How would you Answer?

[310Rduner]

I'm just wondering how many people here would answer this question as No.

Do you think there are any absolutes?


Btw.. there is only 1 right answer.

[Pappy]

Originally posted by 310Rduner



Btw.. there is only 1 right answer.

isnt that an absolute:confused:

[batgeek]

my answer is:

cheeseburger

[sly400ex]

Originally posted by Pappy
isnt that an absolute:confused:

Hahahaha....sounds like one to me!!!


Wilkin, where are ya!!!:eek2:

[red]

everyone is gonna die....that is absolutely unbeatable.

[Samson]

Absolutely! :p

[Ralph]

im cooler than the flipside of my pillow

[xr50layke]

there is no absolutely because you cannot see into the future. the person that said "everybody will eventually die" does not know that. what if someone just happends to never die. you never know. youll die before you know (probably), as i just contradicted myself. i have no clue.


there is never an absolute, of course, i dont know that either.






im stumped :D

[Mofo Racing]

The only absolute is that there are no absolutes




kinda deep isn't it

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by Mofo Racing
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes




kinda deep isn't it

Yeah... but to go to the extra point of saying no absolutes "EXCEPT" is reduntant.. and I refer to Occams razor that the simplest explanation the best. There are absolutes.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by xr50layke
there is no absolutely because you cannot see into the future. the person that said "everybody will eventually die" does not know that. what if someone just happends to never die. you never know. youll die before you know (probably), as i just contradicted myself. i have no clue.


there is never an absolute, of course, i dont know that either.

Sorry, but that's an absolute




im stumped :D :p

[wilkin250r]

It's much like the question "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?" The arguement is the perception of sound. Is it a physical vibration of air molecules, or is "sound" not truly a physical phenomenon, but merely a perception of significance?

Some argue that perception is reality. If you have a pocket-protector, glasses, and polyester high-water pants on, people percieve you as a nerd. Thus, you are a nerd, whether YOU believe you are or not. Perception is reality. And thus we arrive at the philosophical arguement.

I hate it all. It's the same mindless drivel that pervades every University coffee shop across the country. A collection of morons sitting around with pony-tails and burkenstocks, trying to come up with unanswerable questions to self-proclaim themselves as "deep".

So, I would have to answer the above question as YES, there are absolutes, because I absolutely hate philosophy.

[Alberta_Qaudin]

there's Absolute Vodka, i know that for sure

[Syrus]

Originally posted by Alberta_Qaudin
there's Absolute Vodka, i know that for sure

Dont we all..

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
It's much like the question "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?" The arguement is the perception of sound. Is it a physical vibration of air molecules, or is "sound" not truly a physical phenomenon, but merely a perception of significance?

Some argue that perception is reality. If you have a pocket-protector, glasses, and polyester high-water pants on, people percieve you as a nerd. Thus, you are a nerd, whether YOU believe you are or not. Perception is reality. And thus we arrive at the philosophical arguement.

I hate it all. It's the same mindless drivel that pervades every University coffee shop across the country. A collection of morons sitting around with pony-tails and burkenstocks, trying to come up with unanswerable questions to self-proclaim themselves as "deep".

So, I would have to answer the above question as YES, there are absolutes, because I absolutely hate philosophy.

Lol wilkin, I can see some of your points for sure. Context is another absolute.

Hey wilkin, stop calling it the tree in the forest, you really know you mean Shrodinger's Cat :) Besides, Shrodinger's cat is infinately cooler than any tree in a forest.

Here is my little bit of contribution to the intellectual coffe shop drivel you hate. I'm quoting this because I don't have the time to type it all.


"The Interdependence Theory is not a useful concept in one sense because it is wrong. The reason that we explain it and why it's wrong is because 1) it is popular and 2) it highlights the nature of consciousness. It is a last bastion in the fight to evade reality for rationalizing mystics who realize that they can no longer defend the primacy of consciousness. It needs to be torn down.

What you're asking is the old "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one perceives it, did it really fall?" If no one perceives it, then "Who cares?" you ask. The reason that we care is because, were we to make the assertion that existence is dependent on consciousness, we would be making a very big statement about the nature of consciousness. We would be attributing to consciousness the ability to somehow co-create or enable existence. We would be denying that reality is absolute. A person cannot be objective when he attributes arbitrary properties to existents.

The main point here is that consciousness, like all other concepts, has a specific identity that is determined by reality, not whim. To attribute arbitrary properties to anything is to divorce your view of the world from the actual world, and the more you do this, the more harm you do to yourself. "

[batgeek]

ahhhh no :)

context is just another variable along with perception.

the individual is the only absolute.

i didn't want to get into this, i just shaved my head and the razor burn is making my head hurt :(

[Honda4trax250x]

taxes and death

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by batgeek
ahhhh no :)

context is just another variable along with perception.

the individual is the only absolute.

i didn't want to get into this, i just shaved my head and the razor burn is making my head hurt :(

By context being absolute, I mean that the way an action is determined as moral can never be divorced from the surrounding context. Maybe another absolute would be that initiating force is never justified. This does not mean retaliatory force, so it makes the line kind of hard to draw at what is done in defense I guess. Like starving could possibly justify stealing, which would normally be initiating force, but in the context is "could" be considered retaliatory force. But I don't like those kinds of examples...because it gets too tangled, too quickly.

If I sound like im grasping at intellectual straws... I really don't feel that way.:(

[batgeek]

ack! morality...another variable :) but your not grasping at straws bro.

there are no absolutes except the individual...do you see where i'm going with this?

[Ralph]

i got the answer

THE MULLET....

[Guy400]

I absolutely love drinking beer and when I want to get into my "deep" thinking mode I throw 'Smokey and the Bandit' in the DVD player:bandit:

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by batgeek
ack! morality...another variable :) but your not grasping at straws bro.

there are no absolutes except the individual...do you see where i'm going with this?

Ya I follow with you, I'm still not sure for myself whether I think morality is absolute (Not necesarily specific morals). I feel torn between Nietszche, in that there are no absolute moral truths... but then I'm torn by this also. Nietsczche fitting easily with what I think makes sense.but then this on the otherhand is a direct indictment of using reason to propose morality.

I think what you just said is this in a sense: " Your life as your moral standard holds all things promoting your life as the good.:

What I'm referring to about morality.

Morality is a Guide to Living

Choosing to live is a pre-moral choice, after which, the question becomes "How?" This is the same as "What do I do?" One can either go about it randomly or with a methodology designed for success. That methodology is called morality.

An explicit morality allows one to choose rationally among values. It makes the selection of values rational by providing a method to evaluate them. Values are compared to a moral standard, and prioritized according to how well they promote that standard. To make decisions easier, we develop virtues which are moral habits which tend to help gain values.

Historically, the concept of morality has often been used negatively as a list of thou shall not's in check against ones actions. The stance taken is often that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you don't violate any moral edicts; but the source of these moral edicts is often mystical or arbitrary.

A list of prohibitions, even if founded in reason rather than mysticism, is not a sufficient outline for success. Morality should be positive rather than negative. Not What shouldn't I do? but What should I do?. The problem with defining morality negatively is that pretty much anything goes provided one avoids a few problem areas. This is not useful because within the sphere of pretty much anything goes, there is no methodical way to choose which action is best, whereas positive morality sets forth habits which lead to the achievement of values and methods for choosing what to value which is the way to live and thrive.

With ones own life as the standard of value, morality is not a burden to bear, but a prudent and effective guide which furthers life and success.

[wilkin250r]

Indeed, Shrodinger's cat is an excellent example, but it is more commonly used to describe quantum physics rather than a philosophical arguement.

My issues are not so much with philosophy, but rather much more with philosophers. Unanswerable questions are useless in in their own right, and certainly much more useless as a measure of intelligence. The hypocrisy of it all comes out when look at the situation from the outside. Philosophy itself always deals with a situation in a relative manner. The argument is not the noise a tree makes when falling, but rather how it relates to our own perception. In that same respect, isn't intelligence itself a relative measurement? So why then do people use philosophy as an absolute (pun intended) measurement of intelligence?

[Samson]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
Historically, the concept of morality has often been used negatively as a list of thou shall not's in check against ones actions. The stance taken is often that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you don't violate any moral edicts; but the source of these moral edicts is often mystical or arbitrary.

A list of prohibitions, even if founded in reason rather than mysticism, is not a sufficient outline for success. Morality should be positive rather than negative. Not What shouldn't I do? but What should I do?.

If morality is right and wrong.
Right is positive.
Wrong is negative.
Without wrong there is no right.

How could you possibly have positive without negative?

[Pappy]

some of you fella's really need to get drunk:p

[Samson]

Originally posted by Pappy
some of you fella's really need to get drunk:p

You buying? :p

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by Samson
If morality is right and wrong.
Right is positive.
Wrong is negative.
Without wrong there is no right.

How could you possibly have positive without negative?

If in a society everyone were born right handed, their wouldn't even be a term for "Left handed" it would be outside their realm of reality. Right and wrong are similiary kind of tied into that same arguement.. so the only thing in the world WOULD be what WE see as right, and there would be no wrong. Now to them, they wouldn't probably identify with anything we are talking about, things would just be as far as right and wrong. This is how it seems to me at least, I'm not claiming to have absolute knowledge, I'm still learning this.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
Indeed, Shrodinger's cat is an excellent example, but it is more commonly used to describe quantum physics rather than a philosophical arguement.

My issues are not so much with philosophy, but rather much more with philosophers. Unanswerable questions are useless in in their own right, and certainly much more useless as a measure of intelligence. The hypocrisy of it all comes out when look at the situation from the outside. Philosophy itself always deals with a situation in a relative manner. The argument is not the noise a tree makes when falling, but rather how it relates to our own perception. In that same respect, isn't intelligence itself a relative measurement? So why then do people use philosophy as an absolute (pun intended) measurement of intelligence?

What unanswerable questions are you refering to? God? Meaning to life?

The logic behind not believing in god:

The "concept" of God is usually defined by a lack of a definition. God is usually said to be unlimited in power, knowledge, and goodness and unknowable to us mere mortals; but these are all traits that are defined by a lack of something.

"God" is not a concept at all because it subsumes no particulars. Unlike a real concept, there is nothing in reality to which one can refer to and say, "That is God." To be unlimited in power, omnipotence, is a contradiction. To be unlimited in goodness, omnibenevolence, is taken without any standard of good. Regarding God, it is said that God is good. What is good? God's will. What characterizes God's will? Goodness. That circle is without substance and meaningless. Some people claim that all these objections are silly because God is simply unknowable. How do they know that God is unknowable?

The notion of God is nothing but a big mixture of contradictions and nothingness. There is no meaning behind the word and no concept to even define.

We view with mirth the ancient Greeks and Egyptians and other peoples with their pantheons of various Gods controlling various aspects of the world. We laugh at contemporaries who claim to have been visited by aliens or seen Bigfoot. Some even laugh and deride those scientists who make claims with only a little evidence in support of their views. But what is truly ridiculous is the people who then turn around and say, "the belief in God is perfectly fine" either because someone they know believes it or because a large portion of the population believes it. Truth is not a social phenomenon. Reality is absolute and can only be understood through reason.

What is disappointing is not so much all of the faithful, but all those who sanction faith in others. To accept without comment this ridiculous self-contradicting life destroying nonsense in one's peers and give it a sort of spiritual relativism sanction, to claim that each can believe whatever he wants, that one spiritual belief is just as valid as another -- that is what perpetuates the evil of faith-based religions and notions.

The belief in God and the acting on that belief is evil. It divorces one's knowledge and actions from reality, with consequences ranging from the trivial (wasting one morning a week) to the disastrous (crusades, having unwanted children, Israelis and Arabs slaughtering each other over a patch of desert, wasting one's entire life working for a purpose not one's own, etc.)

Many people who believe in God view him as a father figure. Like a father, he provides, he sets boundaries, and (like some fathers) he defines what one should do in life. Some, like the Existentialists, claim that without a God life has no meaning and it is "absurd". They view life without God like the life of a toddler without a parent: arbitrary, wandering around in the muck, not knowing what to do or why, with no purpose, no end, and alone and unhappy. But, like all children, believers in God need to grow up. Life as an adult is much more rewarding than life as an infant.

Meaning is epistemological, not metaphysical or intrinsic. Different things have different meanings to different people based on the context of their experiences and goals. Purpose is an individual attribute. When one defines one's own purpose, accomplishing it really means something, as opposed to accomplishing some seemingly random task set by a parent. Self-reliance, when one is responsible for one's own life and lives it as an adult rather than as a parasitic dependant, is one of the most glorious aspects of existence; and finding friendship among one's peers is far more rewarding than with an imaginary friend. All children should strive to give up their imaginary friends and face the world as confident adults, masters of their own lives, without need of psychological crutches.

[310Rduner]

The meaning to life is a pretty simple answer if you don't believe in god. The purpose of life is to live; and there are no innate meanings to life other than the meaning you give it.

I would bet that even those believing in god, still attribute more meaning in their lives to the things they live for, or find special to them. Things like helping others, promoting the good in things, fighting evil ideas; things of the like..

[310Rduner]

*Puts on Flame suit* Ok.. that's better.

[Cody_300ex]

Originally posted by Ralph
i got the answer

THE MULLET....

Is that your final answer???? :p

[Guy400]

They tried to dumb me down in college. I didn't get fooled into the hippie-doper notions that our minds transcend ourselves and all of that other crap. I'm with wilkin, arguing about topics that can't be answered is pointless in my book. I showed up, got my degree and got the freak outta that liberal blackhole called "higher education." I swear, all I learned in college (from my professors) was that the 60's were the best years this planet has known, liberalism is for the smart people and conservatism is for those still desiring slavery.

[310Rduner]

Ya know.. this thread is going to well.. people aren't flaming, everyone's keeping a cool head; and discussing things openly. WTH is wrong with everyone today?:rolleyes: You guys getting sick or something? :confused:

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by 310Rduner


A list of prohibitions, even if founded in reason rather than mysticism, is not a sufficient outline for success. Morality should be positive rather than negative. Not What shouldn't I do? but What should I do?. The problem with defining morality negatively is that pretty much anything goes provided one avoids a few problem areas. This is not useful because within the sphere of pretty much anything goes, there is no methodical way to choose which action is best, whereas positive morality sets forth habits which lead to the achievement of values and methods for choosing what to value which is the way to live and thrive.



I'm not sure I agree with this arguement or train of logic. Morality is not based on the positive impact in your own life, but rather your impact in OTHER people's lives. If you were the sole being in existence, would there be a need for morality?

Morality comes from interaction. You expect to walk through a crowd of people without getting hurt or killed. If you burn down somebody else's crops, you could probably expect them to burn down yours, or at least take some of yours in order to survive. Thus, if you expect to keep your crops, don't burn down somebody else's. And thus we arrive at the beginnings of morality. Treat others as you expect to be treated.

Mutilating a person without provokation would be "immoral", yet self-mutilation isn't not considered immoral. If it does not negatively impact somebody else and interfere with their lives, then it is not immoral. Thus, it seems truly that "anything goes" as long as it does not negatively affect somebody else.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by Guy400
They tried to dumb me down in college. I didn't get fooled into the hippie-doper notions that our minds transcend ourselves and all of that other crap. I'm with wilkin, arguing about topics that can't be answered is pointless in my book. I showed up, got my degree and got the freak outta that liberal blackhole called "higher education." I swear, all I learned in college (from my professors) was that the 60's were the best years this planet has known, liberalism is for the smart people and conservatism is for those still desiring slavery.

I'd agree with you about school systems, all the teachers are HORRENDOUSLY liberal, especially english teachings. I think history teachers are the only ones you can go to for a reprieve from all the Bullsh*t in the schools. The history teachers at my school are both conservative, and the things that stand out to me about the convservatives, and the liberals especially with the teachers? The conservatives ground everything in what actually makes sense, what happened before, and they don't kid themselves about living in some sort of idealic world.

On the other hand.... I don't feel like there is anything "wrong" with talking about things like this, especially since none of us are presenting any kind of BS philisophies, like (Long list of philosophies I hate)

Intrinsic Value
Original Sin
Altruism
Collectivism
Egalitarianism
Environmentalism
The Ethics of Intentions
Compromise (not business compromise, but compromising values)
Pacifism
Multiculturalism
Morality as a limit on action
Humility
Vegetarianism

[Samson]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
...believers in God need to grow up. Life as an adult is much more rewarding than life as an infant.


So you're an expert capable of making that decision for everybody because you've studied God's word and followed him faithfully?


I can tell by you descriptions of Christianity (or lack thereof) that you've never studied the bible. You dismiss what you are completely ignorant about.

You hunger for answers yet you look where there are none.

You prioritize meaningless ideals to give yourself a sense of purpose yet there is no fulfillment.

You are a bitter empty person, so you lash out at those that believe what you've rejected, yet can't seem to dismiss. If it wasn't eating away at you, you wouldn't be so passionate about it.

I'll pray for you 310Rduner.

[wilkin250r]

uh, oh. Here it comes....

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
I'm not sure I agree with this arguement or train of logic. Morality is not based on the positive impact in your own life, but rather your impact in OTHER people's lives. If you were the sole being in existence, would there be a need for morality?

Morality comes from interaction. You expect to walk through a crowd of people without getting hurt or killed. If you burn down somebody else's crops, you could probably expect them to burn down yours, or at least take some of yours in order to survive. Thus, if you expect to keep your crops, don't burn down somebody else's. And thus we arrive at the beginnings of morality. Treat others as you expect to be treated.

Mutilating a person without provokation would be "immoral", yet self-mutilation isn't not considered immoral. If it does not negatively impact somebody else and interfere with their lives, then it is not immoral. Thus, it seems truly that "anything goes" as long as it does not negatively affect somebody else.

I can't really disagree with what you are saying but I think the part you quoted is saying more that rather than having a list of things people shouldn't do, it is pointless because there are "bad things" that won't make the list. And that you can do seemingly immoral things as long as it doesn't violate this, this and this. But what it means by positive morality (to my understanding) is that you should basically try to treat others somewhat benevolently, and that moral men loose nothing by being decent to one another. The act of being decents costs no effect or affect to moral men; it's simply a way to smoothen how one goes about life; Like the idea of treating others the way you want to be treated it doesn't take much effort, and it generally leads to a following of morals. Damn, I can never cut my words down... I'm always so longwinded when I try to explain how I see things. Short version, I think what you mean is exactly what is meant by positive morality.

[Samson]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
uh, oh. Here it comes....

It's OK, I'm through.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
uh, oh. Here it comes....

Lol.. I was always waiting for it wilkin... but I'm not going to bite hard.

Samson, I will pray that you can one day realize people do not need imaginary people to feel good about the world they live in, you assume that my rejection of god implies I am an existentialist. This is wrong, and a fallacy. Existentalists hold that there is no value, meaning, or point to life. I however find my life very meaningful, I love spending time with my family, THINKING about things, and interacting with others. Why does this life seem so devoid of meaning to you? Aren't these the same meanings you hold for yourself, yet attribute to feeling because a book told you they are worthy of having meaning? I'm sorry if my being able to attribute my own meaning to life without taking someone else's (the bible is what I am referring to) to give your life that meaning.

[310Rduner]

Nice signature btw, I find it oddly familiar to something I've seen before. If you want to get into a debate of why it makes more sense to believe in god, than disbelieve.. things are resoundingly not on your side.

You're ONLY defense is FAITH.

Here is one definition of faith.. if it makes any difference.

Faith-
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief.

I see this thread now going nowhere but to being closed.:grr: However, I will enjoy every post to the last.

Edit: I'll be back in an hour or so, have to run to my friends house for some parts.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
Short version, I think what you mean is exactly what is meant by positive morality.

And perhaps we view it differently. It would seem to me that the difference between "positive" and "negative" morality would be:

Positive: Give to charity, love and honor your parents. A set of guidelines on what to do and how to act.

Negative: Do not steal, do not belittle others. A set of guidelines on what NOT to do and what to avoid.


The problem I see with positive morality is scope. Can you possibly set guidelines for every possible choice? What of choices that have no moral impact? Are they to be abandoned, since there is no positive guideline? This dilema does not occur with negative morality, as "anything goes" as long as you don't violate certain moral "rules".

And perhaps we disagree on the purpose of morality. I don't see morality as a tool to make the world a better place, to eventually be a "happy, perfect" society. I see morality as a set of rules that allow people to interact in a predicable manner. Like I said, you expect to walk through a crowd without getting killed. And likewise, you obey those same rules (you don't kill anybody else) in order to be allowed within society. There is no need for everybody to be "happy", as would be the goal of positive morality, in order for the society to function.

[Samson]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
I'm sorry if my being able to attribute my own meaning to life without taking someone else's (the bible is what I am referring to) to give your life that meaning.


OK, but just one more! lol!


"To attribute arbitrary properties to anything is to divorce your view of the world from the actual world, and the more you do this, the more harm you do to yourself. "

If I believe your attributes are arbitrary does that mean you're the one that's delusional?

Don't know how familiar my signature could look since I just wrote it but whatever, it's the truth about the atheist view. 310Rdunner, for every study you through my way, I could find a study that has rebuked it. If I thought I could change your mind, I would spend the time.

Wish you well and I seriously hope there is no hard feelings, but if you're going to have controversial things in your sig you're going to catch a little on occasion.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
And perhaps we view it differently. It would seem to me that the difference between "positive" and "negative" morality would be:

Positive: Give to charity, love and honor your parents. A set of guidelines on what to do and how to act.

Negative: Do not steal, do not belittle others. A set of guidelines on what NOT to do and what to avoid.


The problem I see with positive morality is scope. Can you possibly set guidelines for every possible choice? What of choices that have no moral impact? Are they to be abandoned, since there is no positive guideline? This dilema does not occur with negative morality, as "anything goes" as long as you don't violate certain moral "rules".

And perhaps we disagree on the purpose of morality. I don't see morality as a tool to make the world a better place, to eventually be a "happy, perfect". I see morality as a set of rules that allow people to interact in a predicable manner. Like I said, you expect to walk through a crowd without getting killed. And likewise, you obey those same rules (you don't kill anybody else) in order to be allowed within society. There is no need for everybody to be "happy", as would be the goal of positive morality, in order for the society to function.

I don't know if we are both missing eachothers point lol.. but what I mean by positive morality.. and the scope you question of is: Do onto others as you would have people do onto you. I think thats sort of the only grand moral scheme there is.. everything just falls into the category of being immoral (beating someone without reason, rape murder) and those which are moral. I know I am missing some point in what I am trying to say or how I'm explaining it.. I'll think about it again when I get back in the next hour or two.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by Samson
OK, but just one more! lol!


"To attribute arbitrary properties to anything is to divorce your view of the world from the actual world, and the more you do this, the more harm you do to yourself. "

If I believe your attributes are arbitrary does that mean you're the one that's delusional?

Don't know how familiar my signature could look since I just wrote it but whatever, it's the truth about the atheist view. 310Rdunner, for every study you through my way, I could find a study that has rebuked it. If I thought I could change your mind, I would spend the time.

Wish you well and I seriously hope there is no hard feelings, but if you're going to have controversial things in your sig you're going to catch a little on occasion.

Honestly man, I've got no hard feelings to ya.. we are both just two stubborn people, who happen to have different sides of an arguement, which.. I think has no real bearing on how we should get along. Many of my friends are christians, and I gaurantee you it doesn't bother me, nor my atheism them. I think the attributing values has to deal with going against logic and reason. When you go against logic reasoning is false. Anything that goes against logic/reasoning is false. Logic/reason deal in reality. Any knowledge of anything is BUILT on logic/reasoning, and to deny that is fundamentally flawed. It also follows that there are no TRUE contradictions; things can only be as they are.

[batgeek]

Originally posted by Pappy
some of you fella's really need to get drunk:p

have you ever seen me to have a problem with that? :p

[batgeek]

Originally posted by Samson
So you're an expert capable of making that decision for everybody because you've studied God's word and followed him faithfully?


I can tell by you descriptions of Christianity (or lack thereof) that you've never studied the bible. You dismiss what you are completely ignorant about.

You hunger for answers yet you look where there are none.

You prioritize meaningless ideals to give yourself a sense of purpose yet there is no fulfillment.

You are a bitter empty person, so you lash out at those that believe what you've rejected, yet can't seem to dismiss. If it wasn't eating away at you, you wouldn't be so passionate about it.

I'll pray for you 310Rduner.

all i can do is laugh at this. thanks, you made a horrible day at least tolerable.

[Greg Z]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
I'm just wondering how many people here would answer this question as No.

Do you think there are any absolutes?


Btw.. there is only 1 right answer. absolut the drink

[Samson]

Batgeek, pretty sure we've already discussed your wannabe Treky disorder. All you ever quoted was theory and assumptions if I remember right. You'll believe any scientific mumbo-jumbo put in print but are completely blind to the truth. Do you you really want to re-hash the past?

[batgeek]

the truth? by whom? you? your so-called God? Darwin?

please enlighten me. i don't believe in God, i have questions about evolution. i have questions about creation, both biblically and scientifically.

pushing your Judeo-Christian idealisms on people that dont care for it, is your problem. not mine.

see...here we go again....prove it...no you dis-prove it.

i'm f*ckin tired of religious pricks coming to me and telling me i wrong. you can't prove your side, i can't prove my side...or dis-prove your side.

sit down, shut the f*ck up, and be happy with what you believe in....

or how bout this. i have FAITH there is no God.

give me conrete proof there is a God, let me shake His hand...show me a picture of Him...sure i'll jump on the bandwagon. until then, just be content that at least YOU believe in Him.

btw - Treky is spelled T R E K K I E. if you are going to try and insult me, at least spell the insult correctly. and yes, i am a big Star Trek fan...so no offense taken.

[speedy400]

How about this- At the present moment, E=MC(squared)







:p -darren

absolutely :bandit:

[MichaelS693]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
It's much like the question "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?"

the answer to this is no.. because if there is no one in the forest to hear the sound then no one can percieve it...... but on the absolutes thing... yes i beleive that there are becuase it has mostly to do with someones "faith" and beliefs... just my opinion though... even if it doesnt make sense:D

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by batgeek
the truth? by whom? you? your so-called God? Darwin?

please enlighten me. i don't believe in God, i have questions about evolution. i have questions about creation, both biblically and scientifically.

pushing your Judeo-Christian idealisms on people that dont care for it, is your problem. not mine.

see...here we go again....prove it...no you dis-prove it.

i'm f*ckin tired of religious pricks coming to me and telling me i wrong. you can't prove your side, i can't prove my side...or dis-prove your side.

sit down, shut the f*ck up, and be happy with what you believe in....

or how bout this. i have FAITH there is no God.

give me conrete proof there is a God, let me shake His hand...show me a picture of Him...sure i'll jump on the bandwagon. until then, just be content that at least YOU believe in Him.

btw - Treky is spelled T R E K K I E. if you are going to try and insult me, at least spell the insult correctly. and yes, i am a big Star Trek fan...so no offense taken.

Trekkies _ _ _ _ IN HELL!! :D ;)

I like how you say you have faith there is no god.. I don't know why I didn't think of that one.

Btw.. quite referring to god with a capital g :blah: It's like giving the slightest credit to it by acknowledging that it is a proper name, instead of an idea. ( I suck at english rules, I don't have much patience for them, so I may be using the wrong terms here)

[batgeek]

just because i don't believe, doesn't mean i don't respect.

i respect any religious persons want to believe in their whatever god they want to.

i just wish these pricks would respect my want to believe in what i do. wishful thinking though.

[MichaelS693]

Originally posted by batgeek
just becaus i don't believe, doesn't mean i don't respect.

your disrespecting my disbelieveing:D

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by batgeek
just becaus i don't believe, doesn't mean i don't respect.

I respect it as someone's right as well; I just don't think it needs any sort of legitimization. I just don't see the personal association with the capital, and the respect.

[310Rduner]

These smilies are lacking in threads like this, I need a *Shrug* smiley. *Insert shrug smiley here*

[Samson]

Originally posted by batgeek
i have questions about evolution. i have questions about creation, both biblically and scientifically.

pushing your Judeo-Christian idealisms on people that dont care for it, is your problem. not mine.

see...here we go again....prove it...no you dis-prove it.

i'm f*ckin tired of religious pricks coming to me and telling me i wrong. you can't prove your side, i can't prove my side...or dis-prove your side.

sit down, shut the f*ck up, and be happy with what you believe in....

or how bout this. i have FAITH there is no God.

give me conrete proof there is a God, let me shake His hand...show me a picture of Him...sure i'll jump on the bandwagon. until then, just be content that at least YOU believe in Him.



You call that respect? Different from my version.

I made the statement that there is a God. I have not told you how to live or what to believe, though will admit I do believe in the bible. The first time we argued I challenged people to study and give it a wholehearted effort, then make their own decision. It is not an ignorant faith, your assumptions are ignorant. What is your sole worth Batgeek? Not enough to spend a couple of hours a week for even a year? If you still have questions then why do you refuse to look where you've obviously never been?

Your hatred amazes me. You laugh at and reject what I believe but if I say, "No, you are the one who is mistaken!", you get all out of whack and tell me to shut the f-up. That's not a 2-way street is it? Well I don't find the thought of anybody in hell particularly amusing. Maybe I'm the one who is tired of you spreading ignorance and lies!

If you are wrong then what is the consequences of your actions? Where is your responsibility to others?

You are oh so ready to dismiss what you just admitted you have questions about. Why? Because you live for self gratification. Your morals are dictated by what feels good. Your logic is based on imagination and assumptions. You want to live in self-made boundaries. AND you want to take others with you. I'm OK, you're OK? Isn't that how it goes?

How did life begin Batgeek? Please enlighten me.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
Anything that goes against logic/reasoning is false. Logic/reason deal in reality. Any knowledge of anything is BUILT on logic/reasoning, and to deny that is fundamentally flawed.

I haven't been on since yesterday, so forgive me if I backtrack a page or so.


While I understand your above statement, and I recognize it's popularity, to say that denial of logic/reasoning is flawed is incorrect. Logic/reasoning itself can be flawed.

Native American (and many other tribal cultures) believed that when a person got sick, malignant spirits had invaded that person's body. Religious rituals were performed to exercise these bad spirits. The causes and cures were logical/reasonable according to them, but were incorrect regardless.

So, what would we call this "correct" understanding vs an "incorrect" understanding? For lack of a better term, I'll call it "truth". The Native Americans did not know the truth about bacterial and viral infections. Flawed logic/reasoning is not limited to ancient, uncivilized cultures. I refer you to the phlogiston theory, widely accepted through a large part of the 18th century.

So, to deny knowledge based on logic/reasoning is not necessarily flawed, because the logic/reasoning itself could be incorrect. The only flaw would be to deny knowledge based on truth, but often that truth is not known.

It is entirely possible that we cannot truly comprehend the nature of God, and that he chooses to defy our primitive logic and reasoning. So just because God does not fit into YOUR scientific methodology, does not necessarily mean that he does not exist.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by Samson
You call that respect? Different from my version.

I made the statement that there is a God. I have not told you how to live or what to believe, though will admit I do believe in the bible. The first time we argued I challenged people to study and give it a wholehearted effort, then make their own decision. It is not an ignorant faith, your assumptions are ignorant. What is your sole worth Batgeek? Not enough to spend a couple of hours a week for even a year? If you still have questions then why do you refuse to look where you've obviously never been?

Your hatred amazes me. You laugh at and reject what I believe but if I say, "No, you are the one who is mistaken!", you get all out of whack and tell me to shut the f-up. That's not a 2-way street is it? Well I don't find the thought of anybody in hell particularly amusing. Maybe I'm the one who is tired of you spreading ignorance and lies!

If you are wrong then what is the consequences of your actions? Where is your responsibility to others?

You are oh so ready to dismiss what you just admitted you have questions about. Why? Because you live for self gratification. Your morals are dictated by what feels good. Your logic is based on imagination and assumptions. You want to live in self-made boundaries. AND you want to take others with you. I'm OK, you're OK? Isn't that how it goes?

How did life begin Batgeek? Please enlighten me.

My poor dear friend, I will hope that through effort and courage you can find the strength to realize the ignorance you preach. Your ignorance in that which rests on nothing more than "You should believe, cause there IS a God I SWEAR THERE IS, No No, Really, There Is. See Here? It says So RIGHT HERE!" Perhaps you do not understand the seriousness of your ignorant effect on others. You're refusual to believe that 1+1 really does = 2 is based on a persuasive book written to play on your ignorance of fact and logic before they even understood ANYTHING about Science. Perhaps you should sit and think about what it is that constitutes something you should believe. This is a world where 1+1 = 2 nothing will change this fact, there are no 2 sides to this story, only objective, logical, fact. Think about this... everything in this world fits logic. EVERYTHING. What are the things people claim, which do not follow with logic/reasoning? Hmm lets take a look at this list..ghosts, demons, little evil monsters in their closet, ohh... that whole omnipotent being "thing", pfft whatever that's about anyways (Insert sarcastic rolling of eyes) and the list of similiar things goes on. Aside perhaps from a few things that would go on that list with a possible physical explanation (You can't say esp is entirely impossible, human mind is complex) but no scientific tests can support them either. EVERYTHING in the world that can be used for anything, or has ANYTHING to do with reality is logical. Even as illogical as human emotions seem, if anyone were diligent enough to figure it out, it would still be ground in a patchwork of complicated logic. Take a look at it from this stand point. Everything follows logic, except that which is false and made up. There it is. Take a look at the arguement, and look at the logic and understanding of reasoning used by atheist (who for the point of this arguement are the ones using logic to explain the impossibility of god, not the ones who reject it without thinking); then look at the half assed logic you are using to explain god. You can't even BEGIN to offer any valid logic for why it SHOULD be true. The best you can do is say "well err look there seee, evolution doesn't have ALL the answers yet, its still "wrong"" You say we should disbelieve evolution because it makes no sense, and yet you want us to believe YOUR fairytales which offer NO explanation EVER. There will NEVER be any plausible arguement for creationism, the very BASIS of the arguement denies the use of that mental faculty. You deny what science offers in turn to offer nothing which comes anywhere near the level of intelligence in evolutionary theory. And see.. scientists have this really wierd thing about not closing their minds to facts, and incorporating new knowledge into previously known things. Creationism can do nothing but argue the same whiney-*ss arguement. Even the half intelligent christians realize there is truth to evolution and that the idea works. Hell, the really smart ones say evolution is true, but that GOD started the first life; I don't know why more of you don't see this. I would honestly just appreciate if more christians/believers would realize a belief in god doesn't negate evolution entirely. Afterall, you believe in god right, so why not use the ideas that scientists conveniently offer and modify it a bit. The bible is NOT infallible. It was written by humans, who lived thousands of years ago, I hardly believe that humans now couldn't make up a better God and subsequent bible. Incorporate a little common sense and you could probably even sway a lot of atheists.

I can respect the belief in A God much more than I can that of someone who claims to specifically say which god, and exactly what he is like/did supposedly. When it comes down to it, you believe in a God, right, so what is really that imperative that you need to identify that god? Would you damn someone to hell that believed in god, but didn't think the bible really identified the right god? The real idea behind god is someone who created us. Not a god that includes original sin, jesus, and the plethora of other fairy tales that go with it. The god presented by the bible is no better than any pagan gods, or even nordic gods. It's has absolutely no more credibility thany any other claim to know the God of the universe.

I think this is most likely the longest post I've ever typed. Samson.. we can still keep it light hearted hear man. When I say I don't hold anything against you I HONESTLY don't. If I knew you in person I would probably keep down on the religion topic, and I'm sure you would probably do the same; there's no reason for religion to get in the middle of friendships.. we all live on the same world, with the same experiences. The difference is just in how we think about these experiences, and what we attribute them to.. that's all there really is. I know you are worried about me going to hell.. but honestly that's not something to sweat about, I'm baptized catholic eh.. I'll have my last rights for sure in a last *Just In Case* trust me, I'm not entirely stupid :) I don't reject any morals presented in the bible either and I share very similar morals myself. I think it's a great book with some things more people should put into use everyday, but reading it objectively for the values, and not taking every word literally. If someone could prove to me that it's really all true.. I'd be the last person to reject it just on the *Because I could* reason, no reason to reject that which is true right??


Edit: I intentionally wrote that first portion of the post, to reverse what I felt was the tone you took in your last post to batgeek.. I'm not genuinely that pompous, just wrote it that way to show how the tone offensive both ways. :)

[Samson]

There you go with ignorant statements again 310Rduner, I told you yesterday for every study you can find that supports your claims, I can find one that rebukes it. Yet atheists dismiss other theories before reading and contiplating them because you don't WANT to believe it.

I've heard batgeek preaching about a 4th dimension that some guy conjured up yet he has closed his mind to any of the theories I have suggested. Wonder how many of those he tried to research?

The truth is a lot of science supports creation.

The truth is all of Darwin's observations can be explained by genetics. If evolution was occurring, it would be a constant and there would be evidence everywhere. There is none.

You guys try to force your beliefs down people's throat yet get mad when the table is turned. Do you realize how that looks?

I've seen God work in people's lives. Let's see, what am I doing to people? OK how about this, I tell them to love their neighbor as they love themself themself. I tell them to study the bible and make their own decisions. I show them hope.

I have read about other religions from many different points of view. I am quite certain I have chosen wisely. Can you say the same?



Good reading:
http://www.creationscience.com/

[Samson]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
Edit: I intentionally wrote that first portion of the post, to reverse what I felt was the tone you took in your last post to batgeek.. I'm not genuinely that pompous, just wrote it that way to show how the tone offensive both ways. :)

ps - he called me a pr**k and told me to shut the f-up and I'm the one being offensive? :huh

Sorry, I'll try to watch my tone. :p ;)

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by Samson
ps - he called me a pr**k and told me to shut the f-up and I'm the one being offensive? :huh

Sorry, I'll try to watch my tone. :p ;)

I noticed that. I wasn't calling what you said offensive, just that I could say the same thing in my position in the same tone. I think we've had the first debate on here about religion that hasn't spiraled into a flame flest. The only reason for that is cause the title doesn't really make the debate that obvious. I'll concede that there are indeed quite a lot of essays on the ideas supporting religion, I just feel they all hold the same arguement; where as those using science/logic as claims against religion have constantly shifting ideas to support new evidence. I kinda feel like the debates run down a bit.... we've all kinda deflated it seems. I'm just going to let it kind of end.... I think we had a pretty good discussion. I'm still open to any other good topic brought up in this thread though, morality, consciousness and the such that was brought up.

absolute is the only vodka I make bloody mary's with.

I agree that it's good stuff.....:blah:

[MOFO]

Originally posted by Rico
absolute is the only vodka I make bloody mary's with.

I agree that it's good stuff.....:blah:


nah, give me Belvedere... :cool:

religious threads on public forums always make for good reading material. :devil:

[cool 300ex]

Yea this is good reading...

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Rico
absolute is the only vodka I make bloody mary's with.

I agree that it's good stuff.....:blah: \

u cant beat Leeds vodka at 9.99 a handle... lol

[310Rduner]

Lmfao. From Absolutes, to morality and ethics, to religion and finally to the finer points of hard liquor all in the blink of an eye (Ok, a couple 1000 words).:o

[khen]

I heard on TV a while back that 9?% percent of Americans believe in god. I propose that if it was proven today beyond a doubt that there was no god, 9?% of Americans would go insane. This new found reality would unravel them mentally.

You have to admit the thought of seeing a loved one after they die again in an “afterlife” is a intoxicating concept. Or that all the challenges we face in life are merely trials presented to us by a god to prepare us for the “afterlife”. Carrying these beliefs with you would make lifes problems much more trivial. I think the inner peace people feel when they believe in these things could be perceived as the presence of a god in their life.

Some people require/want an instruction manual for everything including their life. Some clear text that explains how to live their life to enable them to go to “heaven”. The more people that believe in their god the more credible it appears to be. So they spend a great deal of effort recruiting people to their beliefs for personal reinforcement. The thought that there are more than one right belief becomes threatening to their beliefs which they hold very sacred.

In my mind I can not make these beliefs make sense logically and “faith” is not justifiable. I sometimes wish I was like the majority and could believe in such things it would make my life much simpler. Who knows, when I die I might discover that I should have just went with the flow and followed the instruction manual.

[Ralph]

seems like everyone i meet realy doesnt believe in god, i just dont like what the church puts on the plate, it all doesnt sound right

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by khen
I heard on TV a while back that 9?% percent of Americans believe in god. I propose that if it was proven today beyond a doubt that there was no god, 9?% of Americans would go insane. This new found reality would unravel them mentally.

You have to admit the thought of seeing a loved one after they die again in an “afterlife” is a intoxicating concept. Or that all the challenges we face in life are merely trials presented to us by a god to prepare us for the “afterlife”. Carrying these beliefs with you would make lifes problems much more trivial. I think the inner peace people feel when they believe in these things could be perceived as the presence of a god in their life.

Some people require/want an instruction manual for everything including their life. Some clear text that explains how to live their life to enable them to go to “heaven”. The more people that believe in their god the more credible it appears to be. So they spend a great deal of effort recruiting people to their beliefs for personal reinforcement. The thought that there are more than one right belief becomes threatening to their beliefs which they hold very sacred.

In my mind I can not make these beliefs make sense logically and “faith” is not justifiable. I sometimes wish I was like the majority and could believe in such things it would make my life much simpler. Who knows, when I die I might discover that I should have just went with the flow and followed the instruction manual.

Really good post, you put it really eloquently, and I agree with you for the most part. I just don't like to be deceived by things, so if I knew it was false, I still wouldn't want to be in the crowd. I'd rather feel I can live with the truth, than feel dependant on some promise of a better place. I don't really wish that I could believe in god, I don't think the presence of a god in this universe really ads anything. I'd much rather wish there were an afterlife where you could be with your family again. The idea of dying doesn't scare me at all, it's the idea that I won't be alive to live any longer that does. It's like a giant mystery that you could never answer, what will happen on to everyone left living after I die? How will science evolve, what will the world look like, what will come of my family in the future; the idea of missing the progression of things strikes me saddest of all.:(

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by khen
In my mind I can not make these beliefs make sense logically and “faith” is not justifiable.

And that, my friend, is the whole point of "faith". Belief without a complete understanding. Sometimes, we may not know the reason or outcome of the task that God sets before us, but we must be willing to carry out the task anyways. Quite often, we are not able to fully comprehend the reason, yet the task still needs to be carried out.

If you cannot understand the reason, and you refuse to carry out the task until you do understand the reason, then it follows logically that you will never carry out that task. In that respect, you are pretty useless to God, aren't you?

[khen]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
Really good post, you put it really eloquently, and I agree with you for the most part. I just don't like to be deceived by things, so if I knew it was false, I still wouldn't want to be in the crowd. I'd rather feel I can live with the truth, than feel dependant on some promise of a better place. I don't really wish that I could believe in god, I don't think the presence of a god in this universe really ads anything. I'd much rather wish there were an afterlife where you could be with your family again. The idea of dying doesn't scare me at all, it's the idea that I won't be alive to live any longer that does. It's like a giant mystery that you could never answer, what will happen on to everyone left living after I die? How will science evolve, what will the world look like, what will come of my family in the future; the idea of missing the progression of things strikes me saddest of all.:( I don't really fear death either, the only thing that I would worry about is how my wife and kids would get by. If you really believed in god you wouldn't be deceiving yourself by going with the crowd. I just really don't believe in god and I won't deceive myself into believing in something that I simply don't believe in. I always associate god and the afterlife as the same thing because I can't logically prove either one. I also don't believe in magic, the paranormal or the ability to foresee the future for that matter.

[khen]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
And that, my friend, is the whole point of "faith". Belief without a complete understanding. Sometimes, we may not know the reason or outcome of the task that God sets before us, but we must be willing to carry out the task anyways. Quite often, we are not able to fully comprehend the reason, yet the task still needs to be carried out.

If you cannot understand the reason, and you refuse to carry out the task until you do understand the reason, then it follows logically that you will never carry out that task. In that respect, you are pretty useless to God, aren't you? Yep exactly.. I refuse to believe anything or follow anyone based off of faith. I tend to have to have proof for everything. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong it's just the way my mind works.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
And that, my friend, is the whole point of "faith". Belief without a complete understanding. Sometimes, we may not know the reason or outcome of the task that God sets before us, but we must be willing to carry out the task anyways. Quite often, we are not able to fully comprehend the reason, yet the task still needs to be carried out.

If you cannot understand the reason, and you refuse to carry out the task until you do understand the reason, then it follows logically that you will never carry out that task. In that respect, you are pretty useless to God, aren't you?

I see it a little differently. To me, I don't think there is any room for faith in anything. To me, the word faith isn't just trusting that things will work out. To me faith is an excuse to still believe in something that has nothing to do with logic. I don't believe in god because it's not something I feel at the core of me..., just like people who believe in god find it in the core of themselves..its a part of their being I wasn't born/developed with. Also, I can't force myself to follow something which has no logic to it. If you follow logic fully, god is an impossibility; this is where I see faith coming in. It's a reason til still say you believe in something that makes no sense nor reason. 1 of the definition's of faith:Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
So, if you believe like I do that everything relies on logic, and nothing that does not match logic cannot exist... then to say you can only believe in god through fait; it doesn't add up to the conclusion of believing in god. So if you believe that things can defy logic (logic being the tool, and road to all knowledge) then I guess you could say faith is a reason to believe in god.

I think believing in god is NOT something you can be convinced of, if you don't truly believe it in your heart, there is no logic that leads to a belief in it. It's either in your core beliefs or its not. You can still believe in god, and realize it makes absolutely NO sense.

[LTandRaptorider]

One thing I do know.. there are a lot of big words in this thread that I'm writing down, and will try to use each one in a sentence!:blah: So far I've used f*ck and pr*ck...

And yes 310rduner, you will pay for the old man comment! :eek: ;)

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by LTandRaptorider
One thing I do know.. there are a lot of big words in this thread that I'm writing down, and will try to use each one in a sentence!:blah: So far I've used f*ck and pr*ck...

And yes 310rduner, you will pay for the old man comment! :eek: ;)

:p

Have you ever seen this many big words used at once: F*ck The F*cking F*ckers??:p

[SGA]

Originally posted by Guy400
I absolutely love drinking beer and when I want to get into my "deep" thinking mode I throw 'Smokey and the Bandit' in the DVD player:bandit:
That one ALMOST made me laugh out loud! :D

[LTandRaptorider]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
:p

Have you ever seen this many big words used at once: F*ck The F*cking F*ckers??:p

Seen it... and used it! I've amazed... or is it dismayed? many people with my language skills! :o :p I can be quite loquacious at times...

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by LTandRaptorider
Seen it... and used it! I've amazed... or is it dismayed? many people with my language skills! :o :p I can be quite loquacious at times...

Stop using a thesaurus, if you need to use a thesaurus, you don't deserve to use the word!!:macho :p

[LTandRaptorider]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
Stop using a thesaurus, if you need to use a thesaurus, you don't deserve to use the word!!:macho :p

wait a minute... I'm writing that word down... :p

Hey, I got an "A" in college writing... :eek:

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by LTandRaptorider
wait a minute... I'm writing that word down... :p

Hey, I got an "A" in college writing... :eek:

Yeah, and G Dubbya graduated from Yale;) :p :blah:

[LTandRaptorider]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
Yeah, and G Dubbya graduated from Yale;) :p :blah:

ouch! :(

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by LTandRaptorider
ouch! :(

http://pictureposter.allbrand.nu/pictures/chester90210/bob-his+dad.gif

Lmao, jp...:blah:

[LTandRaptorider]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
http://pictureposter.allbrand.nu/pictures/chester90210/bob-his+dad.gif

Lmao, jp...:blah:

You got me on that one... I couldn't come up with a suitable reply! Hey, at least with Bush, I get to keep my guns:D But he certainly isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer... :o

[JOEX]

Originally posted by LTandRaptorider
.....But he certainly isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer... :o
That doesn't matter, it depends on who's holding the knife;) :devil:

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by LTandRaptorider
You got me on that one... I couldn't come up with a suitable reply! Hey, at least with Bush, I get to keep my guns:D But he certainly isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer... :o

I don't get me wrong.. I'd vote for bush over any democrat. (Except McCain.. he isn't your average democrat.. he's more republican)

[LTandRaptorider]

Originally posted by JOEX
That doesn't matter, it depends on who's holding the knife;) :devil:

Aye, truer words where never spoken, laddie! ;)

[Samson]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
ISo, if you believe like I do that everything relies on logic, and nothing that does not match logic cannot exist... then to say you can only believe in god through fait; it doesn't add up to the conclusion of believing in god. So if you believe that things can defy logic (logic being the tool, and road to all knowledge) then I guess you could say faith is a reason to believe in god.

I think believing in god is NOT something you can be convinced of, if you don't truly believe it in your heart, there is no logic that leads to a belief in it. It's either in your core beliefs or its not. You can still believe in god, and realize it makes absolutely NO sense.

I guess what I don't understand is how do explain us being here? How do you explain life? How do you explain the planets? If everything has a life span, how could they have always existed? What caused the chemical reaction in the stars to begin burning in the first place? If they've always been there, why haven't they burned out?

Everthing we can view in nature will eventually deteriorate and become incapable of regeneration.

Therefore, it is not logical in my mind to believe there is not a Creator.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
1 of the definition's of faith:Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
So, if you believe like I do that everything relies on logic, and nothing that does not match logic cannot exist... then to say you can only believe in god through fait; it doesn't add up to the conclusion of believing in god. So if you believe that things can defy logic (logic being the tool, and road to all knowledge) then I guess you could say faith is a reason to believe in god.

I think believing in god is NOT something you can be convinced of, if you don't truly believe it in your heart, there is no logic that leads to a belief in it. It's either in your core beliefs or its not. You can still believe in god, and realize it makes absolutely NO sense.

And again, I say that it is possible for your logic to be flawed. The theory of phlogiston was very logical in it's time, yet we now know it to be incorrect.

It would be absurd to say that back then we were completely primitive, and presently we are so advanced that it is impossible to be incorrect. It is ALWAYS possible to be incorrect. Although we know the basics of neural networks and synapses, we still don't understand how the human brain works. We do not know how to spontaneously create life, which obviously happened at some point in time in order for us to exist at all.

The point I'm making is that there ARE things beyond our understanding, that logic and reasoning have failed to figure out. You exist, your brain works, you know this even though it does not fit into a conscise, logical explanation.

I'm not saying that you have to believe in God, I'm not trying to "convert" you. I'm simply trying to point out to you the flaw in your arguement. If you can accept your own existence (even though you do not even fully understand how your own brain works), why is it so difficult to accept the possibility of a higher power? Both of them defy your logic.

[khen]

Originally posted by Samson
I guess what I don't understand is how do explain us being here? How do you explain life? How do you explain the planets? If everything has a life span, how could they have always existed? What caused the chemical reaction in the stars to begin burning in the first place? If they've always been there, why haven't they burned out?

Everthing we can view in nature will eventually deteriorate and become incapable of regeneration.

Therefore, it is not logical in my mind to believe there is not a Creator. By the same logic, even a creator had to be created.. How do explain that?

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by khen
By the same logic, even a creator had to be created.. How do explain that?

It's absurd. You don't explain it. We can't even comprehend out OWN existence and creation. We have "theories" but nothing concrete. How, then, would you be so presumptuous as to believe you could comprehend and explain the creation of the creator?

[Samson]

Originally posted by khen
By the same logic, even a creator had to be created.. How do explain that?

Not true. By God creating nature's life span, he created the concept of time. As his creation, time is not applicable to God. Neither is mortality.

[khen]

Originally posted by Samson
Not true. By God creating nature's life span, he created the concept of time. As his creation, time is not applicable to God. Neither is mortality. That's an interesting answer, but it still does not explain it. All you are really doing is mystifying it. To say that 'god' has existed forever (in the sense of what we call time) is denying that there is a birth or start point to everything which completely defies all logic and therefore is completely unprovable.

[Samson]

Originally posted by khen
That's an interesting answer, but it still does not explain it. All you are really doing is mystifying it. To say that 'god' has existed forever (in the sense of what we call time) is denying that there is a birth or start point to everything which completely defies all logic and therefore is completely unprovable.

Khen, I took Calculus way back when (and although I'm sure it's logical to some), a lot of it made absolutely no sense to me what so ever. So by my point of view it appeared to have no logic. But the truth is just because something escapes our comprehension does not necessarily make it "unlogical" or "unprovable". It just means we haven't always quite figured it out yet.

Not sure that a "logic" test is always the answer. Just stating that my beliefs are logical to me.

[Alberta_Qaudin]

while you guys discuss this i'm gunna sit there and ponder why this intelectual debate is happening on a quad website and not in a university or philosophy debate....my god i almost sounded half assed ejamacated there

[khen]

Originally posted by Samson
Khen, I took Calculus way back when (and although I'm sure it's logical to some), a lot of it made absolutely no sense to me what so ever. So by my point of view it appeared to have no logic. But the truth is just because something escapes our comprehension does not necessarily make it "unlogical" or "unprovable". It just means we haven't always quite figured it out yet.

Not sure that a "logic" test is always the answer. Just stating that my beliefs are logical to me. To be honest I don't claim to be atheist or believe in god because I haven't seen proof either way. I do lean towards atheism more however because it is more logical to me.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by Samson
But the truth is just because something escapes our comprehension does not necessarily make it "unlogical" or "unprovable". It just means we haven't always quite figured it out yet.

Indeed. This statement is very true, and not just because I'm on the "religious" side. My girlfriend doesn't understand the concept of valve timing and how a camshaft can affect your power curve, but that doesn't make it any less real.

[khen]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
Indeed. This statement is very true, and not just because I'm on the "religious" side. My girlfriend doesn't understand the concept of valve timing and how a camshaft can affect your power curve, but that doesn't make it any less real. But I understand these things... and so do many others. These things can be proven with the right equipment.

Let me take back the word 'unprovable' (though I still stand behind it) and substitute the word 'unproven'. As far as the term logical, it's very foundation is based off of our comprehension. If we do not comprehend something it is beyond our logic or uncomprehensible. So to say just because we don't comprehend something doesn't mean it is unlogical is a complete contradiction of terms. Not to split hairs or anything..

[Samson]

Originally posted by khen
But I understand these things... and so do many others. These things can be proven with the right equipment.

Let me take back the word 'unprovable' (though I still stand behind it) and substitute the word 'unproven'. As far as the term logical, it's very foundation is based off of our comprehension. If we do not comprehend something it is beyond our logic or uncomprehensible. So to say just because we don't comprehend something doesn't mean it is unlogical is a complete contradiction of terms. Not to split hairs or anything..


We can substitute Wilkin250r's example if you like.

"Although we know the basics of neural networks and synapses, we still don't understand how the human brain works."

Is the function of the brain logical? I can't see the steps or explain how it works but to say it's not a logical process is absurd. Yet we do not have the ability to comprehend it.

Also, if I comprehend something that you don't, does that mean that it is not logical? Or that you can't reason your way through it?

[khen]

Originally posted by Samson
We can substitute Wilkin250r's example if you like.

"Although we know the basics of neural networks and synapses, we still don't understand how the human brain works."

Is the function of the brain logical? I can't see the steps or explain how it works but to say it's not a logical process is absurd. Yet we do not have the ability to comprehend it.
I can't say if it is logical, because it is beyond my logic or comprehension. :P


Originally posted by Samson
Also, if I comprehend something that you don't, does that mean that it is not logical? Or that you can't reason your way through it? Yes that's true but you said " just because something escapes our comprehension does not necessarily make it "unlogical" or "unprovable"" I concluded that by using the term "our" you meant your's and mine and all others.

[Samson]

So 200 years ago nuclear fission was not logical because we did not comprehend it but today it is logical?

Or it was logical 200 years ago but we did not comprehend it yet?

[wilkin250r]

Or better yet, more applicable to the conversation, just because we don't comprehend something, that doesn't necessarily make it incorrect or untrue.

[khen]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
Or better yet, more applicable to the conversation, just because we don't comprehend something, that doesn't necessarily make it incorrect or untrue. Your right, it doesn't make it untrue or incorrect. To make something incorrect or untrue you have to disprove it.

I'm just saying that something can't be logical to you if you can't comprehend it. It's like saying that a glokelfinder is full of speckles, is that logical to you? I would say probably not because you can't comprehend what it means. In all reality there is no such thing as a glokelfinder and it is not logical, but if later in our life we discover that there are glokelfinder and that they could reasonably have speckles we could interpet the statement as being logical.

[khen]

Originally posted by Samson
So 200 years ago nuclear fission was not logical because we did not comprehend it but today it is logical?

Or it was logical 200 years ago but we did not comprehend it yet? My point is that if you explained nuclear fission to someone 200 years ago it would not be logical to them. Simply because they couldn't comprehend what you are saying enough to make it reasonable to them. If you explained it to someone today who understood the science then they could reason it out as being logical to them.

[310Rduner]

The point isn't wether or not something in science makes sense to us "now" the point is that physical things COULD or will later be proven as logical/illogical. You can TEST them, you can work at it. NOTHING will ever be able to provide evidence for god. Unless god (assuming it were possible for him to exist) came down to us, and made a worldwide broadcast, and then disapeared or performed miracles there is no way to say god exists. If advanced aliens came down to earth, and presented us with a great scientific theory beyond our understanding (perhaps discovering a new force) we wouldn't understand it. It's conceivable that if givin the basics they would be able to make sense of it. Even if the idea of god existed for another millenia, there will be no way to demonstrate proof of it. The whole meaning of faith is to believe in something even though all evidence, logic or anything would point against it. It's the continuing belief even when there is no basis of reason why you should. If this weren't the case, people wouldn't be saying "You need to have Faith in god" they would say "you need to follow this great new evidence that was just published." No new evidence WILL be published, nor will their likely ever be. Our reality does not allow for the evidence of god, god is outside the scope of this universe so it would not be possible to see him in this universe.

Do you believe that god is omnipotent? You must believe he is omnipotent or he wouldn't be god right?

[Samson]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
The point isn't wether or not something in science makes sense to us "now" the point is that physical things COULD or will later be proven as logical/illogical. You can TEST them, you can work at it. NOTHING will ever be able to provide evidence for god. Unless god (assuming it were possible for him to exist) came down to us, and made a worldwide broadcast, and then disapeared or performed miracles there is no way to say god exists. If advanced aliens came down to earth, and presented us with a great scientific theory beyond our understanding (perhaps discovering a new force) we wouldn't understand it. It's conceivable that if givin the basics they would be able to make sense of it. Even if the idea of god existed for another millenia, there will be no way to demonstrate proof of it. The whole meaning of faith is to believe in something even though all evidence, logic or anything would point against it. It's the continuing belief even when there is no basis of reason why you should. If this weren't the case, people wouldn't be saying "You need to have Faith in god" they would say "you need to follow this great new evidence that was just published." No new evidence WILL be published, nor will their likely ever be. Our reality does not allow for the evidence of god, god is outside the scope of this universe so it would not be possible to see him in this universe.

Do you believe that god is omnipotent? You must believe he is omnipotent or he wouldn't be god right?

I believe God has been here and has performed miracles. We just weren't there to see it and unfortunately some people don't believe the eyewitness accounts.

I find the life of Paul(Saul) particularly intriguing because of how much his life was changed.

Acts 8
1 And Saul was consenting to his death (Stephen's). And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the region of Judea and Sama'ria, except the apostles. 2 Devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation over him. 3 But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.

Acts 9
1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. 4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

This is the apostle Paul (Saul), who went on to write 14 books (over half) of the New Testament. You think he didn't see God that day? He went from persecuting Christians to being the Christian persecuted.


I believe the physical evidence of God is all around you.

And, yes I do believe God is omnipotent, however with a mild disposition. Also believe he is omnipresent.

[batgeek]

funny how everything starts with "i believe..."

the arguement goes both ways dude.

i believe there is no God.

quite trying to sell this crap to me, thanks.

[Samson]

Originally posted by batgeek
funny how everything starts with "i believe..."

the arguement goes both ways dude.

i believe there is no God.

quite trying to sell this crap to me, thanks.



Batgeek, basically what you are saying is because you didn't witness it, you don't believe it happened. Curious why you don't use that test for everything in your life?

I am sharing my views. If you do not like my views, please do not read my posts. Sorry talking about it offends you.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
The whole meaning of faith is to believe in something even though all evidence, logic or anything would point against it.



Do you believe that god is omnipotent? You must believe he is omnipotent or he wouldn't be god right?


Evidence and logic don't necessarily point "against" the existence of God. Faith isn't directly contradictory to logic. I'll admit, sometimes they can be directly opposite, but often they are not. Faith is not "belief against all evidence", but rather it is "belief without evidence"

Let's pretend that you believe in time travel. We have not achieved time travel, yet you still believe in the theory. You believe, even though there is no direct evidence to support it. Wouldn't that be faith? You have faith that time travel is a possibility. And later, we discover a way to travel through time. Your faith was not contradictory to evidence. It was belief without evidence.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by batgeek
funny how everything starts with "i believe..."

the arguement goes both ways dude.

i believe there is no God.

quite trying to sell this crap to me, thanks.

You're probably not talking to me, and in the same way I'm not directly replying to you, I'm replying to the post in general.

I'm not trying to sell you any crap, I'm not trying to convert you. I'm trying to show you the flaws in your arguements. ;)

[batgeek]

Samson,

i've shared my views also, so has 310Rduner, but just like the stereotypical Bible-thumper, you can't accept what we believe, and must "convert" us...now whether you do that by trying to make us prove it, or by continually spouting your religious rhetoric...brings me to the point where i say "is he trying to convince me, or himself".

just freaking drop it...you aren't right, we aren't right...this is just going to loop on and on and on. you aren't going to convince me, i'm(or others) aren't going to convince you.

as i said before...this gets tiresome and bland.

wilkin,

there are flaws in both arguements. unless each side is proverbially "preaching to the choir", i doubt either side is going to get anything accomplished.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by batgeek
wilkin,

there are flaws in both arguements. unless each side is proverbially "preaching to the choir", i doubt either side is going to get anything accomplished.

Maybe not. Then again, maybe it will. These are the very same arguements I went through (internally of course) many years ago that have led to my own beliefs.

And for the sake of our friendship and out of respect for your own beliefs, that's as close as I'll get to "preaching" ;)

[batgeek]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
Maybe not. Then again, maybe it will. These are the very same arguements I went through (internally of course) many years ago that have led to my own beliefs.

see that's exactly it. except i didn't end up the same as you :)

i respect your point of view(though i do find it funny at times), glad that you respect mine(pretty sure you find it funny at times also).

i have never tried to convert someone to atheism, that is something that one has to figure out by themselves.

more power to you guys that want religion in your life...i've just found that it isn't for me.

[Samson]

Originally posted by batgeek
i've shared my views also, so has 310Rduner, but just like the stereotypical Bible-thumper, you can't accept what we believe, and must "convert" us...


lol! If you knew me you would hardly call me a stereotypical bible-thumper. Are you, through your own so-called logic, not trying to convert me?

I don't think you understand my motives. It's not about proving I'm right. I don't want a pat on the back. I have nothing to gain. I have tried to drop this a couple of times but somebody responds so I answer the best I can.

I am much like wilkin250r in hoping that you'll see that your reasons for dismissing God are flawed. That you have not proven that a God cannot exist. That you will explore it as an option and quit telling others that it's impossible. Do I hope that you will seek and find God? Yes. I do.

Again, I am sorry if that offends you.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by batgeek
i respect your point of view(though i do find it funny at times), glad that you respect mine(pretty sure you find it funny at times also).

True. And I will fully admit, the evidence and proof I have seen won't stand up in court. It would never convince anybody that hasn't already been convinced.

Imagine a murder trail, and me standing up and saying "The ex-boyfriend is the man guilty of murder, because the murder weapon was a nail gun, and he is a carpenter. He had motive when she broke up with him, he said to his friends that she would regret it. He's cruel to animals, and he gives off a 'creepy' vibe." For those that already believe the ex-boyfriend is guilty, these are reasonable arguements. Not necessarily direct proof, but certainly valid evidence. To those NOT convinced, these things don't have any bearing on his possible guilt, they are merely coincidence.

[batgeek]

that your reasons for dismissing God are flawed. That you have not proven that a God cannot exist. That you will explore it as an option

and your reasons for believing there is a God to me are flawed. that you (nor any church from Bhuddist to Catholic) haven't proven to me that a God exists.

i HAVE explored it as an option, and don't believe there is a God.

can't you get that thru your head?

everything you've said, i've heard before...not only from strangers, but from friends and relatives(an uncle that is a stigmatic priest in the Catholic church). i still believe what i believe and they respect that. why can't you?

[Samson]

Originally posted by batgeek
i still believe what i believe and they respect that. why can't you?

Because of the mental picture of what I fear will happen to you.

Even if you you don't care, I do.

[batgeek]

ahhh i see, you are here to save my mortal soul.

here's a cookie. let me feed the worms.

pfft!

[khen]

Originally posted by batgeek
and your reasons for believing there is a God to me are flawed. that you (nor any church from Bhuddist to Catholic) haven't proven to me that a God exists.

i HAVE explored it as an option, and don't believe there is a God.

can't you get that thru your head?

everything you've said, i've heard before...not only from strangers, but from friends and relatives(an uncle that is a stigmatic priest in the Catholic church). i still believe what i believe and they respect that. why can't you? Just as a side note, not all Buddhists believe in god.. god is not part of their religion.

[khen]

Here is a good summary(albeit long) of how a good portion of buddhists believe I got from http://www.buddhanet.net

"Do Buddhist believe in god?

No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:

"Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".

Dp 188

Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.

The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god’s words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god’s nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.

The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin on the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god’s power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties, through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding."

[batgeek]

Vedic and Brahman buddhists have gods. quoted, "I am Brahmâ, the Great Brahmâ, the Supreme One, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days, the Father of all that is and will be."

also, Buddhist devas are basically gods.

:)

[Samson]

Buddists I read up on believed man could reach a godly state of nirvana through meditation. Closer to a Yoga spirituality type thing than a religion.

[khen]

Originally posted by batgeek
Vedic and Brahman buddhists have gods. quoted, "I am Brahmâ, the Great Brahmâ, the Supreme One, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days, the Father of all that is and will be."

also, Buddhist devas are basically gods.

:) The Buddha actually dismissed Mahâ Brahmâ for that statement saying that it was said out of ignorance and that he was only a deva.

Devas are not "gods" in the sense that they can not create or provide salvation. They are simply individuals who have reached a higher level of enlightenment through suffering and meditation.

[khen]

Originally posted by Samson
Buddists I read up on believed man could reach a godly state of nirvana through meditation. Closer to a Yoga spirituality type thing than a religion. Yes, Nirvana.. that was the specific word I was looking for.

[batgeek]

much like Christianity, there are a few types of Buddhists :)

[Samson]

Originally posted by khen
Devas are not "gods"

I always thought they were black female vocalists with big hair? :D :p

[batgeek]

racist! :blah:

[khen]

Originally posted by batgeek
much like Christianity, there are a few types of Buddhists :) Yes there are, and I don't pretend to know them all.. but saying that there are buddhists religions that believe in gods is almost like saying there are christian religions that don't. It goes against the fundamental principles.


Originally posted by Samson
I always thought they were black female vocalists with big hair? :D :p Yes, they have also reached nirvana through deep thought and suffering. :p

[batgeek]

Shinto Buddhists believe in gods.

[Ralph]

well i wrote a ton and accidentaly deleted it so im gonna sum it up,

i do not believe in a religion nor do i see a reason to pay for something built and run by someone no different than me.

There is so many religions that i figure IF there was 1 right religion, 99% of all people follow a different one anyway and go to the all fearfull "hell".

I think religions were created for control. Whats a better way to make people not kill and steal than to scare them with what will happen after death. and all the people i do know who are realy religious, the only use they get out of it as something to control their actions by and do the right thing. some people just need something to keep them inline. it seems like they are too afraid to live and make the right decisions

like with little kids, "If you do your homework ill give you a cookie, but if you dont daddys gonna kick ur ***"

does it work yes, for most people, but i myself dont need all of these threats that if i dont do this and do this i will go to hell, i can handle myself to make the right decisions.

if this does not make any sense to you dont bother replying because im set on it. and yes i have tried out church and all the people are crazy and are just to afraid to control their own actions.

people are afraid of death and religion eases the thought of death. When you die your dead, and the point of reincarnation is just dumb. What benifits do you get out of being a perfect christian(or whatever religion that pleases you) life, when technecaly u do not live your next life. If i reincarnated(sp??) into myself and i was somethign else before. what i was before has no effect on me at all and i have no knowledge of it, therefore it does not exist to me, meaning my next life i wont know of, wich basicaly cancels reincarnation out for me. If i am bad, and get reincarnated into a ****ty place, i wont know about it so there is no point in following some of these ridiculous codes.

[khen]

Originally posted by batgeek
Shinto Buddhists believe in gods. I suppose, but Shinto is a religion and Buddhism is a religion and self proclaimed Shinto-Buddists are just people who have married the two religions into one. Kind of like christian rockers, all christians believe in god but not all rockers do. LOL

[batgeek]

LOL...i like that :D

[Ralph]

does what i posted make sense to anyone but me?

[batgeek]

dude...if you haven't learned anything from this post....

it doesn't matter to anyone but you!!! ok. :cool:

[Ralph]

Originally posted by batgeek
dude...if you haven't learned anything from this post....

it doesn't matter to anyone but you!!! ok. :cool:

oh for sure..., im just a dumb 15yo u think i read all that?

i realy dont think about religion, there is so much more out there that would be a better topic to argue about. like how identical pyramids were built on opposite sides of the earth in a time physically impossible.

or the concept of space(the universe) is it infinite? can it be, is the universa a sphere? what happens when you reach the end off the universe? do u go into a diff space with universes in it?, that **** is truly mindblowing not some dumb book wich is basicaly shat on by the concept of evelution wich ignorant people just ignore...

[batgeek]

just believe in what you believe, until you feel you need to change it :D

just don't listen to me, 310R, Samson, or wilkin....we're all idiots!

[Ralph]

im going to bed, nobody please post a whole book so i dont have to filter through it all in the morning...

[khen]

Originally posted by Ralph
oh for sure..., im just a dumb 15yo u think i read all that?If you read this whole thread, I will promote you to deva.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by khen
If you read this whole thread, I will promote you to deva.

Ohh Ohh, I did! Can I be a deva? I'm already a Reverand.:D Now samsom.. I have a certificate and all too.. 100 hail mary's.. jp. don't be offended.:p

[khen]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
Ohh Ohh, I did! Can I be a deva? I'm already a Reverand.:D Now samsom.. I have a certificate and all too.. 100 hail mary's.. jp. don't be offended.:p No that was a one-time Friday night 3 beer offer I extended to Ralph.. You'll have to leave all creature comforts and go to the woods to suffer/meditate like the rest of us. :p

That is, unless you want to grow out your hair and make all other neccesary changes to become a famous stuck up female pop singer.

[Samson]

Originally posted by khen
That is, unless you want to grow out your hair and make all other neccesary changes to become a famous stuck up female pop singer.


lol!

Never seen him but he might have to get a better tan too! :D



ps - Ralph I would love nothing more than to challenge your theories on evolution. Doesn't take long to figure out it's flaws. But only if you're really interested. :)

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Samson
lol!

Never seen him but he might have to get a better tan too! :D



ps - Ralph I would love nothing more than to challenge your theories on evolution. Doesn't take long to figure out it's flaws. But only if you're really interested. :)

well if you ask me, there is alot more proof backing up evelution. Do i want to have a debate with you, i dont think so...

[Samson]

Originally posted by Ralph
well if you ask me, there is alot more proof backing up evelution. Do i want to have a debate with you, i dont think so...

And I would argue the lack of proof disproves evolution.

Chicken. :p ;)

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Samson
And I would argue the lack of proof disproves evolution.

Chicken. :p ;)

i guess so but it makes sense to me and there is more PHYSICAL proof that i have seen and learned about...

[khen]

Originally posted by Samson
And I would argue the lack of proof disproves evolution.

Chicken. :p ;) If nothing else has been accomplished in this thread I think we have all concluded that there is not concrete proof either way..

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by Samson
lol!

Never seen him but he might have to get a better tan too! :D




Yeah... I'm basically almost as pale as you can get haha.
:(

I'm not conan O'brian white... lil tan on my arms, but past m elbows or me knees..
:)

[batgeek]

Originally posted by khen
If nothing else has been accomplished in this thread I think we have all concluded that there is not concrete proof either way..


DING DING DING!!!!


we have a winner!!!