Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 101

Thread: Proving God.

  1. #1 Proving God. 
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Does anybody know of any theoretical experiment which could prove or disprove gods existence ?


    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Guest
    Yes.

    1. Die
    2. Find out
    3. ???
    4. PROFIT!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman Tony John C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Yes.

    1. Die
    2. Find out
    3. ???
    4. PROFIT!
    1. Agree
    2. uhh how? lol maybe the 1st option again
    3. you got me
    4. huh?


    My answer

    1. Die

    I believe Jeremy had the answer. First, but he failed to copyright it. So i'll make like a large conglomeration of corporations and steal it.
    Why is hate so ingrained in humans? For the supposed enlightened species we are very limited to such primitive behaviors. Peace is a fleeting in our society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony John C
    So i'll make like a large conglomeration of corporations and steal it.
    Funeral Directors Inc., anyone ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman Tony John C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Funeral Directors Inc., anyone ?

    I'm game
    Why is hate so ingrained in humans? For the supposed enlightened species we are very limited to such primitive behaviors. Peace is a fleeting in our society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    or you could start a new high thrills sport and install a diving board at the grand canyon
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman Swordsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The infinite reaches of the net.
    Posts
    50
    There is no physical experiment to prove the existence of god. Theists are usually the first to point this out. Here's a story worth reading:

    The Dragon In My Garage
    by Carl Sagan

    "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

    Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

    "Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

    "Where's the dragon?" you ask.

    "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

    You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

    "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

    Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

    "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

    You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

    "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

    Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

    Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

    Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

    Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
    "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis." - As Laplace said when Napoleon wondered how the famous mathematician could write his book without mentioning God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Yes.

    1. Die
    2. Find out
    3. ???
    4. PROFIT!
    Would you be kind enough to demonstrate ?
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman Tony John C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Yes.

    1. Die
    2. Find out
    3. ???
    4. PROFIT!
    Would you be kind enough to demonstrate ?

    How exactly would that work. "yea once I jump off this cliff i'll get back to you."
    Why is hate so ingrained in humans? For the supposed enlightened species we are very limited to such primitive behaviors. Peace is a fleeting in our society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman Tortuegenial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    36
    In my opinion I don't think one can prove or disprove God's existence.
    The one thing you can do is prove that you are warranted or unwarranted in believing in the existence of God.
    Take a look at Swordsmith's example. Swordsmith showed that the believer in dragons seems to be unwarranted in believing in dragons because he/she is unable to provide physical evidence. The skeptic seems to be warranted in not believing that there is a dragon because of lack of physical evidence. The next scenario is one of testimony and myths. Followed by what would seem to be a sensible conclusion.

    However, I think this analogy is not sufficient against the truth of believing in God. Yes the belief in dragon seems to be irrational but you cannot say the same thing of, for example, the Christian God, secondly the believing in the dragon can be said to be unjustifiable, namely that there is no real reason to believe in the dragon where as there is one for God, lastly believing in a dragon may not sound intellectual at all, if its any worry, whereas believing in a God can be said to be intellectual given the amounts of serious arguments found in theology.

    So I think what you can have, at least, is strong warrant, or you can be well justified in believing that a God really does exist. To prove the existence of something you do not need to rely solely on physical evidence -just take a look at science for example.
    But theoretically I say this is one suggestion, to look at the justifiability in the belief and also whether you are warranted in believing in God.
    One theoretical experiment to disprove God, now on the other spectrum, is to take a religious God, say Christian, and then look at the objections to the truth of such a belief (de facto).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Guest
    As I thoroughly explained in another thread, you have to define God before you prove it improbable or probable. If the definition of God has a fallacy in it, then it's already wrong.

    I challenge anyone to arrive at a proper definition of any known God that doesn't include some sort of fallacy or another.

    Also, the "profit" routine I did is a meme from 4chan.

    http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Profit
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    An interesting idea - How about "god is the totality of all that exists."

    ? Is there a fallacy in this definition?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    OK if thats your definition I will say: Thats a total shot in the dark and based on what knowledge?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    An interesting idea - How about "god is the totality of all that exists."

    ? Is there a fallacy in this definition?
    Yes. If he is the sum of all that exists, then he's also the CREATOR of evil, suffering, etc. If you're basing that definition on present Christian (or ANY) theology, it's already flawed. If you're just throwing it out there, then it isn't...yet. Philosophically at least. Evidence wise you haven't a damn leg to stand on, but lets leave it to philosophy for now.

    Furthermore, that definition is vague to a fault. Especially your use of the word "totality". Try again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman Tony John C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    An interesting idea - How about "god is the totality of all that exists."

    ? Is there a fallacy in this definition?
    Yes. If he is the sum of all that exists, then he's also the CREATOR of evil, suffering, etc. If you're basing that definition on present Christian (or ANY) theology, it's already flawed. If you're just throwing it out there, then it isn't...yet. Philosophically at least. Evidence wise you haven't a damn leg to stand on, but lets leave it to philosophy for now.

    Furthermore, that definition is vague to a fault. Especially your use of the word "totality". Try again.
    howabout like totes def!
    Why is hate so ingrained in humans? For the supposed enlightened species we are very limited to such primitive behaviors. Peace is a fleeting in our society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman Tortuegenial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    As I thoroughly explained in another thread, you have to define God before you prove it improbable or probable. If the definition of God has a fallacy in it, then it's already wrong.

    I challenge anyone to arrive at a proper definition of any known God that doesn't include some sort of fallacy or another.

    Here's one such definition for the Christian God.
    On the theistic component God is a person: that is, a being with intellect and will; that has qualities that any other person has, such as knowledge, belief, affections, and intentions and can act so as to fulfill them. In addition to these qualities God has some specific qualities (knowledge, power, and love, for example) to the maximal degree. Thus God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and is also perfectly good and wholly loving.
    On the uniquely Christian component one would add other specific characteristics to God, such as God has arranged deliverance through the sacrificial suffering, death, and resurection of Jesus Christ, and is part of the Trinity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    And this isn't fallacious?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    Classic philosophical definition:

    Any entity shall be called a god if it is omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent.

    By these things i mean:

    1. omnipotent : the entity can perform any action that can be performed.

    2. omniscient : the entity posses any knowledge that can be known.

    3. omni benevolent : the entity only performs actions which are ethically good (to some ethical theory, say utilitarianisms for this definition)

    This excludes the gods of most ancient mythology (for example i would not call the Greek deities omni benevolent) but does capture what most monotheists refer to.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman Tortuegenial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    And this isn't fallacious?
    No.
    How is it fallacious if it is?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    An interesting idea - How about "god is the totality of all that exists."

    ? Is there a fallacy in this definition?
    Yes. If he is the sum of all that exists, then he's also the CREATOR of evil, suffering, etc. If you're basing that definition on present Christian (or ANY) theology, it's already flawed.
    Adherents to Pantheism would not agree.

    If you're just throwing it out there, then it isn't...yet. Philosophically at least. Evidence wise you haven't a damn leg to stand on, but lets leave it to philosophy for now.

    Furthermore, that definition is vague to a fault. Especially your use of the word "totality". Try again.
    Naturally, this is a philosophical discussion.

    Why is the definition vague? Are you asking for a definition of a god that can be tested scientifically.

    You (and others) seem to be implying that the definition of God should include something about benevolence. Do you see a problem with this requirement?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    And this isn't fallacious?
    No.
    How is it fallacious if it is?
    I don't like repeating myself, so I'll make it short...

    Omnipotence is impossible, omniscience means no free will and omnibenevolence is just ridiculous.
    You also assume God to be a person or something conscious. Consciousness is, as far as we know, a product of a complex biological machine (the brain). Now everything falls apart...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    However, I think this analogy is not sufficient against the truth of believing in God. Yes the belief in dragon seems to be irrational but you cannot say the same thing of, for example, the Christian God,
    why not explain.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    secondly the believing in the dragon can be said to be unjustifiable, namely that there is no real reason to believe in the dragon where as there is one for God,
    how so explain.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    lastly believing in a dragon may not sound intellectual at all, if its any worry, whereas believing in a God can be said to be intellectual given the amounts of serious arguments found in theology.
    where and how so explain.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    When Moses asked God who he was His reply was, "I am that am" (translated to english).


    So the most basic definition of God is, "He is"
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by couldbewrong
    When Moses asked God who he was His reply was, "I am that am" (translated to english).
    So the most basic definition of God is, "He is"
    who are you replying too, and what is your point, you first have to prove that the bible is a historical document or at least the word of a god, other than another mythical book.

    Aesops fables, " when the hare ask the fox "why did you try to eat me now we will both surely drown" the fox said" I am what I am" what makes, what god said to moses any more pertinant than the fox and hare, they are both fantasy unless you have some way of proving otherwise?
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    Sorry.

    They said to define God. I was offering the most simple yet applicable definition in the Christian beleif structure. I conceed that this structure assumes the Bible to true and many of the people here don't agree for various reasons.

    Again I was simply suggesting a definition.
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Adherents to Pantheism would not agree.
    Adherents of any religious predisposition would not agree. As per usual with attempts at defining a God, Pantheism starts out okay...then becomes tainted as people add it to their own belief systems.

    The base idea of pantheism is one that could possibly get by, just so long as that's the only thing they're going on.

    Naturally, this is a philosophical discussion.

    Why is the definition vague? Are you asking for a definition of a god that can be tested scientifically.
    It's vague because it slaps on the assumption it's a God while implicating nothing about anything similar to a God. If you ask me, Pantheism does the same thing. Who is to say the universe is a "God" rather than just a conscious entity?

    That's where other religions come on. Personally I don't think slapping the label of "God" onto such things makes any sense at all. Such definitions as the one given usually assume something as a base for labeling it God (such as the Christian bible), and therefore are incomplete definitions.

    You (and others) seem to be implying that the definition of God should include something about benevolence. Do you see a problem with this requirement?
    Actually, that's not what I'm looking for. In my studies so far, I've found every claim of a God being benevolent to be nothing but a joke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman Tortuegenial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    And this isn't fallacious?
    No.
    How is it fallacious if it is?
    I don't like repeating myself, so I'll make it short...

    Omnipotence is impossible, omniscience means no free will and omnibenevolence is just ridiculous.
    You also assume God to be a person or something conscious. Consciousness is, as far as we know, a product of a complex biological machine (the brain). Now everything falls apart...
    I don’t think omnipotence is impossible because we do have some idea, some grasp of such a concept, otherwise we wouldn’t even be able to begin to understand the concept or the proposition it expresses.
    Even logically it is possible because if you have something that is powerful you can always have something even more powerful. But in reality it’s another question (e.g. can these properties reside in such a being). Ok I just saw a thread on omnipotence it will take me time to read then I might come back so if you have a response just refer me to the thread.
    If one does not accept this basis for departure (grasping the concept that there could exist such properties) then, really, there is no point in discussion because this is how they (Christians) define of God. And the same thing can be said of omnibenevolence, but if you just think its ridiculous well then there’s nothing I can say.
    I don’t fully understand how omniscience means that there is no free will and if no one is willing to show how they think this then I can just move on because it seems to be a matter of opinion. Just because God knows everything does not necessarily mean that there is no free will for us. Our free will is independent of God’s knowledge.[/i]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman Tortuegenial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    However, I think this analogy is not sufficient against the truth of believing in God. Yes the belief in dragon seems to be irrational but you cannot say the same thing of, for example, the Christian God,
    why not explain.

    A brief response:
    There can be several reasons, for example, a means to an end rationality. With the dragon analogy the dragon does not seem to exist for a specific purpose nor does the person believe in the dragon to achieve a certain goal. Believing in God can have several achievements or goal in mind, take, say for example, truth ; for some people believing in Christian teaching will presumably yield this result. This is a means to an end.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    secondly the believing in the dragon can be said to be unjustifiable, namely that there is no real reason to believe in the dragon where as there is one for God,
    how so explain.
    Another brief response:
    There is a reason to believe in God because of compelling moral grounds, In other words, the idea of God or reason in believing in a God is succeeded and is effective in real, and actual life circumstances involving morality, and, therefore, this idea now has reason to be practiced. The God’s existence relies on such practical reasons that are, namely, the achievement of higher goods, prosperity, morality, purpose, and order, just to name a few, this makes it justifiable to believe in God.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    lastly believing in a dragon may not sound intellectual at all, if its any worry, whereas believing in a God can be said to be intellectual given the amounts of serious arguments found in theology.
    where and how so explain.
    Here I was just imagining the countless work philosophers have been doing and thinking on this particular issue. Really, the question goes back to the time human beings were able to think for themselves and have a creative mind. Great intellectuals have put serious thought and formed volumes of arguments from the Greek Aristotle to the English John Locke, from Kant to Kierkergaard etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    The belief in dragons comforts me and makes me a better person. Now it is rational to believe in dragons because it's important for me. I want to believe in dragons so therefore it is true that dragons exist. I also feel there is purpose in life because of the existence of dragons.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman Tortuegenial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    The belief in dragons comforts me and makes me a better person. Now it is rational to believe in dragons because it's important for me. I want to believe in dragons so therefore it is true that dragons exist. I also feel there is purpose in life because of the existence of dragons.


    Well then let me add that what you rationally choose as a means to an end depends on what you believe about the likelihood that believing in something (dragon or God) will yield the result you’re aiming at. If you’re functioning properly and you really believe it to be true that dragons make you a better person then you have to look on what basis this proposition is true. In other words is this ‘practical’ rationality. What beliefs about the dragon makes you feel this way? Is the dragon glorious, is it delightful, is it strengthening and majestic?

    For such a thing to be rational you have to show what it is about the dragon that makes you believe that this belief is a rational course and that you need this course as an aim towards your goals. Christianity and other religions show this by way of teachings from the Bible or the Koran, or testimony of other people who are properly functioning.

    Furthermore if in someway you are able to show that believing in a dragon is somehow rational this does not mean that the dragon exists, this is foolhardy, this only shows that you have rational belief and maybe warrant in believing in the dragon. I’m not saying that rational belief leads to existence of beings such as dragons and a God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    My dragon is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient! So you can't disprove it, therefore he must exist

    Is the dragon glorious, is it delightful, is it strengthening and majestic
    How did you know??

    I'm just showing you why your argument isn't good enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    However, I think this analogy is not sufficient against the truth of believing in God. Yes the belief in dragon seems to be irrational but you cannot say the same thing of, for example, the Christian God,
    why not explain.
    A brief response:
    There can be several reasons, for example, a means to an end rationality. With the dragon analogy the dragon does not seem to exist for a specific purpose nor does the person believe in the dragon to achieve a certain goal. Believing in God can have several achievements or goal in mind, take, say for example, truth ; for some people believing in Christian teaching will presumably yield this result. This is a means to an end.
    how so rationally? why do you think the dragon is less likely to exist than god? have you compared the dragon with god to define there atributes, the dragon could be the better option. Again why do you think the dragons truth any less poignant? your arguement is complete without worth, please try again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    secondly the believing in the dragon can be said to be unjustifiable, namely that there is no real reason to believe in the dragon where as there is one for God,
    how so explain.
    Another brief response:
    There is a reason to believe in God because of compelling moral grounds, In other words, the idea of God or reason in believing in a God is succeeded and is effective in real, and actual life circumstances involving morality, and, therefore, this idea now has reason to be practiced. The God’s existence relies on such practical reasons that are, namely, the achievement of higher goods, prosperity, morality, purpose, and order, just to name a few, this makes it justifiable to believe in God.
    and how do you know the dragon isn't superior in his morality? why dont you think the dragon can be given the same, accolades? your reasoning is flawed, the dragon has as much value as god or jesus, or allah, krishna, etc.. and why is it not justifiable to believe in the dragon, what has the dragon dont to deserve your dislike?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    lastly believing in a dragon may not sound intellectual at all, if its any worry, whereas believing in a God can be said to be intellectual given the amounts of serious arguments found in theology.
    where and how so explain.
    Here I was just imagining the countless work philosophers have been doing and thinking on this particular issue. Really, the question goes back to the time human beings were able to think for themselves and have a creative mind. Great intellectuals have put serious thought and formed volumes of arguments from the Greek Aristotle to the English John Locke, from Kant to Kierkergaard etc.
    firstly have humans suddenly ceased to think, that aside. There are countless arguements against god, so again why is god more valid then the dragon.

    ps remember the dragon may be the superior one of the two, you have yet to show it isn't.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman Tortuegenial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    My dragon is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient! So you can't disprove it, therefore he must exist

    Is the dragon glorious, is it delightful, is it strengthening and majestic
    How did you know??

    I'm just showing you why your argument isn't good enough.

    Well one thing we should get straight is that from the beginning I said I'm not trying to prove God's existence.
    All I wanted to point out is that at this point in time no one can really prove the existence of God nor can anyone prove the non-existence of God. And just because I can't disprove it that does not mean that it must exist, it perhaps means that I cannot show how, or I have no knowledge of how to disprove it (referring to the dragon example above).
    From the beginning I only said that true believers in God, say for example the Christians of Christianity, are warranted in believing in the Christian God for such reasons that I briefly outlined; namely rationality and justification which leads to warrant or is good enough for warrant. I perhaps made the mistake of saying that this proves the existence of God in my first post but what I meant was that lack of physical evidence is not enough to reject God or even the possibility of God. I think that as of yet there is no solid proof, but what we have is good enough to believe in a God.
    We cannot outrule the possibility of a God but we can provide good enough reasons that there is a possibility.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    I was fully aware that you weren't trying to prove God. All I did was to show that the belief in dragon is equal to that of God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman Tortuegenial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    how so rationally? why do you think the dragon is less likely to exist than god? have you compared the dragon with god to define there atributes, the dragon could be the better option. Again why do you think the dragons truth any less poignant? your arguement is complete without worth, please try again.
    I don't understand "how so rationally?" The example I gave was a "means-to-end" rationality, i.e. aim and purpose. I didn't know the dragon had a means-to-end rationality because it wasn't given in the example that is why I wrote "seems". I also didn't know the attributes of the dragon, they weren't pointed out so you're right I didn't make a fair comparison.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    and how do you know the dragon isn't superior in his morality? why dont you think the dragon can be given the same, accolades? your reasoning is flawed, the dragon has as much value as god or jesus, or allah, krishna, etc.. and why is it not justifiable to believe in the dragon, what has the dragon dont to deserve your dislike?
    You have not shown how my reasoning is flawed all you have shown is that I was not aware or didn't take into account the superior morality of this dragon. I never said that the dragon cannot be given the same accolades, had I known the dragon had as much value as God, Jesus, Allah, Krishna etc. obviously I wouldn't have discounted practical reasons in believing in the dragon or I would have at least considered it.

    I just went off Swordsmith's example, and I responded. Obviously if I had known or thought that the dragon had all these attributes I would not have said that it is an insufficient analogy.



    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    firstly have humans suddenly ceased to think, that aside. There are countless arguements against god, so again why is god more valid then the dragon.

    ps remember the dragon may be the superior one of the two, you have yet to show it isn't.
    There are countless of arguments against God, and good ones too.
    I just mentioned this to show that it is in the intellectual realm.
    I'm not interested in which is superior.

    It's obvious now that this dragon appears to show many attributes similar to God. I didn't know this about Swordsmith's dragon, I was just going off his example to make a point that the belief in a being or something needs to be justified especially if there is no physical evidence for it's existence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman Tortuegenial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    I was fully aware that you weren't trying to prove God. All I did was to show that the belief in dragon is equal to that of God.
    You did not show that the belief in the dragon is equal to God.
    All you've said so far is that my definition of God appears to be fallacious because you do not think that the concept of omnipotence is possible. That omniscience means that there is no free will and that omnnibenevolence is somehow ridiculous.
    That "The belief in dragons comforts me and makes me a better person. Now it is rational to believe in dragons because it's important for me. I want to believe in dragons so therefore it is true that dragons exist. I also feel there is purpose in life because of the existence of dragons. "

    Here you have not even shown how the dragon does this and again it has nothing to do about existence. You just say that you want to believe in dragons.
    Afterwards you say you're dragon "eternal, omnipotent, omniscient! So you can't disprove it, therefore he must exist"
    I don't know where the existence part comes from but all of a sudden you seem to either accept omnipotency or you're simply not taking me seriously, which is fine. And what has this got to do with my argument not being good enough?
    <my argument is not good enough because....> you have to provide reasons or convincing arguments for why my argument is not good enough. Or at least ask challenging questions like Geezer is doing.

    If you're going to show that "the belief in dragon is equal to that of God." then you have to show on what basis. I gave only some examples you have to give me other examples.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    As long as I have faith in the dragon, as one has faith in God, they are equal to eachother. Neither can be disproven or proven and and both give just as much meaning to a person who believes in them.

    God = dragon = flying spghettimonster = donut = etc

    All are equally valid as long as you apply reason.

    "Faith is belief in the absence of evidence" - Richard Dawkins

    I'm sorry for not giving reasons why I get bored repeating myself after a while you see...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman Tortuegenial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    As long as I have faith in the dragon, as one has faith in God, they are equal to eachother. Neither can be disproven or proven and and both give just as much meaning to a person who believes in them.

    God = dragon = flying spghettimonster = donut = etc

    All are equally valid as long as you apply reason.

    "Faith is belief in the absence of evidence" - Richard Dawkins

    I'm sorry for not giving reasons why I get bored repeating myself after a while you see...

    This is ridiculous it's not going anywhere, I'm talking about warrant, rationality, and justifiability I don't know how faith came into the picture.

    If you don't want to give reasons because you get bored repeating yourself, well then there's no point going any further, really.

    For the record I really do not agree nor like Dawkins.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    As long as I have faith in the dragon, as one has faith in God, they are equal to eachother. Neither can be disproven or proven and and both give just as much meaning to a person who believes in them.

    God = dragon = flying spghettimonster = donut = etc

    All are equally valid as long as you apply reason.

    "Faith is belief in the absence of evidence" - Richard Dawkins

    I'm sorry for not giving reasons why I get bored repeating myself after a while you see...

    This is ridiculous it's not going anywhere, I'm talking about warrant, rationality, and justifiability I don't know how faith came into the picture.

    If you don't want to give reasons because you get bored repeating yourself, well then there's no point going any further, really.

    For the record I really do not agree nor like Dawkins.
    Ok?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Guest
    Jeeze. My post was entirely ignored, and you guys went off on tangent. Me thinks you just like arguing :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    My dragon is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient! So you can't disprove it, therefore he must exist

    Is the dragon glorious, is it delightful, is it strengthening and majestic
    How did you know??

    I'm just showing you why your argument isn't good enough.
    What is a dragon?
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Jeeze. My post was entirely ignored, and you guys went off on tangent. Me thinks you just like arguing :?
    I had planned on responding..... and then changed my mind, if you get my drift. :wink: I haven't responded to you precisely because I don't like arguing. I'm still open to the idea that you have some worthwhile ideas, but am becoming sceptical that I will see as much of that from you as I had originally hoped.

    I see three posts on this thread from you, and two are directed at me. It is hardly surprising that other people aren't responding to your posts that were directed at me, and I have now explained why I didn't continue discussing whatever-we-were.

    If you are hoping to talk to others, you might consider directing a post their way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Guest
    Right. Next time I'll be careful to avoid damaging your extremely large egocentric attitude. Anyway.

    My message was more focused on the fact these guys are arguing for the sake of arguing. My posts normally contain as many rational and logical arguments as I can stuff into them. Hence why I find your comments about my "potential" quite humorous.

    /off topic ad-hominem posts :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    It's true that I am not good at expressing humour.

    Your most recent posts towards me are antagonistic, plain and simple. You have thrown the gauntlet, young sir. Harumph!

    I could have said, two posts up, "I stopped talking to you because you are a moron" and who knows - maybe that would have been easier for you to swallow than my opinion that you might actually have some intelligence. Since, obviously, holding an opinion equates to egocentrism.

    !!

    I'm willing to give it a try: You're a delusional moron, at both ends of the spectrum, and yo mama smells of Glaswegian haggis (<-- that bit's just thrown in for good measure.). But that's just me.

    (Is this what passes amongst the young people these days for conversation? Seems a-mighty strange to this old cowpoke, but when in Rome....)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Guest
    Hahahahaha. That's so anti-lulz it's funny. You're good at making people NOT care about your opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman Tortuegenial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    36
    Jeremyhfht, I didn't understand your post actually...
    maybe you could explain it to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    What is a dragon?
    Dragons are usually depicted as snakelike or related to reptiles. Yet most can also fly. Some have feet, and others are shown as legless. A dragon may have one or more heads, normally hatches from eggs, and may be extremely ferocious and powerful.

    The great Quetzalcoatl, the god of the Aztecs is one such Dragon god,

    Even the bible has written about Dragons
    "And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads." (Revelation 12:3)
    "And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority." (Revelation 13:2)
    There are nine Dragon gods.
    1, the bell Dragon, carved on bells because of the habit of shouting whilst under attack.
    2, the music Dragon carved on fiddles, because of there love of music.
    3, the literature Dragon carved on stone tablets, because of there love of literature.
    4, the strength Dragon carved at the bottom of monuments, because it can support heavy weights.
    5, the warning Dragon carved on the eaves of temples, because Dragons are always alert to danger.
    6, the bridge Dragon carved on bridges, because of there fondness for water.
    7, the restful Dragon carved on Buddha’s throne, as Dragons do like to rest.
    8, the warrior Dragon carved on swords and daggers, because Dragons have been known to slaughter all in their wake.
    9, the angry Dragon carved on prison gates, because the love to quarrel and cause trouble.

    The Dragon king is the main one; he is made up of four Dragons, each ruling over the N, S, E, and W.
    Which one do you wish to discuss
    These nine are also of different types IE: the wood, fire, earth, water, or metal Dragon.
    The Dragon king is all seeing and all knowing, all powerful.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    As long as I have faith in the dragon, as one has faith in God, they are equal to eachother. Neither can be disproven or proven and and both give just as much meaning to a person who believes in them.

    God = dragon = flying spghettimonster = donut = etc

    All are equally valid as long as you apply reason.

    "Faith is belief in the absence of evidence" - Richard Dawkins

    I'm sorry for not giving reasons why I get bored repeating myself after a while you see...

    This is ridiculous it's not going anywhere, I'm talking about warrant, rationality, and justifiability I don't know how faith came into the picture.

    If you don't want to give reasons because you get bored repeating yourself, well then there's no point going any further, really.

    For the record I really do not agree nor like Dawkins.
    I just like to say that your opinion on Richard Dawkins is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the discussion. If you can't refute my argument and you don't understand the reasoning, neither Dawkins definition of faith, then you have nothing to argue about as your response to my post becomes an argument from personal incredulity (argument from ignorance). Faith comes into the picture because that is the reason for it being warrant, justifiable and rational. It all depends on how you reason the faith into logic. Therefore all faiths becomes equally valid, reasonable, justifiable and warrant. Even though none of them actually are...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    _ APPENDIX 7



    this was once 763 words (edited owing to the need for economy of words)



    HAIL MODERATORS.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    I'm not reading 763 words streamsystems...

    Can you just state what your point is? (I've read it before though)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    What is a dragon?
    Dragons are usually depicted as snakelike or related to reptiles. Yet most can also fly. Some have feet, and others are shown as legless. A dragon may have one or more heads, normally hatches from eggs, and may be extremely ferocious and powerful.
    It follows, then, that's LESS RATIONAL to believe in Dragons (especially omnipotent ones).
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    What is a dragon?
    Dragons are usually depicted as snakelike or related to reptiles. Yet most can also fly. Some have feet, and others are shown as legless. A dragon may have one or more heads, normally hatches from eggs, and may be extremely ferocious and powerful.
    It follows, then, that's LESS RATIONAL to believe in Dragons (especially omnipotent ones).
    Why, just because it don’t look to nice does not mean, it's evil.
    a lion is ferocious and powerful, but not evil.
    That’s a very biased and bigoted view; the deity with human attributes could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman Tony John C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    What is a dragon?
    Dragons are usually depicted as snakelike or related to reptiles. Yet most can also fly. Some have feet, and others are shown as legless. A dragon may have one or more heads, normally hatches from eggs, and may be extremely ferocious and powerful.
    It follows, then, that's LESS RATIONAL to believe in Dragons (especially omnipotent ones).
    Why, just because it don’t look to nice does not mean, it's evil.
    a lion is ferocious and powerful, but not evil.
    That’s a very biased and bigoted view; the deity with human attributes could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
    why do you argue so ferverently against religion. Your an atheist, when you die you do not continue to exist. That is your future. Who are you attempting to convince? Certainly not us. Its quite amusing, for someone who is so "sure" about his beliefs that he must argue about them daily. To people who could care less.

    Its funny how its not just geezer, both sides of theological debate attempt to convince the other they are right. Well lets the atheists go to non-existence, and the religious to heaven. Then both will be happy.
    Why is hate so ingrained in humans? For the supposed enlightened species we are very limited to such primitive behaviors. Peace is a fleeting in our society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony John C
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    What is a dragon?
    Dragons are usually depicted as snakelike or related to reptiles. Yet most can also fly. Some have feet, and others are shown as legless. A dragon may have one or more heads, normally hatches from eggs, and may be extremely ferocious and powerful.
    It follows, then, that's LESS RATIONAL to believe in Dragons (especially omnipotent ones).
    Why, just because it don’t look to nice does not mean, it's evil.
    a lion is ferocious and powerful, but not evil.
    That’s a very biased and bigoted view; the deity with human attributes could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
    why do you argue so ferverently against religion. Your an atheist, when you die you do not continue to exist. That is your future. Who are you attempting to convince? Certainly not us. Its quite amusing, for someone who is so "sure" about his beliefs that he must argue about them daily. To people who could care less.

    Its funny how its not just geezer, both sides of theological debate attempt to convince the other they are right. Well lets the atheists go to non-existence, and the religious to heaven. Then both will be happy.
    personally, i see it the other way around, i get daily attacks from rabid overzealous jehovas witnesses, and born again christians.
    theres even friggin door to door patrols eager to spread the word.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony John C
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    What is a dragon?
    Dragons are usually depicted as snakelike or related to reptiles. Yet most can also fly. Some have feet, and others are shown as legless. A dragon may have one or more heads, normally hatches from eggs, and may be extremely ferocious and powerful.
    It follows, then, that's LESS RATIONAL to believe in Dragons (especially omnipotent ones).
    Why, just because it don’t look to nice does not mean, it's evil.
    a lion is ferocious and powerful, but not evil.
    That’s a very biased and bigoted view; the deity with human attributes could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
    why do you argue so ferverently against religion. Your an atheist, when you die you do not continue to exist. That is your future. Who are you attempting to convince? Certainly not us. Its quite amusing, for someone who is so "sure" about his beliefs that he must argue about them daily. To people who could care less.

    Its funny how its not just geezer, both sides of theological debate attempt to convince the other they are right. Well lets the atheists go to non-existence, and the religious to heaven. Then both will be happy.
    Truth is better and more meaningful than wishful thinking and false hope.

    Theists likes everything to be wrapped into a pretty little package. But without all the bad and hard stuff in this world, the good things would become unimportant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    What is a dragon?
    Dragons are usually depicted as snakelike or related to reptiles. Yet most can also fly. Some have feet, and others are shown as legless. A dragon may have one or more heads, normally hatches from eggs, and may be extremely ferocious and powerful.
    It follows, then, that's LESS RATIONAL to believe in Dragons (especially omnipotent ones).
    Why, just because it don’t look to nice does not mean, it's evil.
    a lion is ferocious and powerful, but not evil.
    That’s a very biased and bigoted view; the deity with human attributes could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
    WHERE THE HELL DID I SAY IT WAS EVIL????

    Edit: I think your blatant dislike of Christians has clouded your mind. You perhaps need to see a psychotherapist.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    What is a dragon?
    Dragons are usually depicted as snakelike or related to reptiles. Yet most can also fly. Some have feet, and others are shown as legless. A dragon may have one or more heads, normally hatches from eggs, and may be extremely ferocious and powerful.
    It follows, then, that's LESS RATIONAL to believe in Dragons (especially omnipotent ones).
    Why, just because it don’t look to nice does not mean, it's evil.
    a lion is ferocious and powerful, but not evil.
    That’s a very biased and bigoted view; the deity with human attributes could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
    WHERE THE HELL DID I SAY IT WAS EVIL????

    Edit: I think your blatant dislike of Christians has clouded your mind. You perhaps need to see a psychotherapist.
    ok my bad, I made an assumption.
    But I would love to know your reasoning for saying it's LESS RATIONAL to believe in Dragons, given you dont like the look of them?
    And Incidently, it's religion, all religion, that I have a distinct dislike for, but the people that follow these/this evil cult, I have no qualms with they are innocent victims.
    It is an arrogance ( as was my faux pas above ) to assume I'm always refering to christians.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    What is a dragon?
    Dragons are usually depicted as snakelike or related to reptiles. Yet most can also fly. Some have feet, and others are shown as legless. A dragon may have one or more heads, normally hatches from eggs, and may be extremely ferocious and powerful.
    It follows, then, that's LESS RATIONAL to believe in Dragons (especially omnipotent ones).
    Why, just because it don’t look to nice does not mean, it's evil.
    a lion is ferocious and powerful, but not evil.
    That’s a very biased and bigoted view; the deity with human attributes could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
    WHERE THE HELL DID I SAY IT WAS EVIL????

    Edit: I think your blatant dislike of Christians has clouded your mind. You perhaps need to see a psychotherapist.
    ok my bad, I made an assumption.
    But I would love to know your reasoning for saying it's LESS RATIONAL to believe in Dragons, given you dont like the look of them?
    And Incidently, it's religion, all religion, that I have a distinct dislike for, but the people that follow these/this evil cult, I have no qualms with they are innocent victims.
    It is less rational because there is no evidence that dragons exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    It is an arrogance ( as was my faux pas above ) to assume I'm always refering to christians.
    Theist, whatever. In any case, I wasn't serious.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    It is less rational because there is no evidence that dragons exist.
    there no evidence that gods exist, so whats the difference, this still doesn't explain why it's less rational, as dragons and gods are on the same par when it come to evidence.
    so I would still be interested as to why you think it's less rational, because the above answer just doesn't cut it.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman Tortuegenial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony John C
    why do you argue so ferverently against religion. Your an atheist, when you die you do not continue to exist. That is your future. Who are you attempting to convince? Certainly not us. Its quite amusing, for someone who is so "sure" about his beliefs that he must argue about them daily. To people who could care less.

    Its funny how its not just geezer, both sides of theological debate attempt to convince the other they are right. Well lets the atheists go to non-existence, and the religious to heaven. Then both will be happy.

    I say, at least on my part, that its not a matter of convincing the other side. What I argue for is that some legitimate religions are warranted in believing in their God or a God, and just the same with atheists; that is they are warranted with good reason to believe that no God exists.
    If, say for example, atheists accept that there is no need to prove God but there is a need to have warrant in beleiving that there is a religious God, and hence good reason to follow a Religion, then there would be no need to convince the other side but rather to debate on the conditions of warrant.

    In other words you should approach this debate with an open and critical mind, evaluate the conditions, definitions and arguments, ask difficult questions and try to find answers to them and come up with counter-arguments based on reason (and logic). If you come in here with a closed-mind and treat others as if they are stupid or not know what they're talking about and try to put them down, very few people will take them seriously, and the debate will be lost, no one will get anywhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    It is less rational because there is no evidence that dragons exist.
    there no evidence that gods exist, so whats the difference, this still doesn't explain why it's less rational, as dragons and gods are on the same par when it come to evidence.
    so I would still be interested as to why you think it's less rational, because the above answer just doesn't cut it.
    Ah, yes, I always seem to lead you into the little dead-end rabbit hole.

    God is an omnipotent metaphysical being... there is no way in which we can prove Him lest He wants to be shown.

    The dragon, on the other hand, is a physical being. All claims to physical beings must be verified with evidence, or else such a being cannot be assumed to exist.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    It is less rational because there is no evidence that dragons exist.
    there no evidence that gods exist, so whats the difference, this still doesn't explain why it's less rational, as dragons and gods are on the same par when it come to evidence.
    so I would still be interested as to why you think it's less rational, because the above answer just doesn't cut it.
    Ah, yes, I always seem to lead you into the little dead-end rabbit hole.

    God is an omnipotent metaphysical being... there is no way in which we can prove Him lest He wants to be shown.

    The dragon, on the other hand, is a physical being. All claims to physical beings must be verified with evidence, or else such a being cannot be assumed to exist.
    My dragon is beyond the physical world
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    It is less rational because there is no evidence that dragons exist.
    there no evidence that gods exist, so whats the difference, this still doesn't explain why it's less rational, as dragons and gods are on the same par when it come to evidence.
    so I would still be interested as to why you think it's less rational, because the above answer just doesn't cut it.
    Ah, yes, I always seem to lead you into the little dead-end rabbit hole.

    God is an omnipotent metaphysical being... there is no way in which we can prove Him lest He wants to be shown.
    rotflmao, and you evidence for this is, where!
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    The dragon, on the other hand, is a physical being. All claims to physical beings must be verified with evidence, or else such a being cannot be assumed to exist.
    what like Jesus, rotflmao, so the Dragon is omnipotent physical being... there is no way in which we can prove Him lest He wants to be shown, in your opinion and this is different from a God how?

    All claims to any God be it physical or metaphysical must be verified with evidence, why do you thing atheist are without belief in God/Gods because there is no evidence, lol.

    so I can gather that belief in God/Gods which have no evidence, is more valid, than belief in Dragons which have no evidence, well that does make sense. ( sarcasm )
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    It is less rational because there is no evidence that dragons exist.
    there no evidence that gods exist, so whats the difference, this still doesn't explain why it's less rational, as dragons and gods are on the same par when it come to evidence.
    so I would still be interested as to why you think it's less rational, because the above answer just doesn't cut it.
    Ah, yes, I always seem to lead you into the little dead-end rabbit hole.

    God is an omnipotent metaphysical being... there is no way in which we can prove Him lest He wants to be shown.

    The dragon, on the other hand, is a physical being. All claims to physical beings must be verified with evidence, or else such a being cannot be assumed to exist.
    My dragon is beyond the physical world
    An omnipotent dragon beyond the physical world is nonsensical, because a dragon is, by definition, physical.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    It is less rational because there is no evidence that dragons exist.
    there no evidence that gods exist, so whats the difference, this still doesn't explain why it's less rational, as dragons and gods are on the same par when it come to evidence.
    so I would still be interested as to why you think it's less rational, because the above answer just doesn't cut it.
    Ah, yes, I always seem to lead you into the little dead-end rabbit hole.

    God is an omnipotent metaphysical being... there is no way in which we can prove Him lest He wants to be shown.
    rotflmao, and you evidence for this is, where!
    I need no evidence. This is a negative claim (we can't prove God), so the burden of proof is not on me. You need to provide me with evidence that we can or OUGHT TO BE ABLE to prove God.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    The dragon, on the other hand, is a physical being. All claims to physical beings must be verified with evidence, or else such a being cannot be assumed to exist.
    what like Jesus, rotflmao, so the Dragon is omnipotent physical being... there is no way in which we can prove Him lest He wants to be shown, in your opinion and this is different from a God how?
    An omnipotent physical being is nonsensical, because it would be able to defy natural laws; in effect, it would be defying those laws which govern it, which would make it contradictory. It would be like God defying logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    All claims to any God be it physical or metaphysical must be verified with evidence, why do you thing atheist are without belief in God/Gods because there is no evidence, lol.
    Again, provide me with evidence that we ought to be able to prove God.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    so I can gather that belief in God/Gods which have no evidence, is more valid, than belief in Dragons which have no evidence, well that does make sense. ( sarcasm )
    Your statement may be sarcastic, but it's more true than you think. Dragons are physical, and so we ought to see evidence of them, whereas God is metaphysical: there's no proof that we ought to see evidence of a metaphysical being.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    It is less rational because there is no evidence that dragons exist.
    there no evidence that gods exist, so whats the difference, this still doesn't explain why it's less rational, as dragons and gods are on the same par when it come to evidence.
    so I would still be interested as to why you think it's less rational, because the above answer just doesn't cut it.
    Ah, yes, I always seem to lead you into the little dead-end rabbit hole.

    God is an omnipotent metaphysical being... there is no way in which we can prove Him lest He wants to be shown.

    The dragon, on the other hand, is a physical being. All claims to physical beings must be verified with evidence, or else such a being cannot be assumed to exist.
    My dragon is beyond the physical world
    An omnipotent dragon beyond the physical world is nonsensical, because a dragon is, by definition, physical.
    Why? Because you say so? A dragon is by definition a dragon. If I choose to believe in a nonphysical dragon, it is no different from believing in a nonphysical God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I need no evidence. This is a negative claim (we can't prove God), so the burden of proof is not on me. You need to provide me with evidence that we can or OUGHT TO BE ABLE to prove God.
    the onus is still yours as you the one who believes without evidence.
    I have no such belief.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    An omnipotent physical being is nonsensical, because it would be able to defy natural laws; in effect, it would be defying those laws which govern it, which would make it contradictory. It would be like God defying logic.
    It can do whatever you want it to do, even if it defies natural laws,
    without evidence, it can do no wrong neither can God.
    The Dragon god can do all the things God can do and more, he is metaphysical and physical, natural and unnatural, and logical and illogical, you see your giving the Dragon god attributes that you feel are correct but he is much much more than that.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Again, provide me with evidence that we ought to be able to prove God.
    no need I have no belief in it, thats your department.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Your statement may be sarcastic, but it's more true than you think. Dragons are physical, and so we ought to see evidence of them, whereas God is metaphysical: there's no proof that we ought to see evidence of a metaphysical being.
    there you go again giving the attribute that you desire he have, he is much more superior than your poor assumption. The Dragon god is just as imaginary as your God, so you wont find any evidence for either.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Let's create a new religion geezer! The Church of The Mighty Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Let's create a new religion geezer! The Church of The Mighty Dragon
    yes lets "The cult of the Dragon", jackie chan can be our high priest.
    already made a start with an idol and a temple
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Oh, oh! Let my write the scriptures!

    ...In the beginning, The Dragon Lord breatheth his fire in a mighty blast and created the universe (the big bang).

    We can use the science we have today and explain it with The Dragon Lord, lol!

    Seriously, anyone could easily start a religion that is just as likely as any other religion. All you need is faith!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Oh, oh! Let my write the scriptures!

    ...In the beginning, The Dragon Lord breatheth his fire in a mighty blast and created the universe (the big bang).

    We can use the science we have today and explain it with The Dragon Lord, lol!

    Seriously, anyone could easily start a religion that is just as likely as any other religion. All you need is faith!
    exactly, l ron hubbard did it. lol
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    even the local church has changed allegiance
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Guest
    Lame man. Really lame. You could have PAINTed out that advertisement. It would've been a LEETLE believable then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    It is less rational because there is no evidence that dragons exist.
    there no evidence that gods exist, so whats the difference, this still doesn't explain why it's less rational, as dragons and gods are on the same par when it come to evidence.
    so I would still be interested as to why you think it's less rational, because the above answer just doesn't cut it.
    Ah, yes, I always seem to lead you into the little dead-end rabbit hole.

    God is an omnipotent metaphysical being... there is no way in which we can prove Him lest He wants to be shown.

    The dragon, on the other hand, is a physical being. All claims to physical beings must be verified with evidence, or else such a being cannot be assumed to exist.
    My dragon is beyond the physical world
    An omnipotent dragon beyond the physical world is nonsensical, because a dragon is, by definition, physical.
    Why? Because you say so? A dragon is by definition a dragon. If I choose to believe in a nonphysical dragon, it is no different from believing in a nonphysical God.
    Dragon: A mythical monster traditionally represented as a gigantic reptile having a lion's claws, the tail of a serpent, wings, and a scaly skin.

    Reptile: Any of various cold-blooded, usually egg-laying vertebrates of the class Reptilia, such as a snake, lizard, crocodile, turtle, or dinosaur, having an external covering of scales or horny plates and breathing by means of lungs.

    Vertebrate: Having a backbone or spinal column.

    Spinal column: The series of articulated vertebrae, separated by intervertebral disks and held together by muscles and tendons, that extends from the cranium to the coccyx or the end of the tail, encasing the spinal cord and forming the supporting axis of the body; the spine.

    Muscle: A tissue composed of fibers capable of contracting to effect bodily movement.

    Tissue: Biology. An aggregation of morphologically similar cells and associated intercellular matter acting together to perform one or more specific functions in the body. There are four basic types of tissue: muscle, nerve, epidermal, and connective.

    I'd pretty much say it's physical by definition.

    Source: answers.com
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I need no evidence. This is a negative claim (we can't prove God), so the burden of proof is not on me. You need to provide me with evidence that we can or OUGHT TO BE ABLE to prove God.
    the onus is still yours as you the one who believes without evidence.
    The onus is on me to prove that God exists, because I make the positive claim (God exists).

    The onus is on you to prove that one can draw empirical conclusions on a metaphysical being, because you make the positive claim (you ought to be able to prove God exists).

    If you can't, then my claim stands that it is less rational to hold a belief in dragons than to hold one in God.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    An omnipotent physical being is nonsensical, because it would be able to defy natural laws; in effect, it would be defying those laws which govern it, which would make it contradictory. It would be like God defying logic.
    It can do whatever you want it to do, even if it defies natural laws,
    without evidence, it can do no wrong neither can God.
    The Dragon god can do all the things God can do and more, he is metaphysical and physical, natural and unnatural, and logical and illogical, you see your giving the Dragon god attributes that you feel are correct but he is much much more than that.
    Jumping around.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Again, provide me with evidence that we ought to be able to prove God.
    no need I have no belief in it, thats your department.
    Please reread my post. I'm not asking for evidence that God exists. I'm asking for a reason why you believe one can go about trying to prove a metaphysical entity.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Your statement may be sarcastic, but it's more true than you think. Dragons are physical, and so we ought to see evidence of them, whereas God is metaphysical: there's no proof that we ought to see evidence of a metaphysical being.
    there you go again giving the attribute that you desire he have, he is much more superior than your poor assumption. The Dragon god is just as imaginary as your God, so you wont find any evidence for either.
    Oh, so now the dragon is God? If it is, then I have no problem accepting that it's as reasonable to believe in it as to believe in my God.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    The onus is on me to prove that God exists, because I make the positive claim (God exists).
    you got it exactly.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    The onus is on you to prove that one can draw empirical conclusions on a metaphysical being, because you make the positive claim (you ought to be able to prove God exists).
    firstly I make no claims what so ever, but what I gather your claiming now is you want me to provide you with the evidence that you haven't got for you assertions, laughable in the extreme, no sir the onus is always yours.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    If you can't, then my claim stands that it is less rational to hold a belief in dragons than to hold one in God.
    why when the two are equal in there status, both imaginary, both without evidence, you have yet to show the Dragon as a lesser entity.
    all you've done is show us what you think the Dragon is, emphasis on "think".
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Jumping around.
    no just showing what a little more imagination can do. any imaginary entity can change exponentially at random, given the mind to do so, lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I'm not asking for evidence that God exists. I'm asking for a reason why you believe one can go about trying to prove a metaphysical entity.
    I'm not asking you to, I simple try to equate why you think the Dragon a lesser entity, given the two are equal in there status, both imaginary, both without evidence. this has been my goal from the onset.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Oh, so now the dragon is God?,
    the Dragon being imaginary is equal to God, so yes you've got it, now we're getting somewhere, if you continue to think along those lines, you will understand why you cant say the Dragon is a lesser entity, ok got it.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    If it is, then I have no problem accepting that it's as reasonable to believe in it as to believe in my God.
    well their you go then, well done.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    The onus is on you to prove that one can draw empirical conclusions on a metaphysical being, because you make the positive claim (you ought to be able to prove God exists).
    firstly I make no claims what so ever, but what I gather your claiming now is you want me to provide you with the evidence that you haven't got for you assertions, laughable in the extreme, no sir the onus is always yours.
    Ok, if you make no such claims, then why are you asking me to prove the existence of God? It's a stupid request, in that case.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    If you can't, then my claim stands that it is less rational to hold a belief in dragons than to hold one in God.
    why when the two are equal in there status, both imaginary, both without evidence, you have yet to show the Dragon as a lesser entity.
    all you've done is show us what you think the Dragon is, emphasis on "think".
    Again, the dragon is a PHYSICAL entity, and therefore REQUIRES EMPIRICAL proof of existence, whereas God is NOT a physical entity, and therefore does NOT require empirical proof of existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Jumping around.
    no just showing what a little more imagination can do. any imaginary entity can change exponentially at random, given the mind to do so, lol.
    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I'm not asking for evidence that God exists. I'm asking for a reason why you believe one can go about trying to prove a metaphysical entity.
    I'm not asking you to, I simple try to equate why you think the Dragon a lesser entity, given the two are equal in there status, both imaginary, both without evidence. this has been my goal from the onset.
    Again, physical vs non-physical.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Oh, so now the dragon is God?,
    the Dragon being imaginary is equal to God, so yes you've got it, now we're getting somewhere, if you continue to think along those lines, you will understand why you cant say the Dragon is a lesser entity, ok got it.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    If it is, then I have no problem accepting that it's as reasonable to believe in it as to believe in my God.
    well their you go then, well done.
    Stop jumping around. Is the Dragon a God or not?
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    To prove the existence of God is to prove a lot of other things we associate to the concept of God.

    To prove those things we associate to God, and to then take the ultimate step in proving God, then we would have at least respected God is associated, as some of us have been taught, to a whole host of ideas and social principals.

    For someone to to present a case for or against the existence of God without addressing how history has fashioned the concept of God, all the related concepts to God, without addressing all those issues, is a debate one cannot take very seriously.

    Just though to keep this discussion rolling, in the absence of social "idealism", in the absence of knowing how to BEST construct a State system, the focus is on the sinner, the person, personally, not what they can do for a greater social good. In the presence of an ideal social model, one for instance most adaptive to the ecosystem, the focus is not so inclined on the "sinner" as a personal being, but the citizen and their ability to develop society according to a more, as suggested for instance, ecofriendly framework.

    Jesus FOR instance was a person who carried the cross of personal sin, obviously because he wanted to get that shite over and done with, to focus more constructively on the construction of an ideal STATE. Yet, many misinterpret his purpose. He would be a difficult God to prove in the context of misinterpreting him, don't you think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Stop jumping around. Is the Dragon a God or not?
    who's jumping, yes it's a god I've said that all along, it is whatever you imagine it to be, however you keep classing it as physical, because that fits your imagined version, so you will always see it as irrational and believing in your God as rational, whereas normal people cant see a difference.
    The onus is still on you to prove the existence of your deity, but I am 99.9999999% sure you cant so. I could'nt careless about you trying to prove it.
    I'm not asking you too, I asking you to show why ( and I have been from the onset of these dialogs ) you think the Dragon is lesser, and your arguement is constantly it's physical, and you believe, god is different.
    well they are equal in ever aspect to all normal people.
    However for the theists (the accepted insanity) there is a big difference.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    WOW! Have I missed a lot of discussion! Ok:

    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Dragon: A mythical monster traditionally represented
    I'm talking about my dragon. Don't make me start talking about humans being by definition physical God did create man in his image, right?

    Wasn't to much to refute anyway it seems ^^,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Stop jumping around. Is the Dragon a God or not?
    who's jumping, yes it's a god I've said that all along, it is whatever you imagine it to be, however you keep classing it as physical, because that fits your imagined version, so you will always see it as irrational and believing in your God as rational, whereas normal people cant see a difference.
    The onus is still on you to prove the existence of your deity, but I am 99.9999999% sure you cant so. I could'nt careless about you trying to prove it.
    I'm not asking you too, I asking you to show why ( and I have been from the onset of these dialogs ) you think the Dragon is lesser, and your arguement is constantly it's physical, and you believe, god is different.
    well they are equal in ever aspect to all normal people.
    However for the theists (the accepted insanity) there is a big difference.
    Ok.

    By the way, explain the emphasized portion.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    WOW! Have I missed a lot of discussion! Ok:

    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Dragon: A mythical monster traditionally represented
    I'm talking about my dragon. Don't make me start talking about humans being by definition physical God did create man in his image, right?

    Wasn't to much to refute anyway it seems ^^,
    Ok... so your metaphysical dragon may be likely.

    And, just so you know, I don't believe God created man in His own image.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    (the accepted insanity)

    By the way, explain the emphasized portion.
    from here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NSp-II5f8E - atheist nation.net

    This image appears


    and this is the narrated text,
    "We live in an age in which most people believe that mere words, Jesus, Allah, and Rama.
    Can mean the difference between eternal torment, and bliss everlasting. Considering the stakes here it is not surprising that many of us occasional find it necessary to murder other human beings, for using the wrong magic word, or the right ones for the wrong reasons.
    How can any person presume to know that this is the way the universe works, because it says so in our holy books? How do we know our holy books are free from error, because the books themselves say so?
    Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world."
    theists kill theists, and anybody else for that matter, and they all believe they are doing the right thing.
    "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." - Steven Weinberg
    hence why it is an accepted insanity.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    (the accepted insanity)

    By the way, explain the emphasized portion.
    from here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NSp-II5f8E - atheist nation.net

    This image appears


    and this is the narrated text,
    "We live in an age in which most people believe that mere words, Jesus, Allah, and Rama.
    Can mean the difference between eternal torment, and bliss everlasting. Considering the stakes here it is not surprising that many of us occasional find it necessary to murder other human beings, for using the wrong magic word, or the right ones for the wrong reasons.
    How can any person presume to know that this is the way the universe works, because it says so in our holy books? How do we know our holy books are free from error, because the books themselves say so?
    Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world."
    theists kill theists, and anybody else for that matter, and they all believe they are doing the right thing.
    "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." - Steven Weinberg
    hence why it is an accepted insanity.
    Scathing words from prejudiced people.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Scathing words from prejudiced people.
    if some nutjob is out to kill you, for no sane reason, should we be tolerant and unbiased? lol
    religion kills, there are no two ways about it.

    "Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass; he is actually ill."
    H.L. Mencken

    ill and very dangerous.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Scathing words from prejudiced people.
    if some nutjob is out to kill you, for no sane reason, should we be tolerant and unbiased? lol
    religion kills, there are no two ways about it.

    "Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass; he is actually ill."
    H.L. Mencken

    ill and very dangerous.
    What you're saying is that the majority of the world is mentally challenged and vicious.

    I'll ignore you from now on. You're too stupid to get attention.
    <in this thread, that is>
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    WOW! Have I missed a lot of discussion! Ok:

    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Dragon: A mythical monster traditionally represented
    I'm talking about my dragon. Don't make me start talking about humans being by definition physical God did create man in his image, right?

    Wasn't to much to refute anyway it seems ^^,


    Is not believing in a God worth the risk. I understand you are an atheist, but, hear this out:

    For instance, if there is a God, how can God be accused of not doing the role of saving if no one believes in God.

    God, technically, would BECOME a dragon if no one believes.

    The argument for God being a dragon is basically saying one is an atheist, according to traditional texts on God.

    Now, if people say that both God, the traditional God, and the dragon exist, invariably they are saying that they don’t know God, don’t know and don't care, and thus basically have a limited understanding on the issue.

    To say that one does not believe in God does not kill the idea of God, it just allows God to not worry about performing the role of God, of presumably loving everyone. For instance, most of the planet don;t believe in me, don;t know me, but that doesn;t kill me, it just means I am not there for them, I am an unknown. While people are dying around the world, I am happily drinking scotch. I am not called to perform the role of God, of caretaker, because no one believes me. Yet, that doesn't kill me. I still live on, like for instance God, or perhaps as we would know it in atheism, the dragon.

    God, as a concept, is something we should all be clear on. The idea of God means different things to different people. But let's take a look at this planet and perhaps understand that if there is a God, how that God would appear to us.

    For instance, presumably "that God" would be interested in being in control of everything, to be the most "powerful". That God would also respect the beliefs of people, and if they decided not to believe, "so be it", "screw you then". That would mean that God would not have to save those people. It would also mean that God would not have to love those people. Those people would be in an "axis of evil" category. Those people would see that God as a monster, an evil tyrant, a dragon, technically because they chose not to believe in God. In the case of people believing and worshippig the dragon, well, that is simply that God who has accepted the fact that people don't want to believe in that person as a good savior, but a ruthless character, a deceiver, with all the deceiver perks. God, as the dragon, would deceive those people, basically, because he wouldn't save them by their, the people's, improper belief in him.

    To argue against the existence of god basically has life go on, while God couldn't care less. God could be a porn star by the reckoning of people, could deceive people that way, and still wouldn't give a rat's arse.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by looking4recruits
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    WOW! Have I missed a lot of discussion! Ok:

    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Dragon: A mythical monster traditionally represented
    I'm talking about my dragon. Don't make me start talking about humans being by definition physical God did create man in his image, right?

    Wasn't to much to refute anyway it seems ^^,


    Is not believing in a God worth the risk. I understand you are an atheist, but, hear this out:

    For instance, if there is a God, how can God be accused of not doing the role of saving if no one believes in God.

    God, technically, would BECOME a dragon if no one believes.

    The argument for God being a dragon is basically saying one is an atheist, according to traditional texts on God.

    Now, if people say that both God, the traditional God, and the dragon exist, invariably they are saying that they don’t know God, don’t know and don't care, and thus basically have a limited understanding on the issue.

    To say that one does not believe in God does not kill the idea of God, it just allows God to not worry about performing the role of God, of presumably loving everyone. For instance, most of the planet don;t believe in me, don;t know me, but that doesn;t kill me, it just means I am not there for them, I am an unknown. While people are dying around the world, I am happily drinking scotch. I am not called to perform the role of God, of caretaker, because no one believes me. Yet, that doesn't kill me. I still live on, like for instance God, or perhaps as we would know it in atheism, the dragon.

    God, as a concept, is something we should all be clear on. The idea of God means different things to different people. But let's take a look at this planet and perhaps understand that if there is a God, how that God would appear to us.

    For instance, presumably "that God" would be interested in being in control of everything, to be the most "powerful". That God would also respect the beliefs of people, and if they decided not to believe, "so be it", "screw you then". That would mean that God would not have to save those people. It would also mean that God would not have to love those people. Those people would be in an "axis of evil" category. Those people would see that God as a monster, an evil tyrant, a dragon, technically because they chose not to believe in God. In the case of people believing and worshippig the dragon, well, that is simply that God who has accepted the fact that people don't want to believe in that person as a good savior, but a ruthless character, a deceiver, with all the deceiver perks. God, as the dragon, would deceive those people, basically, because he wouldn't save them by their, the people's, improper belief in him.

    To argue against the existence of god basically has life go on, while God couldn't care less. God could be a porn star by the reckoning of people, could deceive people that way, and still wouldn't give a rat's arse.
    My argument shows the equivalence of belief. I didn't say that the dragon lord wasn't loving and caring. All I said was that all faiths are equal to one another as long as you reason them into logic so that they need not be proved. None of the faiths in this world is verifiable, meaning that all of them are equally valid.

    If there was a God then none of us would be even close to knowing his intentions. Who says that the christian God is more accurate than the belief in the dragon lord? Who knows if God even cares about belief? Why do we care what he thinks when he obviously hasn't shown us any clear signs to what his intention is? He might be up there laughing at us and all our religions and speculations.

    This is why all faiths are equal to eachother. No one knows God at all. And there's no point in speculating in what God wants.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,002
    If all believers agreed that God simply has never ever made his presence known on this little floating chunk of stardust then who would have to prove what?

    That means proving God exists would be impossible. It also means there is no need for religion and all its accoutrements at all. Anything anyone ever said about God would mean nothing. So where does that leave us?

    For one thing, the evidence points towards the fact that God, if He exists, has never been here or may never visit. He can know we're here without actually showing up, such are His incomprehensible powers. The fact that there is belief in an overabundance of religious text is why we are where we are right now. If it wasn't for religious text and its byproducts then we would all have to live life not knowing if God exists or not.

    The battle cry of "I Dunno"should be on everyone's lips.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Freshman Tortuegenial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    (the accepted insanity)

    By the way, explain the emphasized portion.
    from here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NSp-II5f8E - atheist nation.net

    This image appears


    and this is the narrated text,
    "We live in an age in which most people believe that mere words, Jesus, Allah, and Rama.
    Can mean the difference between eternal torment, and bliss everlasting. Considering the stakes here it is not surprising that many of us occasional find it necessary to murder other human beings, for using the wrong magic word, or the right ones for the wrong reasons.
    How can any person presume to know that this is the way the universe works, because it says so in our holy books? How do we know our holy books are free from error, because the books themselves say so?
    Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world."
    theists kill theists, and anybody else for that matter, and they all believe they are doing the right thing.
    "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." - Steven Weinberg
    hence why it is an accepted insanity.


    Why is it that people against religion will only look and concentrate on the bad things that religion has brought about. Surely none of the religious books talk about killing each other in the name of God. The Bible does not say this.
    How can good people do bad things? If good people do bad things then they are bad people. If they do bad things or are bad people then they are not following the Christian doctrine.
    What about all the religious people that have done good things and are good people, do they not also represent their religion? Do the bad people represent their religion?

    In this world there are a lot of good things that bring about bad consequences because bad people abuse the use of that good thing. Take a look at science for example, when advances in technology with good intentions fall into the hands of bad people those people use it for bad things. Is the technology itself bad or the use of the technology bad? Are the people who use it responsible?

    The same thing can be applied to religion. People use religion to do bad things, but this does not mean that religion is bad. Take a look at Constantine, take a look at George W. Bush, there are many people who are fundamentalists and extremists who abuse religion. Religion itself is not bad. It is the people who use it for the wrong reasons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by looking4recruits
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    WOW! Have I missed a lot of discussion! Ok:

    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Dragon: A mythical monster traditionally represented
    I'm talking about my dragon. Don't make me start talking about humans being by definition physical God did create man in his image, right?

    Wasn't to much to refute anyway it seems ^^,


    Is not believing in a God worth the risk. I understand you are an atheist, but, hear this out:

    For instance, if there is a God, how can God be accused of not doing the role of saving if no one believes in God.

    God, technically, would BECOME a dragon if no one believes.

    The argument for God being a dragon is basically saying one is an atheist, according to traditional texts on God.

    Now, if people say that both God, the traditional God, and the dragon exist, invariably they are saying that they don’t know God, don’t know and don't care, and thus basically have a limited understanding on the issue.

    To say that one does not believe in God does not kill the idea of God, it just allows God to not worry about performing the role of God, of presumably loving everyone. For instance, most of the planet don;t believe in me, don;t know me, but that doesn;t kill me, it just means I am not there for them, I am an unknown. While people are dying around the world, I am happily drinking scotch. I am not called to perform the role of God, of caretaker, because no one believes me. Yet, that doesn't kill me. I still live on, like for instance God, or perhaps as we would know it in atheism, the dragon.

    God, as a concept, is something we should all be clear on. The idea of God means different things to different people. But let's take a look at this planet and perhaps understand that if there is a God, how that God would appear to us.

    For instance, presumably "that God" would be interested in being in control of everything, to be the most "powerful". That God would also respect the beliefs of people, and if they decided not to believe, "so be it", "screw you then". That would mean that God would not have to save those people. It would also mean that God would not have to love those people. Those people would be in an "axis of evil" category. Those people would see that God as a monster, an evil tyrant, a dragon, technically because they chose not to believe in God. In the case of people believing and worshippig the dragon, well, that is simply that God who has accepted the fact that people don't want to believe in that person as a good savior, but a ruthless character, a deceiver, with all the deceiver perks. God, as the dragon, would deceive those people, basically, because he wouldn't save them by their, the people's, improper belief in him.

    To argue against the existence of god basically has life go on, while God couldn't care less. God could be a porn star by the reckoning of people, could deceive people that way, and still wouldn't give a rat's arse.
    My argument shows the equivalence of belief. I didn't say that the dragon lord wasn't loving and caring. All I said was that all faiths are equal to one another as long as you reason them into logic so that they need not be proved. None of the faiths in this world is verifiable, meaning that all of them are equally valid.

    If there was a God then none of us would be even close to knowing his intentions. Who says that the christian God is more accurate than the belief in the dragon lord? Who knows if God even cares about belief? Why do we care what he thinks when he obviously hasn't shown us any clear signs to what his intention is? He might be up there laughing at us and all our religions and speculations.

    This is why all faiths are equal to eachother. No one knows God at all. And there's no point in speculating in what God wants.

    God?

    Forget that word.

    Think of POWER. Who is the most powerful? Who is the one who has the most information on how everything works? What are they doing with that information, that flow of information?

    According to the Tao, a man is able to guide the flow of a system, no matter how large or small, if he understands the ying and yang, the balancing principals, of that system, in it's entirety. A human can achieve that in this wwwDOT age.

    Now, you can be paranoid about such a person, such a consortium, or you can marvel at it, respect it for the time and effort he or they spent in that arena of dedicated observation and development.

    You would not call that person a God.

    Leave that for those still living in the fields who are not emancipated by a true science.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    Why is it that people against religion will only look and concentrate on the bad things that religion has brought about. Surely none of the religious books talk about killing each other in the name of God. The Bible does not say this.
    unfortunately it does,

    The Bible
    The 1st. Commandment, Exodus 20:3 “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”.
    OT punishment - Deuteronomy 17:1-5 “And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heavens, which I have not commanded. Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing and shalt stone them with stones, till they die”. Deuteronomy 13:6-10, “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God." Exodus 22:20 “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed”. NT punishment - Mark 16:16 “He that believeth not, shall be damned”.

    and

    The Qu'ran
    Sura 9:29
    YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
    PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
    SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

    Sura 4:89 - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them"

    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    How can good people do bad things? If good people do bad things then they are bad people. if they do bad things or are bad people then they are not following the Christian doctrine.
    Only if they believe what there doing is bad, if a religious person believes that what he's doing is what his god wants, he will do it without question, (thats the insanity).
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    What about all the religious people that have done good things and are good people, do they not also represent their religion? Do the bad people represent their religion?
    Nobodies saying all religious people are bad, ( they all have the potentiality though )what is being said is that if a good religious person believes there cause is righteous, he will kill Joe Bloggs, and he won’t consider it a bad thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    Is the technology itself bad or the use of the technology bad? Are the people who use it responsible?
    The people of course, however there is a vast difference.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    The same thing can be applied to religion. People use religion to do bad things, but this does not mean that religion is bad.
    I incited you to violence then I would be the instigator, the coercer, the culprit, etc... and would be held culpable.
    But if I wasn't around( and I dont mean dead ) and you followed my lead/teaching from a book, I would still be the instigator, the coercer, the culprit, etc... I would still be the rebel leader.
    the holy books we have talk of war, murder, revenge, hatred, etc.. the holy books we have instigate violence, they must be held culpable. hence why it's called the accepted insanity, because it is allowed to carry on uncontrolled, uninhibited, wicked.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Please don't preach here. If you want to discuss the intersection of science and religion; scientifically examine religion; or discuss the literary and mythical aspects of religion -please feel free to do so.

    Preaching and proselytizing aren't discussion topics: they're annoyances. And they will be deleted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94 Re: Proving God. 
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Does anybody know of any theoretical experiment which could prove or disprove gods existence ?
    it is an impossible ask.
    you have as much chance of proving blacks, white to a blind man.
    people however do have a tendancy to follow the weird and the wonderful, theres people, who still believe the worlds flat, lol.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman rjc34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    42
    man, if we could just find life on another planet the whole premise of the bible falls apart (not that it doesn't already...) and we atheist win.


    [yes, I know that was very cocky and such, but I was raised christian, and decided, on my own, that I didn't believe there was an omnipotent "god"]


    In my opinion, I see God as a embodiment of Man's general need to have someone to guide and lead him. As society grew, and people got fed up with their crappy lives, they needed someone, or something they could trust with their problems, give them hope and make it all seem a little better. Think about something, if we didn't have "God", what would we tell little children when their grandma die? "Oh, her heart stopped and she is no more. No more thinking, no nothing, its all blackness. We're putting her in a whole to rot and return back to the earth now." or... "She's in a better place now, in heaven, she'll always be watching over you and she's so happy"

    I'm not trying to start a long argument or anything, this is just my opinion of on this topic.
    If you managed to read this far, thanks, hope my views may be of some use to you.

    Please, if anyone has any comments, go ahead and quote it, I'd love to hear what you think.

    -Rob
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Guest
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/298795_mars08.html

    I'm of the opinion that we already did. I'm also of the opinion that we already killed it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/298795_mars08.html

    I'm of the opinion that we already did. I'm also of the opinion that we already killed it.
    Interesting article. I never thought we found life on Mars
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I'm always amazed by the fact that the religion topic is the most hottest. Why do non-believers focus more on this area than anywhere else if they don't understand it and don't care if God exists, (that doesn't count for agnostics).

    In answer to your first question Cat: To prove:

    1a: To believers; yes
    1b: To non-believers; no

    Treat religion as relativity. Both the two are the only entities in the universe as an example; Believers are travelling at 0.98c, non-believers are stationary. How can the believer assume they are travelling at 0.98c and not the atheist and vice versa for the relative stand points? Just the same as if one was on Earth and one was on a spaceship-both feeling 1G gravitational force-both in a dark box? How can one or the other know where they both are? Everything is relative to the observor and the only way you'll see what the others sees is by joining them and you'll never see a true beleiver jump ship-your more likey for an atheist to do that (as for reasons I explained in "Are Muslims free to abandon their faith?".

    Just trying to get folks to see things both ways without being in either situation (either at 0.98c or stationary)-become the third observor and you can see things a little more clearly-a little anyway.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Guest
    It just simply HAPPENS that this area is the only real area of debate on the science forum. A while back we had a lot of pseudoscience posts on telekinetics, they were BUZZING with activity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Why do non-believers focus more on this area than anywhere else if they don't understand it and don't care if God exists, (that doesn't count for agnostics).
    Orly?

    Most atheist has been believers themselves. Why do you claim that we don't know nor understand religion/faith? It doesn't make sence. Who said we didn't care btw? Anyway, the question why we atheist care/discuss has been answered countless times. No need to repeat that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •