religions are wrong, but then deny the fact that science is not absolute either

way to bend the meaning of my words

[Antioch]

haha, what an asshole

how can you say we agree for the most part when you simply pick out the part where I say all religions are wrong, but then deny the fact that science is not absolute either

way to bend the meaning of my words

science =/= atheism, science is a tool to describe things, and I believe that it is a correct tool, of course this does not mean that science can explain everything.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Shut up, people! Don't flame here!

This is not the place for ‼war‼! Go to anon territories if you want to do that!

[Akroma]

IWM has it right

Antioch, do as you already promised 1 and a half hours ago

[Gantolandon]

neither has the right to say they are right

Do agnostics have?

NOTHING is absolute, and shouldn't be presented as such.

I see a neat paradox here...

[Akroma]

no paradox

it is entirely possible that I am wrong and something absolute exists

[Muz]

You guys are pansies. Grow some balls, do some research, pick a side, and start flaming someone

I'd be agnostic if I wasn't religious. I think there's some verse that says that even Abraham doubted the existence of God (at least for a moment), so it's human instinct. There's not 100% evidence to prove that God exists, and unlike what athiests go for, you can't assume that just because something hasn't been proven, it's automatically false. And even as atheists, you can prove one religion wrong, but you need a lot more work to prove all of them wrong.

Religion is about faith. Heck, if you're an atheist, you're putting faith that God(s) is/are non-existent. Agnosticism is the faithless ground.

[Yanlin]

You guys are pansies. Grow some balls, do some research, pick a side, and start flaming someone

I'd be agnostic if I wasn't religious. I think there's some verse that says that even Abraham doubted the existence of God (at least for a moment), so it's human instinct. There's not 100% evidence to prove that God exists, and unlike what athiests go for, you can't assume that just because something hasn't been proven, it's automatically false. And even as atheists, you can prove one religion wrong, but you need a lot more work to prove all of them wrong.

Religion is about faith. Heck, if you're an atheist, you're putting faith that God(s) is/are non-existent. Agnosticism is the faithless ground.

Sigh.

I find atheism to be Occam's razor. Not the undying belief that god does not exist.

[Muz]

I find atheism to be Occam's razor. Not the undying belief that god does not exist.

Well, my own slant into religion has been in that theism is the Occam's razor. It's all a matter of which side of the fence it's easier to fall on. But there's nothing to be gained from discussing that, only flames, so I bow and take my leave of this and all future threads on religion

[LegoLord]

Here's an analogy:

The Flight of Dragons, I believe the book is called.  It's all about how dragons would be able to exist in accordance to legend.  It goes so far as to explain how the very chemistry that would allow a creature like the dragon to exist would destroy any evidence of its existence after the creature died.

Essentially, it says the dragon is a natural Hindenburg.  It would fly by producing hydrogen, in a process that would dissolve an area bone material developed for the purpose, through some biological process or another, maybe involving bacteria.  The numerous flight sacks were supposedly responsible for its size.  When it dies, not only would the body decompose, but the bacteria or what have you that dissolve the bone material would continue doing so, only after death the bone would not regrow.

Now, can you provide evidence disproving that?  No.  Can you say that, as a fact, dragons existed?  Obviously not, as according to that hypothesis there would be no evidence.

Now, before anyone says anything about gods not dying, that's not the point.  The point is that it is something that we cannot say is real.  Dinosaurs are real, they just aren't alive anymore.  As with dragons, which we cannot determine the reality of, we cannot determine if gods are real or fake.  After that, it's all up to belief.  You cannot say one is right or wrong.  You cannot deny one or the other based on unlikelihood, because unlikely things happen all the time.  At the same time, there are situations in which the unlikely chance does not happen.

You don't know how it would work, so you don't even know the likelihood.  It could turn out being very likely there are gods, after twenty more years of general research, or it could turn out that twenty more years of research in general turn up evidence that suggests strongly (far more so than now; the tech of now is pathetic in this regard) that gods or God does not exist.

You cannot say as a fact that there is nothing to believe in, neither can you state as a fact that there is something to believe in.

[Yanlin]

Here's an analogy:

The Flight of Dragons, I believe the book is called.  It's all about how dragons would be able to exist in accordance to legend.  It goes so far as to explain how the very chemistry that would allow a creature like the dragon to exist would destroy any evidence of its existence after the creature died.

Essentially, it says the dragon is a natural Hindenburg.  It would fly by producing hydrogen, in a process that would dissolve an area bone material developed for the purpose, through some biological process or another, maybe involving bacteria.  The numerous flight sacks were supposedly responsible for its size.  When it dies, not only would the body decompose, but the bacteria or what have you that dissolve the bone material would continue doing so, only after death the bone would not regrow.

Now, can you provide evidence disproving that?  No.  Can you say that, as a fact, dragons existed?  Obviously not, as according to that hypothesis there would be no evidence.

Now, before anyone says anything about gods not dying, that's not the point.  The point is that it is something that we cannot say is real.  Dinosaurs are real, they just aren't alive anymore.  As with dragons, which we cannot determine the reality of, we cannot determine if gods are real or fake.  After that, it's all up to belief.  You cannot say one is right or wrong.  You cannot deny one or the other based on unlikelihood, because unlikely things happen all the time.  At the same time, there are situations in which the unlikely chance does not happen.

You don't know how it would work, so you don't even know the likelihood.  It could turn out being very likely there are gods, after twenty more years of general research, or it could turn out that twenty more years of research in general turn up evidence that suggests strongly (far more so than now; the tech of now is pathetic in this regard) that gods or God does not exist.

You cannot say as a fact that there is nothing to believe in, neither can you state as a fact that there is something to believe in.

While that is nice, it does not follow the scientific method. Proof first, conclusions second.

What you have here is a classic case of conclusion first and proof second.

[Akroma]

wasn't it
hypothesis first, proof later  ?

[G-Flex]

Here's an analogy:

The Flight of Dragons, I believe the book is called.  It's all about how dragons would be able to exist in accordance to legend.  It goes so far as to explain how the very chemistry that would allow a creature like the dragon to exist would destroy any evidence of its existence after the creature died.

Essentially, it says the dragon is a natural Hindenburg.  It would fly by producing hydrogen, in a process that would dissolve an area bone material developed for the purpose, through some biological process or another, maybe involving bacteria.  The numerous flight sacks were supposedly responsible for its size.  When it dies, not only would the body decompose, but the bacteria or what have you that dissolve the bone material would continue doing so, only after death the bone would not regrow.

Now, can you provide evidence disproving that?  No.

I get your point, but in this case, I can, because there's no way in hell that a creature like that would get enough hydrogen sacks inside itself to support its own weight, unless it's got this giant tumor-looking thing twenty times its own size floating above it like an actual blimp.