There is no God - discuss:

_Damian S_

Are you currently asleep or awake? :rolleyes:

-------------------------------------------------------- Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!!

Lost User

"Don't worry, be happy" - Bobby McFarren :cool:

Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.

Lost User

Oh, I know for sure

If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

Lost User

Yeah - well the 'wheels on the bus' discussion kinda inspired me, I confess (in a non denominational sense).

If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

soap brain

It doesn't matter what people believe, whether it's in God or not. Dr Greg House sums it up best: "Nothing matters - we're all just cockroaches. Wildebeests dying on the riverbed. Nothing we do has any lasting meaning."

Rob Graham

Such an inspiring role model this House (You do realize that he is completely fictional, and a quite flawed character to boot). If you find that comment persuasively true, I can only recommend prompt suicide as a cure.

Rob Graham

And your proof of this assertion is?

Lost User

I offer no proof - what would be the point of discussing it if I offered proof?

If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

Lost User

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

It doesn't matter what people believe, whether it's in God or not.

Well, I think if a person believes it is fine to rape children (for example) it does matter.

If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

soap brain

Rob Graham wrote:

Such an inspiring role model this House (You do realize that he is completely fictional, and a quite flawed character to boot).

"I don't have to trust him to agree with him."

Rob Graham wrote:

If you find that comment persuasively true, I can only recommend prompt suicide as a cure.

Well, what a good idea.

soap brain

Maxxx_ wrote:

Well, I think if a person believes it is fine to rape children (for example) it does matter.

"You can't control your emotions." "No....just your actions." "You didn't do it, did you?" "I couldn't have lived with myself."

Rob Graham

Insisting that others discuss a proposition is not the same as participating in a discussion of that proposition. You not only did not offer proof of the assertion, you offered no supporting argument to disagree with. The only appropriate responses to you post are either of : "Ok, So?" or "Yes there is." ;P

Oakman

_Damian S_ wrote:

Are you currently asleep or awake?

Yes.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Lost User

?what?

If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

soap brain

There's a great big wall of China between wanting to have sex with an underage person and actually doing it.

Lost User

Bum! And there've been fifteen inappropriate responses :(

Rob Graham wrote:

Insisting that others discuss a proposition is not the same as participating in a discussion of that proposition

I know it's not the same - what's your point? And there has been no insisting here - please yourself. If proof was offered, then the only possible response would have been "OK, So?" (or Wow!) There is no necessity to express a point of view when eliciting discussion; in some cases it is extremely preferable NOT to express an opinion. You ever do any debating at school? The MC doesn't introduce the topic (generally) with an opinion - just a premise for discussion, with teams taking one side or the other. And the whole topic was just an idea of a joke (humour somewhat lacking in this area for a while!) hence the 'it's been quiet' - i.e. "It's been quiet recently, so I though I would propose an outrageous topic in the hope that it would elicit some response" Sorry if that wasn't quite clear enough for you - I'll remember to dumb it down next time. Oh, yes, :)

If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

Oakman

If one accepts the hypothesis that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density, one can predict an infinite ergodic universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions. Max Tegmark argues that these volumes are contained on other quantum branches in inﬁnite-dimensional Hilbert space. Since one aspect of quantum mechanics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely, and instead, there is range of possible observations each with a different probability, there are some volumes, where the Lord God Jehovah reigns supreme, or Zeus still cheats on Hera, or Christ sits at the right hand of His Father, another where we die and spend awhile in the Summerlands before returning for another cycle, or where there is no afterlife at all. The real trick is for you - the you that resides in the same volume of the multiverse that this me resides in (no, not that me, this me) - need to figure out which version you were born in. Pascal's Wager would be much more attractive as a lifestyle choice - except that the choice is no longer binary but has n possibilities. :~

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Lost User

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

There's a great big wall of China between wanting to

Not really, if you go back to the original discussion of belief. If you BELIEVE something is OK (let's get off paedophillia, it makes me uncomfortable) then the fact that you don't do it could be merely the lack of opportunity (or the fear of being caught, should the prevailing social mores deem it inappropriate) Sure you can argue that one's beliefs should be of no concern to others - but how far do you take that? A serial killer who thinks cannibalism is fine is up for parole - his belief that it is fine, in my book, is a good enough reason to keep him away from my loved ones, and out of the kitchen!

If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

soap brain

Maxxx_ wrote:

Sure you can argue that one's beliefs should be of no concern to others - but how far do you take that? A serial killer who thinks cannibalism is fine is up for parole - his belief that it is fine, in my book, is a good enough reason to keep him away from my loved ones, and out of the kitchen!

A serial killer is up for parole? :confused: It's not necessarily his belief in cannibalism that should keep him locked up, it's the fact that he went from thought to action in a seriously unforgivable way. :~ .

_Damian S_

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

it's the fact that he went from thought to action in a seriously unforgivable way.

That's actually one of the better, more coherent things you have said recently... However, the fact that the serial killer still *believes* that cannabilism is alright surely indicates that he would have no issues in killing and eating another person, and therefore should remain behind bars!

-------------------------------------------------------- Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!!