God is non-existant

[Dave]

Jehova.

seriously?

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

I just wanted to start a big argument, I didn't really plan on being in it...

That's kind of lame. You could have given us some kind of intillectual stimuli to chew on, or at the least tell us why you believe this statement.

 

[Jeslek]

prime example.

Ah so now I'm fucked because I defend myself and because I'm a religious. There is no hope for me, is there? Ooo, what must I do?

You know, I wonder why I should obey the AUP if the Administrator can go ahead and personally attack people just like he wants. Afterall, he has all the powers... I wouldn't violate the AUP though.

4. You agree not to upload, transmit, distribute or otherwise publish in any Forum any material that is:
1. Libelous, defamatory, excessively obscene or abusive, or an invasion of privacy;

 

[Gonz]

I never attacked you. You took a statement & ran off in a completely different direction than it's intent. As you attacked me

Why don't you just fuck off ok?

it made what I stated all the more valid. Instead of clarification, you jumped to conclusions. My remarks were not in violation of the AUP. They are not, nor were they intended for any particular individual.

 

[fury]

If you were any bit the religious nut you make yourself out to be, you'd know that Jehova was never his name, it was just a mispronunciation of his name, YHWH. The closest phonetic spelling in English is "iaoeh", or roughly translated, "yah-weh".

Just thought you should know

 

[Gonz]

for that matter

Stating that all followers of religion

is your assumption. I never wrote that.

 

[Jeslek]

Message has been deleted by fury due to violation of the AUP.

 

[Dave]

If you were any bit the religious nut you make yourself out to be, you'd know that Jehova was never his name, it was just a mispronunciation of his name, YHWH. The closest phonetic spelling in English is "iaoeh", or roughly translated, "yah-weh".

Just thought you should know

oh...that jehova....lol

 

[Jeslek]

for that matter

Stating that all followers of religion

is your assumption. I never wrote that.

That is a valid deductive assumption. You stated quite plainly that

Religion is fine. It's followers are fucked up.[/siz]

Now tell me how that does not include all religions. Please. Tell me you didn't mean that 70% or more of the world are now, as you put it,

[color]

 

[fury]

Hell, I'll agree with you Gonz. Although it is quite a vast generalization, it certainly does apply to a lot of people. IMO, a truly independent person would take the time to figure out his/her own beliefs instead of slacking off and just latching onto some set of beliefs a couple of nuts made up centuries before we ever had STDs, computers, and fake breasts. But there are a lot of people who are religious who haven't yet gone completely insane. They just get a bad name from all the freaks who try to sell their religion door to door (and there are those kinds of people in EVERY religion, part of why I don't follow any religions but still believe in God)

 

[Ardsgaine]

You know very well I can't prove that God exists save by faith. But the point I'm trying to make is, you can't prove that God does not exist either.

Is that enough for you? Are you going to believe in something just because you can't prove that it doesn't exist? Does that satisfy your standard of rationality?

Consider this... If I want to prove that a certain species of tropical bird exists, how do I do it? There is no argument one could present that would even begin to prove its existence without some sort of physical evidence. If someone says that the bird does exist yet refuses to present evidence, says that I'm to take its existence on faith; I'm not required to disprove it. I'm not even required to consider it as a possiblity. He's made absolutely no claim upon my reason. His words are just empty sounds devoid of sense.

All proof begins with what we see. The evidence of our senses. From that data we form concepts, we induce principles, make our arguments and draw our conclusions. Everything we know has to be reducible back down to that evidence. That is what rationality consists of: being connected to the facts of reality.

Faith is belief in something absent any evidence. Faith means rejecting rationality, and abandoning one's connection to reality. If you're going to believe in God, then you need evidence-- you're too smart to simply shrug your shoulders, close your eyes and believe in something blindly.

 

[fury]

BTW, anyone see ris's sticky post in this forum?

mods posting here do so as individuals and are not representing otc, neither can they abuse their position as moderators. they have as much right to post personal opinions as other members however.

So there,

 

[Jeslek]

You know very well I can't prove that God exists save by faith. But the point I'm trying to make is, you can't prove that God does not exist either.

Is that enough for you? Are you going to believe in something just because you can't prove that it doesn't exist? Does that satisfy your standard of rationality?

For me it is enough. You really can't know the feeling if you don't get to that level.

Consider this... If I want to prove that a certain species of tropical bird exists, how do I do it? There is no argument one could present that would even begin to prove its existence without some sort of physical evidence. If someone says that the bird does exist yet refuses to present evidence, says that I'm to take its existence on faith; I'm not required to disprove it. I'm not even required to consider it as a possiblity. He's made absolutely no claim upon my reason. His words are just empty sounds devoid of sense.

All proof begins with what we see. The evidence of our senses. From that data we form concepts, we induce principles, make our arguments and draw our conclusions. Everything we know has to be reducible back down to that evidence. That is what rationality consists of: being connected to the facts of reality.

I can't really argue with that.

Faith is belief in something absent any evidence. Faith means rejecting rationality, and abandoning one's connection to reality. If you're going to believe in God, then you need evidence-- you're too smart to simply shrug your shoulders, close your eyes and believe in something blindly.

Not always. You can have faith and still be connected to reality. I don't pretend to go around doing miracles, but I do believe. If I'm blind, then I'm blind. But sometimes you have to take a leap of faith, and until you do, there is no way of knowing how ... complete you feel. It probably sounds like nonsense to you and most people here, but ... I am not afraid to die because I know where I'm going.

 

[Gonz]

I belittled religious zealots & the followers of such insanity. Those who follow Gods law are not included. Those who blaspheme Jehovah, for lack of better term, using his name in vain & claiming to be disciples of His & then use that power to swindle, rape, pillage, murder or otherwise take advantage of authority NOT granted by Him are fucked.

Which category do you count yourself LL?

 

[Dave]

i am an atheist. i dont believe in any "supreme being(s)"
my g/f, on the other hand, is a devout catholic.
she doesn't force her views on me, nor do i force mine on her. she does seem to get a certain peace of mind from believing in god. she isn't a weak-willed individual, nor is she "fucked", as it was so eloquently put earlier in the thread. religion works for her.
seeing as i'm an atheist, i think i understand what gonz was trying, but failing miserably, to say. however, i was offended by that statement also.

 

[Jeslek]

I belittled religious zealots & the followers of such insanity. Those who follow Gods law are not included. Those who blaspheme Jehovah, for lack of better term, using his name in vain & claiming to be disciples of His & then use that power to swindle, rape, pillage, murder or otherwise take advantage of authority NOT granted by Him are fucked.

Which category do you count yourself LL?

OK so now you classified me. I'm now to choose whether I:

swindle, rape, pillage, murder or otherwise take advantage of authority[/siz]

Do you know how just, stunningly intelligent you are tonight? Because I'm religious now, now I have to classify myself as a rapist, murderer, swindler, pillager, and so forth. I'm so honored to be classified by the mighty Gonz. I choose all of them. I'm fucked up aren't I?

 

[Jeslek]

nor is she "fucked",

Not according to our oh so beautiful and intelligent administrator

however, i was offended by that statement also.

Thank you, now I know I'm not the only one.

 

[Gonz]

you seem to have missed a very important line. if you choose to focus on the negative, more power to you.

 

[Jeslek]

you seem to have missed a very important line. if you choose to focus on the negative, more power to you.

I'm not sure what you meant now. Look, English is my third language ok? Sometimes I don't get the meanings people convey. Please explain to me... You said all religious people are fucked. So obviously I have to be in the latter among the murderers and so on. Then you asked me to categorize myself... so I pick all of them because I'm really fucked up...

 

[unclehobart]

For me, religion must include spanking, Coca Cola, and watching Bruce Lee films.