Do you believe in God? [modified]
-
No way. The Teh misspells every second word. The concept of punctuation is alien to the Teh.
-
Harvey Saayman wrote:
my point exactly, theory given as fact when is just something that MIGHT be true... just as what i believe(God did it) might be true...
You're confusing 'theory' with 'hypothesis', 'conjecture', or 'wild drunken guess'.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You're confusing 'theory' with 'hypothesis', 'conjecture', or 'wild drunken guess'.
And you're a fool. And intellectually dishonest. But who's counting? And, you're confusing 'theory' with 'truth.' Also, you're conflating 'wild-ass-absurdity-that-Ravel-H-Joyce-needs-to-believe-to-be-true' with 'theory,' which you then conflate with 'truth.'
-
Shepman wrote:
Ilíon: You're really not into paying attention, are you? Shepman: to you? :laugh:
And yet you keep "reading" and "responding" to my posts (the scare-quotes are necessary). So, it also appears that you're *also* not into thinking-two-steps-ahead. Poor, poor thing.
-
Harvey Saayman wrote:
IMO science is the religion of atheists, people to blind to see whats right in front of their faces! We didnt just happen, there has to be a creator behind it all ...
You're on the right track, certainly: though, it's no longer *actual* science we're talking talking about when we speak of 'atheists' (I generally put the word in quotes because most self-proclamed atheists are just poseurs at it) and their worshipful attitude toward the goddess "Science." You're also very much on the right track in speaking of "people too blind to see whats right in front of their faces! We didnt just happen, there has to be a creator behind it all." If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then certain truths logically and inescapably follow. Among them are (non-exhaustively, and in no particular order, except for the last): 1) We cannot know truth from non-truth 2) We cannot reason 3) We cannot know *anything* 4) We are not "conscious" (i.e. consciousness in an "illusion" -- though, even the atheists honest enough to admit that this follows from atheism never quite get around to explaining *who* is having the illusion) 5) We do not and cannot chose our actions (i.e. we exhibit 'behaviors,' we do not 'act') ... n) There are no such things as 'minds' ... which is to say, the 'atheist' logically must assert that he himself does not exist! These, and other equally absurd things, logically and inescapably follow from denying that there is a Creator-God. One can even find prominent 'atheists' admitting to these things ... and moments later behaving as though these things-which-cannot-be are! Pure and simple: atheism is mental disorder, willfully entered into.
Ilíon wrote:
atheism is mental disorder, willfully entered into.
A man comes to you and tells you that in order to live an orgasmic afterlife, you need to follow the guidelines spelled out in a cryptic ancient book. You refuse. Does the Lord award you brownie points for that?
Q: What's the difference between a hockey mom reformer and a business-as-usual pork-barrel spending politician?
A: Lipstick -
Cyon111 wrote:
What about you, do you believe in God?
yes, and why shouldn't I?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Cyon111 wrote:
I rather believe in myself!
You need to wake up and smell the daisy's! I've only been exposed to "the real world" for the last two years... and i was shocked to find out how many atheists there are around me, it actually makes me sick... even some of my friends "believe in themselves", if u ask me they believe in "science", which alot of it is a fucking religion in itself(the big bang and the big squish and the big spin and all that)! Half the crap they teach in school level science is given as fact, but it cant be proven in front of you like gravity and electricity can be proven and shown... Things like the age of the earth... IMO science is the religion of atheists, people to blind to see whats right in front of their faces! We didnt just happen, there has to be a creator behind it all...
Harvey Saayman - South Africa Junior Developer .Net, C#, SQL
you.suck = (you.Passion != Programming & you.Occupation == jobTitles.Programmer)1000100 1101111 1100101 1110011 100000 1110100 1101000 1101001 1110011 100000 1101101 1100101 1100001 1101110 100000 1101001 1101101 100000 1100001 100000 1100111 1100101 1100101 1101011 111111Harvey Saayman wrote:
I've only been exposed to "the real world" for the last two years... and i was shocked to find out how many atheists there are around me, it actually makes me sick...
Gee, such a sheltered existence. Crawl back under your rock. :doh:
If you don't have the data, you're just another asshole with an opinion.
-
Rama was not born. Rama came into being fully formed, and fully loaded.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Interesting that you got one voted then. You think "Teh" showed up just to zap you?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
You think "Teh" showed up just to zap you?
That's more likely than him learning to spell and constructing coherent sentences in just a few days.
-
Harvey Saayman wrote:
IMO science is the religion of atheists, people to blind to see whats right in front of their faces! We didnt just happen, there has to be a creator behind it all ...
You're on the right track, certainly: though, it's no longer *actual* science we're talking talking about when we speak of 'atheists' (I generally put the word in quotes because most self-proclamed atheists are just poseurs at it) and their worshipful attitude toward the goddess "Science." You're also very much on the right track in speaking of "people too blind to see whats right in front of their faces! We didnt just happen, there has to be a creator behind it all." If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then certain truths logically and inescapably follow. Among them are (non-exhaustively, and in no particular order, except for the last): 1) We cannot know truth from non-truth 2) We cannot reason 3) We cannot know *anything* 4) We are not "conscious" (i.e. consciousness in an "illusion" -- though, even the atheists honest enough to admit that this follows from atheism never quite get around to explaining *who* is having the illusion) 5) We do not and cannot chose our actions (i.e. we exhibit 'behaviors,' we do not 'act') ... n) There are no such things as 'minds' ... which is to say, the 'atheist' logically must assert that he himself does not exist! These, and other equally absurd things, logically and inescapably follow from denying that there is a Creator-God. One can even find prominent 'atheists' admitting to these things ... and moments later behaving as though these things-which-cannot-be are! Pure and simple: atheism is mental disorder, willfully entered into.
Ilíon wrote:
If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then certain truths logically and inescapably follow. Among them are (non-exhaustively, and in no particular order, except for the last): 1) We cannot know truth from non-truth 2) We cannot reason 3) We cannot know *anything* 4) We are not "conscious" (i.e. consciousness in an "illusion" -- though, even the atheists honest enough to admit that this follows from atheism never quite get around to explaining *who* is having the illusion) 5) We do not and cannot chose our actions (i.e. we exhibit 'behaviors,' we do not 'act') ... n) There are no such things as 'minds' ... which is to say, the 'atheist' logically must assert that he himself does not exist!
Had to get a snapshot of that little gem. A quaint little list of unsubstantiated bullshit. Neat.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You're confusing 'theory' with 'hypothesis', 'conjecture', or 'wild drunken guess'.
And you're a fool. And intellectually dishonest. But who's counting? And, you're confusing 'theory' with 'truth.' Also, you're conflating 'wild-ass-absurdity-that-Ravel-H-Joyce-needs-to-believe-to-be-true' with 'theory,' which you then conflate with 'truth.'
Ilíon wrote:
And you're a fool. And intellectually dishonest. But who's counting?
I should count the number of times you use those insults. You sure do like doing things ad nauseam, don't you. Well, congratulations, it absolutely makes ME sick! X|
Ilíon wrote:
And, you're confusing 'theory' with 'truth.' Also, you're conflating 'wild-ass-absurdity-that-Ravel-H-Joyce-needs-to-believe-to-be-true' with 'theory,' which you then conflate with 'truth.'
No I'm not. How boring.
-
Oakman wrote:
You think "Teh" showed up just to zap you?
That's more likely than him learning to spell and constructing coherent sentences in just a few days.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The uncertainty principle states that measuring the position of a particle changes the momentum, and vice-versa. So I suppose, yes, the Universe is ultimately unknowable. That doesn't really disprove my point, though, unless he has some vehement objection to my (or someone else's) measurement of a particle.
The implication goes much deeper, however. What it really says is that the mere act of observing changes the very nature of what is observed. The only really important question has nothing to do with evolution or the big bang or any thing else that can be observed - it is why should there be an observer at all. Every question leads to the same inevitable point: the observer observing the observer.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
reasonably certain
Reasonable certainty is not proof.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It doesn't make sense to me - how, for example, could one find moral guidance from metallurgy? Divine wisdom in zoology?
You need to ask these[^] guys.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You need to ask these guys.
Stan, there are Christian who believe that rolling around on the floor with venomous snakes is the only way to worship God. Suggestion: if you wish to argue against Humanism either as a religion or as an ethical system choose the best of your opponents and quote the best of what they have to say. If you can refute that, then you have scored a victory in your struggle.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The uncertainty principle states that measuring the position of a particle changes the momentum, and vice-versa. So I suppose, yes, the Universe is ultimately unknowable. That doesn't really disprove my point, though, unless he has some vehement objection to my (or someone else's) measurement of a particle.
The implication goes much deeper, however. What it really says is that the mere act of observing changes the very nature of what is observed. The only really important question has nothing to do with evolution or the big bang or any thing else that can be observed - it is why should there be an observer at all. Every question leads to the same inevitable point: the observer observing the observer.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
reasonably certain
Reasonable certainty is not proof.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It doesn't make sense to me - how, for example, could one find moral guidance from metallurgy? Divine wisdom in zoology?
You need to ask these[^] guys.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Reasonable certainty is not proof.
What would be sufficient?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The implication goes much deeper, however. What it really says is that the mere act of observing changes the very nature of what is observed. The only really important question has nothing to do with evolution or the big bang or any thing else that can be observed - it is why should there be an observer at all. Every question leads to the same inevitable point: the observer observing the observer.
It's an important question, and it shouldn't be crippled by the docile, "It was God, OK? Stop looking, you might offend Him."
-
I can't deny what science demonstrates, and am in fact extremely interested in what it discovers. And I only have minor doubts about some theories, and many scienteists feel the same way about some of those theories. But I have little doubt that, overall, it's grainy picture of reality is valid, if not yet refined. I also have faith that God exists and that his word is real and right. Given both of those, (faith in God and confidence in science), I'm forced to question instead, peoples ability to comprehend and understand God and science. And I think that's a more reasonable thing to question. And I feel like I'm in pretty good company, since Einstein, Darwin, Galileo, and plenty of other great contributors to science also believed in God. So I feel justified in scoffing at anybody who automatically discounts one on the basis of the other. It's just not healthy for growing a mind... And there's really no reason they can't, not only coexist, but comliment each other as well. But at the same time, I don't feel that either was intended to prove or disprove the other, and neither should be attempted. Anyway, that's my two yen.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Einstein, Darwin
Sorry, but neither of these two believed in God. Einstein: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." Darwin: "I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind." Of course, Isaac Newton was a devout theist, and he was pretty awesome.
-
Cyon111 wrote:
do you believe in Gods?
Gods? Plural!
Recent blog posts: *SQL Server / Visual Studio install order *Installing SQL Server 2005 on Vista *Crazy Extension Methods Redux * Mixins My Blog
Never heard of polytheism?
Cheers, Vıkram.
"if abusing me makes you a credible then i better give u the chance which didnt get in real" - Adnan Siddiqi.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Einstein, Darwin
Sorry, but neither of these two believed in God. Einstein: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." Darwin: "I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind." Of course, Isaac Newton was a devout theist, and he was pretty awesome.
Their beliefs are not quites as black and white as you seem to think. Einstein rejected a belief in a personal God - one that interfered with human events. He said he believed in Spinoza's God - sometimes called the primal force or Creator. The word Agnostic means one who holds the theory that God is unknown or unknowable. One of the errors of the belief system commonly called Atheism is that they are some how allied with Agnostics - most of whom reject the Atheist position equally with the Methodist. Nothing in the Agnostic point of view denies the existence of God, only the hope of our knowing Him. The concept of God as the original creator of the universe has wide currency. If you know who Heinz Pagels was (and if you don't you should) you might ponder that this great scientist, known as a critic of mystiscism, said, "This unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence - a necessary consequence of physical laws. Where are these laws written into that void? What "tells" the void that it is pregnant with a possible universe? It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that exists prior to space and time." Of course nothing in the belief in Spinoza's God demands an acceptance of the man-made religious constructs so beloved by Ilion and others. Just an awareness that we are not the Lords of Creation we might sometimes fancy ourselves to be.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Cyon111 wrote:
I rather believe in myself!
You need to wake up and smell the daisy's! I've only been exposed to "the real world" for the last two years... and i was shocked to find out how many atheists there are around me, it actually makes me sick... even some of my friends "believe in themselves", if u ask me they believe in "science", which alot of it is a fucking religion in itself(the big bang and the big squish and the big spin and all that)! Half the crap they teach in school level science is given as fact, but it cant be proven in front of you like gravity and electricity can be proven and shown... Things like the age of the earth... IMO science is the religion of atheists, people to blind to see whats right in front of their faces! We didnt just happen, there has to be a creator behind it all...
Harvey Saayman - South Africa Junior Developer .Net, C#, SQL
you.suck = (you.Passion != Programming & you.Occupation == jobTitles.Programmer)1000100 1101111 1100101 1110011 100000 1110100 1101000 1101001 1110011 100000 1101101 1100101 1100001 1101110 100000 1101001 1101101 100000 1100001 100000 1100111 1100101 1100101 1101011 111111Harvey Saayman wrote:
You need to wake up and smell the daisy's! I've only been exposed to "the real world" for the last two years... and i was shocked to find out how many atheists there are around me, it actually makes me sick... even some of my friends "believe in themselves", if u ask me they believe in "science", which alot of it is a f***ing religion in itself(the big bang and the big squish and the big spin and all that)! Half the crap they teach in school level science is given as fact, but it cant be proven in front of you like gravity and electricity can be proven and shown... Things like the age of the earth... IMO science is the religion of atheists, people to blind to see whats right in front of their faces! We didnt just happen, there has to be a creator behind it all...
I did. I have Faith (I'm something of an evangelist, in fact!). However, I also know enough about science (cosmology and physicals in particular) and experimental methods to be able to evaluate when a theory is likely to represent what really happened, and when it's not. From what I can see, the Big Bang and evolution are definitely in the former category. Why on earth should I find that at all at odds with my Faith when the beauty revealed by these theories is simply a deeper manifestation of the work of God?
Anna :rose: Having a bad bug day? Tech Blog | Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
