Ericrb 0 Posted December 21, 2011 Cacti are smarter. I'm telling yoooOooooooOoooOOOo. Wtf o.oSo we don't need dogs in our server even tho some female dogs, somehow gets in the server. Hmmm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
imph 0 Posted December 21, 2011 ^ I see what you did there... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ericrb 0 Posted December 21, 2011 I hope you can re-read multiple times until you are not offended. I didn't say we're dogs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
imph 0 Posted December 21, 2011 oh I wasn't offended at all lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ericrb 0 Posted December 21, 2011 imph wrote:oh I wasn't offended at all lolI'll leave it for others Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Moufisto 0 Posted December 21, 2011 Just a suggestion. Do you believe there is no scientific evidence for God? It really depends on how you define evidence. Has science provided any evidence for the non-existence of God? Science might have made some people's vision of God seem impossible in today's scientific model without some unknown 'magic' backing it up, but no true scientist is arrogant enough to profess that we know everything today and are definitely not as incorrect as the scientific models and theories that preceeded us today! I don't believe in God, because i can't find the requisite 'faith' that is inevitably required, but i have seen some pretty convincing arguments based on the breathtaking improbability of certain events occuring in nature. Teleological arguments based around the improbability of the existence of anything but intelligent design do have grounds in science, whether you say they are fallible or not. It's also pretty silly when people are so arrogant, intentionally or not, as to assume either they or science know EVERYTHING and that they can see science clearly pointing to the non-existence of God from some pattern they recognise. Active non-belief in God requires as much a leap of faith as the belief in God, no-one can claim to be able to ACTUALLY prove either way.......but there are plenty of atheists and religious people both that seem to think they can claim the other's leap of faith is bigger or in some way more reckless. In short, theology is an imprecise science. No matter what you choose to believe, please acknowledge there is a margin for error, then society might more harmoniously progressI invite the above respected minds for comment/argument at your leisure :)52 minutes ago ·</li>---,----,----, alcoholics are welcome here too.52 minutes ago ·</li>----, ---- and gays52 minutes ago · </li>----, ----, ----, ----and brus m851 minutes ago ·</li>k---------n, ---- and sexy beasts51 minutes ago ·----- Amen (unintentionally ironic coming from an atheist, but I stand by the sentiment)45 minutes ago ·</li>--- haha44 minutes ago ·</li> ---- Science being unable to prove the non-existence of God is a terrible argument. Science is also unable to prove the non-existence of two gods, three, three and a unicorn, three and a magical unicorn and a divine teapot, which all contradict the belief of the Biblical God.All science has proved is that the existence of deities is much more unlikely than the non-existence of them, and even though anything is possible, the most logical thing to believe is what we've learnt from what we've observed, not theorised in our heads, or taken faith in with whatever you think is the source of faith. Non-belief in God does not require any faith, it's neutral, claiming that there is no God is arrogant though, but no one not daft would claim that.40 minutes ago ·---- "All science has proved is that the existence of deities is much more unlikely than the non-existence of them, " I disagree entirely. Whether intelligent design is more probable or less probable than random creation is just a matter of how you pose the questions and how you cast your statistics. I have literally seen very potent statistical proofs for the existence of an intelligent designer.31 minutes ago · ---- Active non-belief in god is not neutral. By active i refer to people trying to tell other people that THERE IS NO GOD GIVE UP RELIGION YOU ARE WRONG. If you cannot prove something (non-existence of god), and cannot disprove the its alternative (existence of god) then a leap of 'faith' is required to say that there is no god.29 minutes ago · ---- Oh thanks Iain. Just leave me out of this why don't you!28 minutes ago ·</li>---- I don't know nearly enough about the science behind evolution, abiogenesis and intelligent design to give a reasonable opinion I'd say27 minutes ago ·----Is evolution really that important in the proof/disproof of deities? Can they not both coincide?26 minutes ago ·</li>---- But not everyone who believes there's no God, claims there's no God. I believe that either is very possible, I just find that there being no God seems more likely, more logical25 minutes ago ·</li>---- I wrote that last comment of mine in pretty basic mathematical notation using 'A' and 'not A' (or A and B where B is mutually exclusive assuming god cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously) and came to three possible conclusions: Either there is nothing that can currently be proved (likely a limitation of the human mind as well as the available science), god both exists and does not exist or there are more alterntives than just 'existence of god' and 'non-existence' that should be available, but are not currently acknowledged or acknowledgable by the human mind.25 minutes ago · </li>---- Definitely (IMO), but tide goes in tide goes out... you can't explain that.24 minutes ago · ---(added another person)- (^at Andy)24 minutes ago · ---- of course not23 minutes ago · Like</li>---- tide goes in tide goes out23 minutes ago · Like</li>---- can't explain that23 minutes ago · Like</li>---- Fuckin' deities... how do they work?22 minutes ago · ---- "But not everyone who believes there's no God, claims there's no God. I believe that either is very possible, I just find that there being no God seems more likely, more logical" I completely agree with you Andy, 100%. BUT I don't think 'religion' as an idea is cast by world religious movements in the full creative potential it deserves and thus the playing field is very uneven and unfair22 minutes ago · ---- GOD DAMN IT KIDS IM TRYING TO CHANGE THE WORLD HERE STOP CITING MEMES21 minutes ago · ---- fuckin magnets21 minutes ago · ----Apologies... I agree with what you're saying though21 minutes ago ·</li>---- A lot of arguments against religion is not exclusively based on the factuality of their beliefs but how it influences the majority of its followers in a more negative way than a positive. Or.. is this besides the point?19 minutes ago ·---- me saying "majority" was a blatant generalisation19 minutes ago ·</li> and I don't even know if factuality is a word19 minutes ago · ---- ULTIMATELY I THINK EVERYONE ON EARTH NEEDS TO MAKE SPACE FOR EACH OTHERS BELIEFS AND RATHER FOCUS ON MAINTAINING A SET OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS RATHER THAN FOCUS ON BELIEFS: I WOULD SEEK TO ENDORSE THIS QUOTE IN SUPPORT "there are as many religions as there are people" -Ghandi19 minutes ago · ---- But if it is so obvious that modern religion is warped and distorted to reflect the people-of-the-time's beliefs, how can you be expected to understand blind faith? Of course you'd be polite about religion, and I wouldn't think any less of a person for believing what they want - but it's like: 1. Earth is there (time is invented and whatnot) 2. People evolve 3. ??? 4. MUST PRAY15 minutes ago ·</li>----Over-simplification of course... but do you see my point?15 minutes ago ·</li>---- I hate the idea of blind faith. The man who questions his faith is a wise and happy one.14 minutes ago ·----But that doesn't mean he can't have faith.14 minutes ago ·</li>---- Will make my argument tomorrow. Need to sleep now. :)14 minutes ago ·</li>---- i keenly look forward to it ----! Your input is that which i have most desired from the outset, mainly in relation to my use of logic!13 minutes ago ·---- Of course he can have faith - but is it so wrong for people to expect that you should THINK about what you are supporting (or having faith in)?12 minutes ago ·</li>---- It seems that people who have this "blind faith" pick and choose passages that support THEIR beliefs, rather than following all the beliefs taught in their religion. You don't see every Christian murdering every homosexual they see do you? I believe there is a passage in the bible that dictates this... give me a second and I'll get a reference!10 minutes ago ·</li>---- For me it all comes back to the ghandi quote and the margin for error. In my cynical, weary and ultimately depressed eyes there will never be truth that a man does not make for himself. And thus i am lost.9 minutes ago ·</li>---- "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death." - Leviticus 20:138 minutes ago ·</li>---- haha, that's hilarious. Is this the commonly endorsed old testament? There are a few versions of the bible and some are worse than others7 minutes ago ·</li>---- Leviticus is from the Old Testament I believe? It's been ages since I read the bible.6 minutes ago ·</li>---- So what would you call someone who agrees with the possibility of a god, but doubts it? Agnostic, right? So is there an issue with being agnostic?5 minutes ago ·</li>---- I and Andy are agnostic. I am encourage varying levels of agnosticism but do not criticise a 'wise faith' as i have described it.4 minutes ago ·</li>---- Well, you could call me agnostic in that sense, but I have serious doubts over the existence of god. TBH, it's really just a case of "to each, his own" --> but when "his own" starts to become the Westboro Baptists Church... that sort of shit is out of line...2 minutes ago ·</li> ----("Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it. But don't wave it out in public or shove it down our throats." Read down and thought of this. *shrug* continue!) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ericrb 0 Posted December 21, 2011 I'm not gonna read all that....Moufisto wrote:Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it. But don't wave itout in public or shove it down our throats. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pedobear 0 Posted December 21, 2011 We have religious staff >_> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Moufisto 0 Posted December 21, 2011 kevinsweijen wrote:We have religious staff >_>Good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sharok-allinthemined 0 Posted December 21, 2011 Let's nuke that debate1: The burden of proof is on religion, since they claim a god exists.2: Define god.3: Why is he better than Zeus? Zeus is epic, he throws lightnings.4: Science requires no faith and theology isn't science (see scientific method in wikipedia)5: Atheists don't claim there is absolutely no possibilities of a god, nihilists do. atheists just don't believe in gods, since there is no evidence.6: We are born with no belief in a god or in a religion. Also notice that it is geographical and historical.7: Give us some evidence please?And religion matters, especially in the USA, since some of the leaders might want to start a holy crusade on some muslim countries (I think we already saw that happen...) Oh and... I wonder why the world trade center went down...Conclusion: keep it to yourself. Other ppls believe other stuff.btw: i have faith in absolutely nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ericrb 0 Posted December 21, 2011 Sharok wrote:Let's nuke that debate1: The burden of proof is on religion, since they claim a god exists.2: Define god.3: Why is he better than Zeus? Zeus is epic, he throws lightnings.4: Science requires no faith and theology isn't science (see scientific method in wikipedia)5: Atheists don't claim there is absolutely no possibilities of a god, nihilists do. atheists just don't believe in gods, since there is no evidence.6: We are born with no belief in a god or in a religion. Also notice that it is geographical and historical.7: Give us some evidence please?And religion matters, especially in the USA, since some of the leaders might want to start a holy crusade on some muslim countries (I think we already saw that happen...) Oh and... I wonder why the world trade center went down...Conclusion: keep it to yourself. Other ppls believe other stuff.btw: i have faith in absolutely nothing.Amen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Moufisto 0 Posted December 22, 2011 Ericrb wrote:Sharok wrote:Let's nuke that debate1: The burden of proof is on religion, since they claim a god exists.2: Define god.3: Why is he better than Zeus? Zeus is epic, he throws lightnings.4: Science requires no faith and theology isn't science (see scientific method in wikipedia)5: Atheists don't claim there is absolutely no possibilities of a god, nihilists do. atheists just don't believe in gods, since there is no evidence.6: We are born with no belief in a god or in a religion. Also notice that it is geographical and historical.7: Give us some evidence please?And religion matters, especially in the USA, since some of the leaders might want to start a holy crusade on some muslim countries (I think we already saw that happen...) Oh and... I wonder why the world trade center went down...Conclusion: keep it to yourself. Other ppls believe other stuff.btw: i have faith in absolutely nothing.Amen.Don't tell me you think the Muslims did the world trade center.-.-.. science requires faith, otherwise why doesn't everyone believe in science the way they do god?and It's a penis. LOL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sharok-allinthemined 0 Posted December 22, 2011 Science requires no faith... it is just demonstrably accurate. It's the best rational choice.It is the only tool we got to observe the world and create good theories about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Moufisto 0 Posted December 22, 2011 Sharok wrote:Science requires no faith... it is just demonstrably accurate. It's the best rational choice.It is the only tool we got to observe the world and create good theories about it.That was not bias. At all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
