Joined Feb 2006
Slickdeals Staff
R U an ultracrepidarian?
Forum Thread
Only read if you are NOT religious and/or do not believe in any 'supreme' being (othe
December 2, 2007 at
08:48 PM
in
Question
personal attacks will not be tolerated and will be mod alerted, if you wish to set someone apart use generalities, such as specific religion not speific person on SD for example
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you dont get the right to feel insulted, u have been warned...
so, peeps, if you dont believe in god, do you feel that ones that do are delusional?
a lot of people will sight karma or other things as 'he got what he had coming' but i argue that it's all a mathematical randomness that on a small scale might seem like karma
perfect example is: when you play poker and u push with the best hand, a LOT of times, you can predict/be so sure that the card will come that will beat you even if the chance of it coming is less than 1:6. when the card comes, some might argue it as karma, but i argue that its all random, just on a small scale randomness doesn't work
discuss....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you dont get the right to feel insulted, u have been warned...
so, peeps, if you dont believe in god, do you feel that ones that do are delusional?
a lot of people will sight karma or other things as 'he got what he had coming' but i argue that it's all a mathematical randomness that on a small scale might seem like karma
perfect example is: when you play poker and u push with the best hand, a LOT of times, you can predict/be so sure that the card will come that will beat you even if the chance of it coming is less than 1:6. when the card comes, some might argue it as karma, but i argue that its all random, just on a small scale randomness doesn't work
discuss....
Community Wiki
Last Edited by Ram|bunc|tious
December 6, 2007
at
06:15 AM
wikipost loves you too!
866 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Proof is the key word in all of this. Science has proof, religion does not.
IVIax 130
Peachyum 59
BrgnHntr 57
PassionateGray 44
Robor 39
SlicKitty 39
PiratesSayARRR 35
Peachyum, another thing is (to date further back than aristotle) "The Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes." (http://en.wikipedia.or
Let's say I could take a coin, and he would go forward in time, find out the results of the coin flip 500 iterations out and come back to show accurately that he knew what they would be, I would say the chances of him being able to repeat this highly improbable act a few times would be enough to convince me (as long as I was also convinced that there was no trickery or other way that he was pulling this off) that the probability he was actually time traveling was huge.
You can have someone defend science and they will have inconsistencies. Because humans are flawed. So in essence, to attack God as being flawed because the people who believe in it are flawed is... well, flawed.
You can't have it both ways.
If you are going to say that the parts of the bible that don't sound good are that way because humans are flawed and humans translated it, how can you demand I believe the rest of it? Isn't it just as likely to be flawed?
God is perfect. Why? Because it says so in this book, and this book is the word of God.
Ignoring the circuloucity of that logic (yes I just made up that word)...
The book is was a translation by man... man is flawed... so doesn't that make any part of the book possibly flawed?
I can't see how you can demand someone live by a rule book which is inherently potentially flawed by your own definition. For me it is either perfect and not flawed and I would want to live by it, or it's flawed so you can't expect people to buy into it. Can't have both at once.
Didn't we prove that the earth is round (and not dis-prove that it's flat)?
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
You can't have it both ways.
Would you rather they not believed and were all murders? (from your tone of conversation, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're more set on the path that "there is no god, and unless you show me proof you're wasting your time")
Didn't we prove that the earth is round (and not dis-prove that it's flat)?
But for anything unknown, the scientific method offers no way to prove any theory. It can only disprove a theory with experimentation.
I don't have problems with people believing for whatever reason they choose, heck if they want to believe because a cat told them to... that's your choice. If they want to debate it with me then we get into it.
But just saying that religion is good because it results in people being better is dangerous as there are always side effects.
Labotomies make people less violent. We could solve many of the worlds war problems if we labotomize the populous.
That's a flawed argument, it assumes that if people do not accept religion, they will be evil.
I do not accept religion, and I live a very virtuous life (in fact as much so or more than many religious people I know).
If you wonder what my position is, it is that I am willing to accept anything that can be proven to me. In order to prove it you must convince me that it is statistically improbably that it is not true.
There are too many religions and views for me to discount them all in a blanket statement, but as far as the Christian church, my view is that if there is a God, you books and teachings are too flawed to be of value in convincing me of It's existence.
There could be proof either way, you have nothing to counter the beliefs people have, so how can you condemn them for believing simply because they have as little evidence to the positive as you do to the negative? That's the point I was getting at... there is nothing foolish about believing in something which hasn't been proven as long as it hasn't also reasonably been dis proven.
It may have been a quote, but if you type/say a quote, you take credit for it's meaning as well. Who evers words they originally were, if you say them, you then come across as meaning them too, unless I missed the sarcasm tag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkE
If there is no God, then man has nothing to be accountable to except for himself. All men are faulty, so in essence, no man is worthy of being acclaimed as a God.
But if there is a God, then he is most assuredly an authority over us because he is not limited to the same flaws that we have. He transcends time and space... he indeed is the creator of all that we know to be physical. He is God... the ultimate definition of the word itself.
But then that means we are accountable to him for our actions, no?
In my opinion, that is what these people are saying by refusing to admit that there is no way that they can disprove God without a shadow of a doubt: "Better to be ignorant, blissful, and not accountable to that God than to make it a life goal to find out the truth and risk discovering that we are responsible to someone else for what we do."
I don't have problems with people believing for whatever reason they choose, heck if they want to believe because a cat told them to... that's your choice. If they want to debate it with me then we get into it.
But just saying that religion is good because it results in people being better is dangerous as there are always side effects.
Labotomies make people less violent. We could solve many of the worlds war problems if we labotomize the populous.
And what's wrong with people believing in religion to better themselves? I don't see any side effects from it? (since I can set condition: EXCEPT those who are radicals).
That's a flawed argument, it assumes that if people do not accept religion, they will be evil.
I do not accept religion, and I live a very virtuous life (in fact as much so or more than many religious people I know).
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
You took my quote out of context to start an argument of your own, and you know it.
Also where do I say it's foolish to believe in god? Can you please quote it, or show me where my tone implies it? Because I never did that, unless you take my quotes out of context and just read them alone.
Ahh.. I got it, you're still commenting on the quote I put on the first page. We're way beyond that now. I completely agree with the second part, maybe not so much in the first part of that quote... but it does have some truth to it.