There is no God.

POSTED BY: oldenglanddry
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2025 05:01
VIEWED: 30440
PAGE 17 of 25

PREV PAGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
If Fred wants to worship Shiva, that's fine with me. But, if Fred prevents people from access to life-saving operations because of Shiva, that's a problem.

It's an important distinction.

But if Fred wants to do harm to others because of Shiva, you really have a problem with Fred, not Shiva. Cause who knows what Shiva really wants?

People rationalize all sorts of evil. They like to rationalize with science or with religion. Doesn't mean the science or the religion itself is at fault.

-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls

YINYANG

Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:22 AM

Quote:
But if Fred wants to do harm to others because of Shiva, you really have a problem with Fred, not Shiva.

Yes, especially since I don't believe in Shiva (or any god-like entities, for that matter.)

---

Go to http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/ and vote Firefly!

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
So yeah, to me, without evidence, i cannot believe in something.

I have trouble believing that.

You have no evidence that I am not in fact Summer Glau, if I were Summer than Chris the Cynic would not really exist, it would all be a lie, gender, age, height, weight, location, occupation, political and religious views, everything that makes up Chris the Cynic could be fake. Of course I wouldn't have to be Summer, any one of 6 billion people could be making this post and the result would be the same, Chris the Cynic wouldn't really exist.

You have no evidence whatsoever saying that these words are really coming from the person you know of as Chris the Cynic or even that that person exists.

Everything that I have ever laid claim to as being my works or my creation could have several perfectly rational CTC-free explanations and many if not most of those explanations probably involve fewer entities than believing I do exist.

But ask yourself, even without evidence, do you believe I exist?

If you don't then I apologize for my lack of faith, I was wrong about you, and you do indeed not believe in a thing when there is no evidence for it. You'll be the first Fair Witness I ever met and as such I'm proud to meet you, even if it is online and not in person.

But if you do believe, in spite of the lack of proof, that there really is a person behind these posts who is Chris the Cynic and not just someone's second account or a years long prank being played on the people here, then there are some things you can believe without evidence. They're just not as absurd as a teapot where one logically can not be or as out there as god.

-

This post has nothing to do with god, believing in me only requires having a bit of faith in common sense, which is, admittedly, not always a good idea. Common sense says no one would keep a ruse up this long and thus I should exist, the same can not be said for god or the teapot.

I just think it is interesting how much most people believe when they do not have evidence for it. I think it is fair to say that most people here believe in me, at least in my existence, yet, unless we have some impressive stalkers, no one here has any evidence that I exist.

Holy crap! What the

? There's plenty of evidence that you exist, christhecynic, simply no proof. You realize that there's a difference, right? A very important difference? A year of posts which reasonably reflect a single point of view, all ascribed to one "christhecynic" is plenty of evidence that someone using the alias "christhecynic" has been frequenting this board. What the heck else does it suggest? Occam's got a razor says you're most likely you.

Science functions perfectly well without absolute certainty and iron clad irrefutable proof in a lot of areas (most?). If absolute proof of a thing were needed for science to advance, we'd still be sticking twigs into termite mounds.

Gravity is a perfect example of something for which there is constant undeniable evidence but no proof ("gravity" itself is in no way observable, only its consequence--scientists make up a silly particle called a "graviton" to even talk about the thing/stuff/concept).

Sensate creatures proceed by the evidence of our senses; most of us are happy to leave the proofs to the mathematicians.

Even life and death legal matters are not proven absolutely, only "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not beyond any doubt (Johnnie Cochrane notwithstanding), but beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sounds like your polemical reach has exceeded your rhetorical grasp just a bit here.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Maybe links like this are why some people hate me but... does that sound Hindu to anyone else? What little I know about Hinduism tells me that that sounds very Hindu.

Of course what I was taught could be wrong, my teachers were far from infalible.

Seemingly but not actually. Hindu creation does occure a number of times, but Hindu creation cycles occur in linear time, with some time between the Earth (Universe) evaporating and reforming.

I think that the Universe was created once, but by virtue of the creation being it's destruction and vice versa rather than two distinct events (the universe creation and its destruction are the same event) this process can be seen as a loop. Like the theoretical possibillity of a time travel paradox, it only happens once but it's also going round and round.

Viewed from outside our universe I think all you'd see is the singularity.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NANITE1018

Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If there were evidence, we wouldn't need to "believe in" it. We'd just point and say, "Hey, it's there."

I believe in God. At least, I call what I believe in, "God." I believe there is a strength and power that carries us when we think we can't go on anymore. I believe we aren't alone, even when we feel lonely. I believe there is good in all of us. I believe freedom is worth fighting and dying for.

It's just like they say in Jaynestown. Faith isn't about "truth" or the specific ideas--it is about what you need to believe in to keep on fighting and to keep on giving in the midst of all the evil and tragedy in this world. What you believe isn't as important as THAT you believe. It means you have chosen an inspiration to hang on to, an answer when you're flying against the headwinds and asking, "What's the point?"

I believe, as a species, all humans have a spiritual hunger for this inspiration, for meaning. We call it the soul, if you will. Some fill this hunger with religious stories and rituals, some fill it with arts and creativity, some fill it with good deeds, some with knowledge. Others deny they have the hunger. But we are all inspired by something, something that makes us silent in awe when we see it. It doesn't matter what language you use to describe it. That thing is one of the many faces of God.

-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls

Well i do believe in something: human potential, reason, and science. You might say i'm a humanist i guess. I believe in a better world, in liberty, in rationality, in the power of the human mind to understand the universe. So I have something to keep me going when times are tough (although when it seems hopeless, it'd probably be my own unwillingness to die and stop existing that would keep me going).

I also think everyone has to believe in some ideal, i just wish people believed in more rational and backed-by-evidence ideals.

NANITE1018

Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
So yeah, to me, without evidence, i cannot believe in something.

I have trouble believing that.

You have no evidence that I am not in fact Summer Glau, if I were Summer than Chris the Cynic would not really exist, it would all be a lie, gender, age, height, weight, location, occupation, political and religious views, everything that makes up Chris the Cynic could be fake. Of course I wouldn't have to be Summer, any one of 6 billion people could be making this post and the result would be the same, Chris the Cynic wouldn't really exist.

You have no evidence whatsoever saying that these words are really coming from the person you know of as Chris the Cynic or even that that person exists.

Everything that I have ever laid claim to as being my works or my creation could have several perfectly rational CTC-free explanations and many if not most of those explanations probably involve fewer entities than believing I do exist.

But ask yourself, even without evidence, do you believe I exist?

If you don't then I apologize for my lack of faith, I was wrong about you, and you do indeed not believe in a thing when there is no evidence for it. You'll be the first Fair Witness I ever met and as such I'm proud to meet you, even if it is online and not in person.

But if you do believe, in spite of the lack of proof, that there really is a person behind these posts who is Chris the Cynic and not just someone's second account or a years long prank being played on the people here, then there are some things you can believe without evidence. They're just not as absurd as a teapot where one logically can not be or as out there as god.

-

This post has nothing to do with god, believing in me only requires having a bit of faith in common sense, which is, admittedly, not always a good idea. Common sense says no one would keep a ruse up this long and thus I should exist, the same can not be said for god or the teapot.

I just think it is interesting how much most people believe when they do not have evidence for it. I think it is fair to say that most people here believe in me, at least in my existence, yet, unless we have some impressive stalkers, no one here has any evidence that I exist.

Chris, you may very well not exist. How do i know? I have no proof. But you claim to be someone, you don't appear to be lying, and all of the evidence (the background, the posts, everything) backs the hypothesis that you are an actual person. Now I have two hypotheses, one that you are an individual, the other that you are a creation, an imaginary person created by someone else. Occam's Razor dictates that if you have two hypotheses that both explain the data equally well than the one with fewer assumptions is most likely true. Now, what does that mean for this case? Well theory 1 has one assumption: there's someone who is christhecynic out in the world, and no one else is involved with the posts, you represent one person. The other requires that there be someone else, who desires to be able to say things without people knowing it was them AND that they created an elaborate back-story and POV and style of writing that appears to come from some individual person. Which has fewer assumptions? Obviously it's choice one, therefore the most likely explanation for the data is that you are an actual individual.

So i accept the hypothesis that you are an individual person, not some dummy account or an imaginary person or something; until such time as contradictory evidence arises (i couldn't think of anything that would though). I can't prove it, but i think it's true based on the evidence.

HERO

Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
I'm sorry, but the Church lost all crediblity with me when they started abusing children

I feel the same way about booksellers. I prosecuted someone who works in a bookstore for taking pictures of naked kids...that means all persons who have ever worked in a bookstore anywhere must be guilty of the same crime. And the companies they work for...they never did a thing (except fire them when the charges were made public). I'll never shop there again and all of you out there reading books, your just fooling yourself, TV is the only real information medium, books don't really exist.

H

HERO

Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
I think we all know the world is billions of years old, not thousands. It was created over billions of years, not in seven days. I think it safe to say man wasn't created from a pile of dirt, nor woman from rib. Do I really need to go on here?

God created time. And deep down all matter is composed of the same elements. Ancient Sumarian uses the same word for "life" and "rib" so perhaps its a translation issue.

H

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:00 PM

That analogy has nothing to do with what your responding to. Do you have to work at being unable to grasp a simple point so astoundingly or does it come naturally?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

HERO

Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it,

Wait! Are you saying that God put the teapot there? Is it God's teapot? Is God a teapot? Did he create the teapot and thus create all teapots or did man create the teapot and God simply remove it to its heavinly position?

And if there is no God, how do you explain the teapot's being there in the first place? Unless you are arguing that stellar teapots are naturally occurring. Thats crazy, although I think they did a steller teapot episode on Stargate SG1...Season 3 I think...

Is there tea in the teapot?

How do we know its a teapot? Perhaps its something else and the teapots we have created in its image are merely our limited human minds attempting to recreate that which we can never understand?

And then there is this:

Quote:

But some modern astronomers (while having afternoon tea?) decided that the central part of Sagittarius resembles a teapot:

A "spout" formed by connecting the stars Al Nasi, Kaus Media and Kaus Australis (stars gamma, delta and epsilon of the constellation);

A "handle" shaped by the stars designated zeta (Ascella), tau, sigma (Nunki) and phi; and a "lid" indicated by Kaus Borealis (designated lambda).

When these eight stars are connected by imaginary lines, a "teapot" seems to emerge

All hail the teapot of God! That from which all tea flows...

Quote:

Tempest in a ‘teapot’? Cult followers arrested
Malaysia arrests dozens who follow cult built around giant teapot
Updated: 9:46 a.m. ET July 20, 2005
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Malaysian authorities on Wednesday arrested 58 followers of a bizarre cult built around a giant teapot, two days after the sect’s headquarters was torched.

The official Bernama news agency said those arrested were aged between 20 and 60 years and included a New Zealand woman.

Cult leader, Ayah Pin, was not among those arrested and was believed to have gone into hiding after about 30-35 assailants armed with machetes and Molotov cocktails attacked the commune on Monday, torching a car and the roof of a building and scorching the giant teapot itself.

I think all this teapot talk is just brewing up trouble...

H

PREV PAGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT PAGE