God is real
Постови: 144
Посвећено од стране: 91 users
Првобитни пост
Постављено од стране Unleashed, 20.02.2014 - 06:17
You used galileo as a example? He was imprisioned by the inquisition for supporting Heliocentrism.... I understand that you have to defend your faith, but please, don't make a fool out of yourself.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
|
Wtf is up with the nice language? lel, Tunder the diplomat.  He's retarded, leave him alone. It's so funny when he says "I won this debate"  I was wondering, why can I see his posts. Then I realized it's a new acc. No problem, fixed now.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
Personally, I think you are a religious and insane person, and I would be happy if you left this planet asap That's all you want to do afterall, your highest goal in life is to attain death and go to heaven, and I would be glad to help anytime, religious idiot
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
Black Shark Профил је обрисан |
|
We will never be sure if galileo or any other important figuere from that time, faked to be religious in order to be recognized or bypass persecution. For example, if i lived in a country that persecuted my religion, i would keep my religion to myself, and fake to be mermber of the dominant religion.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? HAHAHAHAHA In regards to Jewish people and science, especially in America, you have allowed your hate of Jewish people to overwhelm your reason. Ever hear of Albert Einstein? There is no 'reasonable' list of top 10 scientists he doesn't appear on. - In America, 38% of the National Medal of Science winners is Jewish. Depending on which estimates you use, from 1-4% of Americans are Jewish - a higher percentage than any country except Israel and Gibraltar. - In the world, from 1901 forward, 23% of the Nobel prize winners were Jewish. If you were to narrow the prizes to those 'scientific' in nature, the percentage jumps even higher. Of course, world Jewish population is far far less than 1% You are really That being said, because I have seen your capacity to learn, you'll check what I said - even though you've never known me to intentionally lie. As usual, you'll find I'm right (or at least not intentionally spreading untruth). So, once you have researched the matter even superficially, you'll see that Jewish people are over-represented in science, from the late 19th century forward. The only branches of science where Jewish people are not over-represented are Racial Hygine and Eugenics: pseudosciences at best. This will cause in you a dynamic tension, also known as cognitive dissonance. 1. You love science and scientists. 2. You hate Jews. 3. You appear to be an 'emergent' reasoner - you *believe* in reason, but often see how it can be ... inconvenient. You are currently at the phase where you attempt to use logic and evidence to serve your intent - rather than following logic and evidence where they lead you. If I didn't (as of now) despise you, I would be amused to see your little brain work through these incoherence. I will be very surprised if you temper your hatred of Jews towards your appreciation of science, because love is often skin deep, but hate goes down to the bone. The most likely outcome of this will be for you to determine that 'Jews steal the scientific achievements of others' or that 'Jews run the awards committees' or 'Jews re-wrote wikipedia' - because, then, you won't need to reconcile your beliefs. Or you could make the final leap - follow the evidence where it leads you. === While I am not in the business of denying things, it would be a true statement that I am not a law student. I have never said I am an atheist, or not an atheist. I am very much a religious skeptic though I disapprove of religious intolerance, and I take great pleasure in bashing the God Haters, because it amuses me how similar they are identical to religious fundamentalists. And, as I say to all haters (now that you're convinced I am a Jew and not a Muslim, or a Christian, or a professor): As if I consider any of this to be an insult. Imagine I am everything you hate in the world - how does this change the validity of my arguments or the value of my evidence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates http://www.jinfo.org/Medal_of_Science.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck#Einstein_and_the_theory_of_relativity < Max Planck, who will show up on any 'reasonable' list of the top 20 scientists of all times, kept teaching Einstein's Theory of Relativity during the Reich era, in Germany, was called a 'white Jew' and was accused by the Hauptamt Wissenschaft of being '1/16th Jewish'.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
Are you threatening me with physical harm?
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
Now now, do you kiss your dad with that dirty mouth? Shame.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
Well, Galieleo was wrong (the sun isn't the center of the universe, only our system) and Unleashed is retarded (a word I do not use lightly). So I leave it to other people to draw the reasonable conclusion.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
All I suggest is that it would be better for this world if you killed yourself. Nobody will miss you.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
Clearly you want to make people change for the better. You are an unqualified fuck up about the *think* part, unless you want to make people *think* that Atheists hate them.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
|
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
Now here is what you said:
I have been more than tolerant with the name calling, asshattery etc. I will not tolerate you threatening me, or anyone else, with physical harm. Exactly in what way would you help me 'attain death' if you are not threatening me? Certainly you were not suggesting that I commit suicide. It clearly says that you would be glad to help me attain death, anytime. I demand an explanation.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
|
Lol Khalessi, zombie has a great understanding of science, its epistemological claims and its objective to predict various phenomena. He is not trying to fool you with complex vocabulary for his benefit or interest, actually, his arguments are well written in the STANDARD form. He's not being over literate by any means-- anyone who knows the basics of science, metaphysics and philosophy can understand the argument he is conveying. He's doing you guys a huge favor of informing you, I suggest you let your personal beliefs and biases aside and learn something from him. I've only been in a post-secondary environment for a year now, read a couple books, took a few classes, mainly introductory courses, and I understand the majority of what he's saying, with a few exceptions of course, where I had to look up a few things and document myself. Both science and religion are founded on axioms that cannot be demonstrable... this is true. On this basis, both systems are equal. He is not saying that religion is equal to science on all levels. All of you fail to understand the metaphysical ramifications that religion encompasses, to the contrary of science, which respectively studies the objective reality. Yes it is based on axioms, but science doesn't makes permanent or dogmatic claims because it is under a constant process of falsification. Faith is a seemingly complex term, which could exist in an individual for several reasons. I don't believe so. Zombie if you could give your personal opinion on faith I would appreciate that <3. I believe faith is simply a certainty due to indoctrination. I argued several believers in my life, and those who were educated within their beliefs always retreated to the "faith" excuse. "I just know that God exists." or "I just have faith.". If you're shown who God is and taught about the Bible as a child, you will most likely believe it instantly, even if you don't yet consider the various ramifications and contradictions within it, you will accept it. Even if some of those children grow up to be intelligent, well-educated individuals who understand that the Bible is metaphorical and was written by people originating from different times, places and who had different perspectives and biases, they'll still say "I just know that God exists, because I have faith". The reason for this, I believe is because the "God" idea, was always in them, and thus became a certainty. If for instance, they were never shown God or the Bible as a child, and then they were told about them as adults, would they believe it? Would they have faith? I doubt it. I'm sure you're aware of the "flying spaghetti monster" zombie? I'll often say to these believers that the idea of an all-powerful God who created the universe is the same thing as the flying spaghetti monster. Of course, they'll tell me that it's a bogus analogy and that it doesn't nearly have the same credibility as the God idea. So their reaction to the flying spaghetti monster would be one of disbelief, and one of a laughing-matter. In my opinion, if they were never shown what God was, and they were suddenly shown that he is an all-powerful God who created the universe, they would probably have a similar reaction to that of the flying spaghetti monster. Not the same exact reaction of course, the God idea is a bit more refined, but nevertheless similar. Your thoughts?
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
|
In the stong belief called "Christianity" where you believe a divine creature created a system that allows the cycle of humans, please explain the point of it.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
|
To Unleashed. Threatening, really man. You out of arguments? lol. Again the internet, the fucking internet. Remember God loves you, and me and zombie will pray for your soul. You say believers have a mental illness, ok, let's say they do. Would their psychologist say to them: "YOU FUCKING IDIOT YOU BELIEVE IN A MAN IN THE SKY YOU'RE SO INDOCTRINATED AND IGNORANT YOUR LIFE IS MEANINGLESS." No, he or she wouldn't. That wouldn't help them at all. But you... That's what you're doing. lol
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
On Faith: I would opine (not restrict or define) Faith is belief unsupported by, and often contrary to, evidence. In the 21st century (anytime after the 1970s, if not earlier) even educated, interested people cannot easily keep up with the current scientific thinking of their era. People haven't become 'dumber' - science has become that specialized. To the point: I have to *have faith* in the scientific method's ruthlessness - because it is essentially impossible for a non-specialist to evaluate current scientific claims on their merit. Can it be deduced that my belief in global climate change is based on my *faith* in the scientific method as the great grinding filter? Yes. Am I skeptical of scientific claims that serve a particular interest? Yes, but this does not mean I disregard these, out of hand. - If I argue with a climate-change denier of less knowledge than I about the subject, I'll point out that weather is different from climate, and that the *average* temperature of the planet is increasing, even if it is colder than average in our shared city/state/country. - If I argue with a climate-change denier of equal knowledge to me, my final 'argument' is that "the overwhelming consensus of climatologists is ..." to which the 'denier' could legitimately reply "so, 'experts agree'?". - If I argue with a climate-change denier who has more knowledge than I do, who points to (insert contrary claim here) then my final response is still an appeal to the expertise. "If what you say is true, why do your colleagues disagree with you ?" Human Caused Climate Change [HCCC] 'fits' within my other belief systems, so it is easy for me to accept. But I have evidence that I have to reconcile with my belief: - The 'scientific consensus' of the 1970-80s was an approaching ice age. - Increased atmospheric carbon *should* cause increased plant growth, increasing carbon uptake, and reducing atmospheric temperature. - It *has* been cold in much of the USA this winter! - Some scientists who claim that human-caused climate change is imminent have admitted to inflating their numbers. - Nuclear energy proponents benefit from the idea that human-caused-climate-change is imminent. - 'Clean gas' turns out to be worse for climate change than burning oil or coal, because of the methane leakage surrounding extraction; we all know frackers lie, and do mean things, so what's good for frackers must be bad for the world, right? I know it was cold in America this winter. I know frackers are evil. I know that climatologists used to warn us of an ice age, and I know that more carbon should equal less carbon (equilibrium). Why, then, do I believe in HCCC? In essence because I have *faith* in the scientific method, and am *skeptical* of the claimants against it, because the claimants against HCCC tend to hold beliefs contrary to mine, in other areas. So, on the question of HCCC my algorithm is: (The overwhelming consensus of apparently disinterested scientists + supporting evidence) > (evidence against + political and economic agenda of the people against). I was not raised to believe one way or the other in terms of HCCC. I *was* raised to be a skeptic, which does tend to make me a believer in the scientific method, while highly skeptical of *any particular scientific claim*. === Re: Pastafarianism I would hesitate to extend The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) too far, because I opine it that FSM has grown far past its usefulness as a thought experiment. My argument is, to the best of my knowledge, unique, and is therefore, unrefined. To wit: - I think it is fair to acknowledge that some people who claim to hold religious beliefs are absolute liars who hope to use their beliefs to control other people. - I think it is also fair to acknowledge that many (or at least some) of those who claim to hold religious beliefs are sincere believers. - Irrespective of their contrary claims, we all know that THERE ARE NO TRUE BELIEVERS in the FSM. Should the rights of a pastafarian (PFNs) and a muslim be granted equal footing (in a liberal democracy with freedom of religion)? - If you throw on the veil of ignorance, then the answer is yes. As we cannot discern the *sincerity* of those claiming to be muslims vs those claiming to be PFNs, we would commit an injustice to treat PFNs beliefs as lesser than muslim beliefs. - I would argue that we are *not* veiled, and PFNs should know better. Firstly, PFNs would have to lie. There have to be other ways to mount challenges to religious intolerance (imposition of someone's religious views on the public sphere) than by lying. Knowing that PFNs are liars, as individuals we are free to make fair judgments about the sincerity of PFNs vs. muslims. Specifically, I know, and you know that you are not a sincere PFN. I cannot know if the third party is a sincere muslim. Knowing that it is highly probable one side of a debate is lying grants the moral high ground to the *possibly sincere* party. To people who say FSM is a 'bogus analogy': Both claims for 'god' (Allah and FSM) might be judged as equal in terms of scientific verifiability, though one claim is prima facie (on its face) insincere. As busy philosophers and even busier AWinders, we toss out insincere claims because we don't have the time, leaving us with one *possibly sincere* claim, whose merits then need to be considered - in essence, they are wrong about the analogy - the analogy is entirely legitimate - but as to which claim is more *credible* FSM is absolutely not credible, where Allah's credibility cannot be *less* than FSMs. Now Tophat, I am willing to bet you might have some experience with the Intelligent Design (ID) nonsense we have brewing in the USA. Have you heard of an argument, similar to mine, in rejection of FSM and therefore (ugh! I am detestable) in weak support of ID? === That being said, use of thought experiments, arguments of burden of proof and falsifiability in general, are wasted on most true believers of religion anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
A few thoughts: - It requires a tremendous amount of brainpower for a being to achieve sentience, and then more to start abstracting causal relations: e.g. when the rain comes, fishing is better. Therefore, when it rains, do less hunting and more fishing. - More success in pattern recognition leads to pattern recognizers being more successful at reproducing. "when it starts getting cold, and the trees lose their leaves, winter is coming, and it is too late to save supplies. So now it is warm and sunny, and food is abundant. We should start saving supplies". - Advanced pattern recognition leads to causal linkages which probably don't exist ... and are probably the foundations of spiritual belief. When we pray, and we are sincere the crops are good. When we pray and the crops are bad, we must have been insincere. - Ritual IS useful for pre-industrial societies: It provides social cohesion, and an organizing principle for the society, and a method for pre-literates to store and pass on knowledge. Ritual leads to timekeeping, stargazing, and ultimately, more successful agricultural societies. Ritual does not require religion, religious belief provides and underpinning for ritual. - 'Obey your parents' turns out to enhance your chances of survival.in preindustrial societies, but going against the grain (might) lead to tremendous rewards in information-age societies. Some people hold childhood beliefs more strongly than others and this may also be a hereditary trait that promoted survival in the past. All this being said, it is unlikely, even after 1000s of years, for there to be a diminishing of biological traits (if any) that are religious-feeling-influencing, because in the 21st century, religious people tend to have more children than non-religious people.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
|
Well of course, I certainly would agree that FSM is not as credible as the idea of a God; and there are no actual believers in FSM. I was simply using it as a hypothetical exemplification for the initial reaction of an individual to a belief system. You understood so that it's all that matters. And yes, it is of course impossible to determine the level of sincerity of individuals practicing established religions. I believe some use their beliefs maliciously or to control, but I also believe some are sincere believers. Within sincere believers, some have better knowledge of spirituality and metaphysics than others. Some barely know a thing, they just believe it because it's "certain" to them or perhaps because the people part of their surrounding also believe. Others, however, know more and recon the possibility of there being no deity or deities yet, persist in "believing" or having "faith". There are variating degrees of "believing" which I honestly don't want to tackle due to the intricate possibilities that are comprised within them, and I don't want to risk making a false claim or statement. But in general, I think a lot of believers who are well-educated have faith due to child indoctrination, fear and perhaps even denial, which would actually contradict the core meaning of "faith". As for your argument, all I can do is agree. However I don't quite understand what you mean by "in weak support of ID". ID is pretty laughable to be honest with you. It's a poor attempt by creationist to defend their biblical beliefs and a poor understanding of the theory of evolution. I really don't wanna explain why it is laughable, but I'm sure you understand. (The complexity part,.. oh man)
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
This an answer to  (insert my quote here) I never said anything about his understanding of science did?I did say he was educated and intelligent though,so dont make it look like you are replying to things i obviously didnt say.
Fancy words dont impress me nor do they confuse me.Also i am very well aware of the argument he is conveying, which, again, serves no purpose.I understood perfectly clear, have you?If yes, tell me the purpose of this specific argument. So religion and science are axiomatically unprovable.No shit sherlock.You guys are smart..Tell me how is this information, helpfull in any way, in this thread and in what universe can this mean that religion = science.Are we gonna play with words again?So in simple words so the rest can understand, scientists use science as a process for understanding the physical world and in reality they cannot proove anything.They extensively test all their hypotheses and they advance through DISPROOF.The hypotheses must be refutable also.I understand that this means you can never proove something 100% with science, but you can get as close to the truth as it gets.And zombieyeti stating that science is a hallucination is very insulting to these people's work and it is also a lie.How can this kid sits on his computer all day, calling hallucinated, people that focused their whole life to helping human kind understand things and giving us all the great stuff we have today.If that is not ungratefullness i dont know what is. Anyway, I have explained the scientific method.Explain to me the religious method now please.How does the people that serve religion evaluate and test their hypotheses.Oh they cant, because they are not refutable?Well bummer.Well what are they doing then?Nothing?  But i heard here that Priests = Scientists and science = religion.But...but if they cant test and evaluate anything they are saying, then they must provide something to humanity, right?right?.What?We know what scientists provide..erm everything around you.From the food on your house, to the computer you use right now, the perfume you are wearing,the car you drive, the road you use to drive on, everything.What do priests provide, that we should regard them as highly as we regard scientists? .
First of all that is insulting.Not only to me, but also to everybody here. Secondly who are these guys and who you accuse of being biased?I told "you guys" before i am not unleashed.Nobody is "we guys" here and dont try to make it seem like any of us here are a group.If anything, the group i see is you two.You have admitted your admiration for this kid you are "defending" since day 1 and in a very weird way i might aswell add, so if anyone is really biased here is you.I have confronted unleashed and Tik tok and others, several times in multiple occasions and i was always unbiased in every conversation about religion,politics,economy etc. So how come i am biased.I demand an explanation here because i dont like being accused of something without proof. To close this, my earlier post was agressive for a reason and i never attacked his knowledge.I attacked his tactics and character, based on his own actions and being carefull never to get personal, like he did several times.After all he said he despised me, lol.Anyway your intervention was very unwelcomed.
----      
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
|
Khalessi, you called zombie a zionist jewish law student if I recall? And you accorded your argument under the assumption that he was a law student twisting words for his benefit etc. (kinda biased) Sorry for according you with the "you guys" I didn't mean that, like you described, necessarily. You misunderstood several parts of his arguments. He never says that religion=science entirely. And that scientists provide just as much as priests. You're saying his argument is a disrespect for science, zombie has shown only respect for science lol. Explain to me how you got to that conjecture. I think you misunderstood his definition of consensual hallucination. Lastly, you're making several errors in semantics there. I'm assuming you mean't evidence, not proof?
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
|
@Tophats Zombieti's argument didn't added anything of value to the conversation, therefore is irrelevant. @To everybody else God doesn't exist, why? because i believe so. The End.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
|
Yes i called him a zionist jewish law student.That was my opinion based on what i ve seen so far from him and i may be wrong offcourse.About the Jewish thing, the evidence keep adding up and soon ill be able to reach a safe conclusion whether as to if i am right or wrong.But i dont think anything i said was personally insulting, nor do i think that these assumptions had any effect to the rest of my arguments.If anything they could explain the source of his actions, but true or false my assumptions, dont change the fact that he is guilty of everything i accused him and the evidence is in the other threads he was posting recently,aswell, you might havent caught up to them yet. I found his explanation of science and scientists (people who call themselves 'rational'?seriously?) and his whole argument, whose point was to equate science and religion, offensive.Also the fact that he intervened in a discussion where someone said priests = scientists and the other said science > religion and decided to adress only the second posters point, led me to believe that he agreed with the first. Also he called science consensual hallucination.From the movie Neuromancer?any official definition on this one? p.s. just so you know you are defending a bully.A bully doesnt have to be a "jock", it can be a "nerd" aswell, especially in our age and time and doesnt have to use his fists, he can use his words.
----
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
The FSM approach *works* with Fundie Christians wishing to teach ID, to the degree that (american) constitutional arguments or others do not, so I don't want to damage this useful, but otherwise 'unfair' tool in The War to Poision Children's Heads a Little Less. To say that faith is the result in indoctrination, I would ask you how you would resolve the cognitive dissonance which would affect some if they were to read the following headline on WIRED.COM: Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris agree: God exists and she is pissed. What happened if CBC showed the same thing on TV, immediately, and you find that it isn't a single hacked website, or a joke, merely that they had 'individual revelations of a personal nature which lead each, separately, to conclude without doubt that God exists, is female in nature, and is angry with humankind.' - then were to see Richard Dawkins announce this on television, in a short, succinct statement where he would take no questions, and was about to enter a 'extended period of seclusion to contemplate his recent revelation." If I were to see this, and know it were Harris and Dawkins who publicly, and without humor, admit to a revelation, I would certainly be in denial. In the coming weeks, with no further comment, I would assume that there was some kind of joke, stunt, and eventually, coercion going on. If there was still no further comment, I don't know what I'd think. Would it change my personal opinion on spirituality? Probably not. But then the question is begged: If not this, what would?
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
|
Alright I'll leave you be with your respective assumptions about him and your arguments against him. Imo, they're not justified due to your miscomprehension of his arguments and conjectures.
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
Careful? My LIFE has been threatened on this thread. You have engaged in the most vile anti-semitic 'jew baiting' rivaling Tik-Tok. Bullshit. Just because you don't understand something, it's JEW JEW JEW. No wonder you think the world is the way it is. Because it is full of things you don't understand. And I do despise you. Small minded, racist, and (unlike Unleashed) clearly someday capable of making a logical and valid argument. What is there to love?
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
|
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
|
I don't even see why there is an argument, do you really care this much about each others opinions on religion?
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
Fuck your opinion and your lies. Your hate of Jewish people, and your hate of me, have been confused in that walnut a generous person would call 'a brain'. If I am a bully, then what the fuck are you? Seriously? In any case, you are a crazy person: Literally insane. Anyone who would claim that Jewish people are 'anti science' is *also* crazy - can you find one shred of evidence that this is the case? How can I make this diagnosis without being a mental health care professional? You claim that Jewish people are Anti-Science! And that scientists persecute Jews! And I'm the bully? After the bullshit that you've slung? You have given me license to reply to you with only half the consideration you have shown me. Priceless. === Imagine I am everything you ever hated - and it still doesn't make my argument one bit less valid, or my evidence one bit less credible. But the *opinion* of an anti-semetic, stupid insane person who can barely structure a valid argument anyway? How much do you think that's worth.
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
|
lol poor sweet child.somebody threatened you on the internet.Let me call the fbi now and in the meantime come ill give you a hug 
lol.. What exactly was "vile" from what i ve said?And what is anti-semitic rivaling Tik-tok?That 4/5 media are controlled by Jewish?Thats is a fact and not an insult.Stop the drama act and the "victim" attitude please. You just gave me the 5% i needed to conclude that you are 99% jewish.
Thats ok.I dont like that you despise me but i am mature enough to accept that. But you cant call me rascist.If anything i am the opposite, i just happen to be a realist as well and truth worshipper. Also the fact that i have been beaten and tear gased by real racist and facist police and right wing groups, makes your claim that i am rascist,,,well a joke. 
----
Учитавање...
Учитавање...
|
God doesn't exist, he only exists to the people who acknowledge him.
