|
| | 
Culture-Monger
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 9:08 PM
Posts: 6,025
Visits: 8,250
|
| | |
| | g0D|1k3
Last Seen:
6/1/2008 11:38 PM
Posts: 353
Visits: 4,008
|
| Roadkill (11/5/2006)
-I do have a question to you all though, quite simply; why do you believe?Who says I do? I'm just not arrogant enough to think I know definitely if there is a supreme being or not. Its a question of faith. (It takes as much faith not to belive in a supreme being\consciousness as it takes to believe in one) I don't have that kind of faith, and envy people who do. Nobody will have the answer to that most ultimate of all questions til they die. (then it won't matter anymore.) Maybe someday living man will have proof one way or another, but I doubt it. But since you asked such a loaded question. I'll answer with one... Why do you not? As I said before I can't say with 100% certainty if there is or isn't a supreme being\consciousness; but if you want to know why I question I can tell you if you want to know. Sorry for the tone of this post. But you have brought this subject up repeated times and always in a very condescending manner. I'm glad you have such conviction in your belief. But your not looking for debate or dialog you just want to piss on other peoples beliefs. I remember one thread when we were tring to debate the history of the deluge story. And after my reply your answer was an incredibly rude 1 word answer. So This is your modus operandi. You don't use intelligent discourse (exp: Scipio and Konrad two guys who's viewpoints couldn't be more conflicting; but are able to amaze me at how they are able to maintain civility (most of the time  ) you ridicule others beliefs with such a sense of self-rightous pretension as to make any religious zealot proud. edit:typo |
--
No need for a sig.
Edited: 11/5/2006 4:30 PM by basser |  |  |
| |
| | 
Designated Norwegian
Last Seen:
Today @ 3:34 PM
Posts: 3,189
Visits: 9,740
|
| Why do you not?
-Knowledge of history, religion, philosophy and insight into the workings of the mind.
I remember one thread when we were tring to debate the history of the deluge story. And after my reply your answer was an incredibly rude 1 word answer.
-What was the thread where I replied that? I suppose I had good reason for saying what I did because I always do . Could you put up a link?
Who says I do?
-My question was directed towards those who do believe in a higher being or purpose.
OH ok I see. You start threads like this just for the sake of being controversial. I hate to tell you RK, but you stopped being controversial a long time ago! lol =P
-I do not start threads just for the sake of being controversial, I discuss or state my opinion on controversial topics for exactly that reason. There's no point in discussing matters one agrees upon as it will get you nowhere. I also felt that I had get this out, call it therapy .
But you have brought this subject up repeated times and always in a very condescending manner.
-I do not believe that I've brought it up more than two times previously, though I might be wrong there. The reason why I might sound condescending is because I rarely attempt to be politically correct, it stifles arguements.
But your not looking for debate or dialog you just want to piss on other peoples beliefs.
-Then you have misread my intentions. I might be harsh but I merely express my opinion, free of bs.
I'm just not arrogant enough to think I know definitely if there is a supreme being or not.
-I see it as arrogant that anyone could possibly know the intent of a supreme being if one existed, believing that they can push their beliefs onto you because they "know" it is the true faith. I'm not pointing fingers here, merely asserting my quarrels with religion.
This is your modus operandi. You don't use intelligent discourse (exp: Scipio and Konrad two guys who's viewpoints couldn't be more conflicting; but are able to amaze me at how they are able to maintain civility (most of the time ) you ridicule others beliefs with such a sense of self-rightous pretension as to make any religious zealot proud.
-Why should I give more credence to christianity than that which I give to Norse mythology? And nowhere did I state that I were to discuss this topic in this thread, merely that I would express my opinion on religion, no holds barred. If you find that the topic does not warrant a reply on your behalf then you simply refrain from doing so. I made it quite clear that the contents of this thread would not be polite and to assume anything else can not be placed on my shoulders. Of course, anyone who wants to discuss this topic is more than welcome to do so, but to expect me to be polite when I have stated that I do not intend to be that is an error on your part. I discuss religion in the same fashion as I would any political view, I will not exhalt it to a position that it does not deserve. |
--
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955) "The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness."
-- Joseph Conrad (1857-1924) "Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music."
-- Sam Harris (1967- ) With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg (1933- )
        |   | |
| |
| |
Culture-Monger
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 9:08 PM
Posts: 6,025
Visits: 8,250
|
| | |
| | 
Drill and Drill Now!!!!!!!!
Last Seen:
Today @ 2:05 PM
Posts: 4,779
Visits: 26,166
|
| There's no point in discussing matters one agrees upon as it will get you nowhere. I also felt that I had get this out, call it therapy
Therapy, huh????
Are you tormented by the fact that maybe you get it, most of your countrymen and the rest of western europe get it, but a great majority of the rest of the world do not??? 
-Knowledge of history, religion, philosophy and insight into the workings of the mind.
What about Physics, the Whole Big Giant Infinite Universe itself, and the Natural World?? IMO, evolution lends more "evidence" for the existence of an "Eternal Creator" than it does the opposite. Could it possibly be that the "Supreme Beauty" has all randomly come into being???
At the smallest level we have subatomic particles darting around, colliding, attracted to each other by immense forces binding precise patterns facilitating several states of matter. Throw in the energy to that mix, whatever that may be, and step above we now have macromolecules, forged out of the existence of the subatomic particles, doing what they do, mindlessly, again, subjected to subatomic and chemical forces. Bring these macromolecules together, in concert, working for the common good of each other, to create and/or utilize energy, for the sake of self-preserverence, else they cease to exist, throw in a membranous envelope, and we have a cell. The cells coalesce and we have multi-cellular organisms, these multicellular organisms subjected to the environmental whims of the test-tube called Planet Earth, and only God knows whereelse in the Universe, over time grow in complexity, and/or settle in to their own comfortable niches, doing what they do to survive, again, all on the test-tube called Planet Earth; a gigantic pinball hurtling through the empty void, not at all unlike its subatomic counterparts, subjected to immense forces that can surely be felt but are poorly understood. Planet Earth, and 7 or 8 fellow pinballs so they do not hurtley aimlessly throughout the great void, are held squarely in place by the Great Ball of Fire in the center, one of several many countless number of Giant Nuclear Reactors seperated from each other by trillions of kilometers if not more. The rest of the Great Void, with its countless Nuclear Reactors and Giant Pinballs aside, presumably empty and endless, so that a perfect balance is acheived.
I do not believe that all this is random. That is why I believe! 
My knowledge of science. Personally, I think it is quite moronic to presume that Evolution and God are mutually exclusive, but that is just me, and that is a topic for another thread...
|
--
"“Remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS.” - Mahatma Gandhi
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' -Isaac Asimov
There is only one time when it is essential to awaken. That Time Is Now! - Buddha
"You have to get busy living or get busy dying" - Tim Robbins (in Shawshank Redemption)
"There are many things worth living for, there are a few things worth dying for, but there is nothing worth killing for."- Tom Robbins (not to be confused with Tim Robbins)
“operare non meno l’ongiegno che la forza” (Exercise intellect, as much as force) - Cosimo de Medici
Edited: 11/5/2006 9:34 PM by Locus Coeruleus | | | |
| |
| | g0D|1k3
Last Seen:
6/1/2008 11:38 PM
Posts: 353
Visits: 4,008
|
| | To RK I couldn't find the thread but I remember it vividly. And what leads me to question is my knowledge of science. Both for support and against the belief. To Locus Much of what you're talking about is the Anthropic Principle. I sum it up this way. If it happens once its an accident. If it happenes twice its a coincidence. If it happens again its a pattern. (In this case supernatural.) Few examples. strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
The gravitational coupling constant—i.e., the force of gravity, determines what kinds of stars are possible in the universe. If the gravitational force were slightly stronger, star formation would proceed more efficiently and all Stars would be more massive than our sun by at least 1.4 times. These large stars are important in that they alone manufacture elements heavier than iron, and they alone disperse elements heavier than beryllium to the interstellar medium. Such elements are essential for the formation of planets as well as of living things in any form. However, these Stars burn too rapidly and too unevenly to maintain life-supporting conditions on surrounding planets. Stars as small as our sun are necessary for that.
On the other hand, if the gravitational force were slightly weaker, all stars would have less than 0.8 times the mass of the sun. Though such stars burn long and evenly enough to maintain life-supporting planets, no heavy elements essential for building such planets or life would exist. And there are many others. You can do a search on Dicke's Coincidence for more. |
--
No need for a sig.
| | | |
| |
| |
Drill and Drill Now!!!!!!!!
Last Seen:
Today @ 2:05 PM
Posts: 4,779
Visits: 26,166
|
| | |
| |
Designated Norwegian
Last Seen:
Today @ 3:34 PM
Posts: 3,189
Visits: 9,740
|
| -The fact that life and the universe exists does not point to anything. If we did not exist then we could not ponder these ideas, if the universe did not work in the manner that it does then we would not be here. To add more than is necessary to the explanation(god) is to ignore Ocham's razor. The fact that life exists only proves that the conditions necessary for life do exist.
Are you tormented by the fact that maybe you get it, most of your countrymen and the rest of western europe get it, but a great majority of the rest of the world do not???
-Annoyed, one might say. Not to any large extent but it lingers.
What about Physics, the Whole Big Giant Infinite Universe itself, and the Natural World?? IMO, evolution lends more "evidence" for the existence of an "Eternal Creator" than it does the opposite. Could it possibly be that the "Supreme Beauty" has all randomly come into being???
-How does evolution do that? The process itself is so scary to fundamentalists because it does not require god. Nothing in science requires god and so does not lend any evidence for god.
My knowledge of science. Personally, I think it is quite moronic to presume that Evolution and God are mutually exclusive, but that is just me, and that is a topic for another thread...
-Evolution and god are not mutually exclusive, it's just that god is not needed.
I couldn't find the thread but I remember it vividly.
-What made me answer your post "So?" was the fact that you were talking about something that I'd already discussed. If you had read the previous posts you should have seen that I had answered the question.
-Thanks for the link LC. |
--
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955) "The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness."
-- Joseph Conrad (1857-1924) "Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music."
-- Sam Harris (1967- ) With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg (1933- )
|
|
|
|
