Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Alkmini wrote: "I 've never accepted "I prayed" as an answer to anything but I don't know what will happen in the future..."Then why believe in the power of prayer?
Alkmini wrote: "And the burden of proof for the existence of god still remains on those who claim his existence. It's not for science to disprove it, it's for the theist to prove it.
"
That's true but I don't ..."
No but you require someone else to disprove to possibly change your mind, I was pointing out that the burden of proof lies on theists...
Alkmini wrote: "And the burden of proof for the existence of god still remains on those who claim his existence. It's not for science to disprove it, it's for the theist to prove it.
"
That's true but I don't ..."
so, it doesn't matter to you whether your belief is true or not?
Of course it matters to me is it's true or not, but I believe it is true...
Alkmini wrote: "Of course it matters to me is it's true or not, but I believe it is true..."But you don't require evidence for it's truth? not scientific,
We go back to the the flouro pink underwater unicorn If I said I believe it existed and required we all toss hay in to the sea or we'd feel it's wrath would you ask for proof?
Alkmini wrote: "Of course it matters to me is it's true or not, but I believe it is true..."so, its true because you believe it to be true... oh in that case, theres 1 million pounds in my bank account, because I believe its there... thats no basis for belief, either the basis of your belief is objectively true, or it is not. And we're back to "so you don't care whether what you believe is true or not?" Is your belief that its true a belief that is true?
Hazel wrote: "Alkmini wrote: "Of course it matters to me is it's true or not, but I believe it is true..."so, its true because you believe it to be true... oh in that case, theres 1 million pounds in my bank a..."
Why stop at a million?
Ok... First of all, my belief in God is not like your belief in the existence of a million pounds in your bank account. My faith is based on something personal that I don't want to share...
Alkmini wrote: "Ok... First of all, my belief in God is not like your belief in the existence of a million pounds in your bank account. My faith is based on something personal that I don't want to share..."Irrespective, it is objectively true or it's not, personal belief does not make it true, faith does not make it true. Evidence does
That's your opinion
Alkmini wrote: "Ok... First of all, my belief in God is not like your belief in the existence of a million pounds in your bank account. My faith is based on something personal that I don't want to share..."but it is the same, you have stated that you require no proof about it, thus my belief in any given thing, say squozots, is just as valid by your standards. You have decided something is true, I don't mind what you're reasons are, and you've taken it on faith, and not thought about whether what you're putting faith in is true or not (I'm assuming here, maybe you have thought about it, but that just makes it worse, as it means you've rejected the rational for the irrational).
I believe its true is still the same as stating that you believe it, neither belief has been substantiated. Saying I believe its true is circular logic, its like those people who say the bible is the word of god, because god says so, and we know god says so, because its in the bible. I believes its true, so its true, is no basis for any argument or belief. Either it is objectively true or it is not, whether you want it to be true or not has no bearing on whether it is true or not.
And I can honestly tell you, finding out that there is no god is no different to finding out there is no £1mil in the bank, as in both cases, you've lost nothing but an illusion.
Shanna wrote: "Why stop at a million? "I'm not greedy...
Alkmini wrote: "That's your opinion"no, its basic reason, not opinion. There is no opinion on objective truth, there is only one objective truth about god, and that is either it exists, or it does not, only one of those options is objectively true, both states cannot exist. There is no proof of existence, thus the hypothesis that god exists can be rejected. No opinion needed, just basic rational reasoning based on the evidence we have available.
What would you do if someone did prove there is a god, and that it is Ganesh, the elephant headed god of hinduism? Or Zeus? Or Odin? Or John Frum?
science is just a waste of time!!!
-Y_A_I_R- wrote: "science is just a waste of time!!!"obvious troll is obvious. You'd best go throw your phone, Tv, computer, car, books, stereo, ipod, etc etc away then. Off you pop, to live in a cave, in the woods, naked, with no way of making fire. Have fun.
-Y_A_I_R- wrote: "science is just a waste of time!!!"again, stated on the internet.
this god you guys believe in obvious created people to show he had a sense of humor.
i mean if other people back 100 years ago dirint leave with all the tech stuff we can also live with out it soon enough we aint goiing to have enough resourses for anything cause we are greedy
-Y_A_I_R- wrote: "science is boring i cant pass school because of science"thats exactly why i dont like science...i can never pass the stupid tests
@maria haha yea science is just stupid who wants to learn about cells and crap!!!
that's not true!!! Science is great! But God is even better...
that science is stupid!
-Y_A_I_R- wrote: "i mean if other people back 100 years ago dirint leave with all the tech stuff we can also live with out it soon enough we aint goiing to have enough resourses for anything cause we are greedy"yeah, lets go back to the days of death by measles, small pox and mumps. Lets go back to a life expectancy of under 40 years old. ROCK ON!!!!
PS, a hundred years ago, 1912, cars existed, electricity, the light bulb, the cinema, there were airplanes, genetics was well on its way... sorry, kid, you'd still be in school, learning science
cs wrote: "Lots of words but no numbers. Why don't you with draw your statement if you can't back it up, and stop trying to avoid the question."So, you have obviously not been reading my post. I replaced that example with three others. That does not change my argument that your claim is rubbish.
I advice to actually read before you answer (Ironically before that you always wanted me to write a lengthy argument and not to provide you with links. Once my post seems long, you don't even bother to read it...)
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "So you are also not able to give any numbers to that ridicules statement either."The reason that precise numbers are difficult is that the amount of people who would have been saved is..."
So you can’t give numbers? Because,
you say you don't know how many Africans were good Catholics and obeyed the instruction and how many used condoms. There are estimations, but that is not important.
In other words it was a random statement that has no validity and it is not important to give estimates as these would not be valid proof anyway.
You then go on to say that this unknown number of Catholic Africans, who are persuaded to not use condoms, unlike us non African folks who don’t seem to be as gullible, are five times more likely to be infected.
So we now have an unknown number, times five.
But you then go on to say “a large number of people in Africa are devout Catholics”. a large (but exact numbers unknown) proportion of those millions are five times more likely to die because of that advice.
What utter rubbish. But that’s not all, you then say
Catholic idea that sex is sinful and should only be done if there is a chance of conceiving a child….
Even MORE rubbish, you are making this up as you go along.
-Y_A_I_R- wrote: "i mean if other people back 100 years ago dirint leave with all the tech stuff we can also live with out it soon enough we aint goiing to have enough resourses for anything cause we are greedy"you can thank our governments for that.
Johndoe wrote: "cs wrote: "Lots of words but no numbers. Why don't you with draw your statement if you can't back it up, and stop trying to avoid the question."So, you have obviously not been reading my post. I r..."
I replaced that example with three others.
Do you mean that you with drew it because you were not able to verify it.
-Y_A_I_R- wrote: "i mean if other people back 100 years ago dirint leave with all the tech stuff we can also live with out it soon enough we aint goiing to have enough resourses for anything cause we are greedy"Something wrong with your keyboard?
-Y_A_I_R- wrote: "i mean if other people back 100 years ago dirint leave with all the tech stuff we can also live with out it soon enough we aint goiing to have enough resourses for anything cause we are greedy"I didn't get to finish what I was saying earlier, I had an emergency but what I was going to get at was that we already have the technology(thanks to science) to run everything without oil, gas, coal, or any other non-renewable resource. Unfortunately our government won't make it mandatory for us to switch over to these safer, renewable resources. Plus, the ignorance of the public plays a big factor into this too.
Alkmini wrote: "that science is stupid!"adolescents are funny, lol!
Maria wrote: "-Y_A_I_R- wrote: "science is boring i cant pass school because of science"thats exactly why i dont like science...i can never pass the stupid tests"
Luckily for you there are those who can, and you get to rely on them. Isn't the real world wonderful?
Some of the recent arrivals in this discussion are giving an excellent demonstration on why testing in schools is a good thing.....
cs wrote: "In other words it was a random statement that has no validity and it is not important to give estimates as these would not be valid proof anyway. "Are you disputing the idea that catholics listen to the pope? What number is it that you would accept as evidence that the catholic church's stance on contraception is a contributing factor to the spread of aids? Not the sole factor, but a contributing one?
Out of curiosity, what brand of christian are you?
Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "In other words it was a random statement that has no validity and it is not important to give estimates as these would not be valid proof anyway. "Are you disputing the idea that cathol..."
Along with anti-science folk posting on the internet, I do enjoy the irony of religious folk yelling 'give me some evidence!'.
I'd take cs's claims more seriously if her argument didn't rely on total ignorance ( or denial) of the catholic church and apparently not having read a paper or watched the news since the 60's.
Hazel wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Why stop at a million? "I'm not greedy..."
:-P
Maria wrote: "-Y_A_I_R- wrote: "science is boring i cant pass school because of science"thats exactly why i dont like science...i can never pass the stupid tests"
Again science is not the problem here
Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "In other words it was a random statement that has no validity and it is not important to give estimates as these would not be valid proof anyway. "Are you disputing the idea that cathol..."
Not the sole factor, but a contributing one?
That's like saying 'how long is a piece of string'.
cs wrote: "That's like saying 'how long is a piece of string'.No it isn't, stop avoiding the issue.
Travis wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "In other words it was a random statement that has no validity and it is not important to give estimates as these would not be valid proof anyway. "Are you disputing the ..."
Along with anti-science folk posting on the internet
You don't have to be anti science to be religious. And even if you put religion first you can still use the internet.
.......... oh and remind me who was responsible for the atomic bomb, religion........or was that science?
cs wrote: some stuff....and answer the question, seeing as you make such a point of other people having to answer yours. What brand of christian are you? Until you answer, and based on your stance on condoms and aids I am going to assume catholic.....
Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "That's like saying 'how long is a piece of string'.No it isn't, stop avoiding the issue."
Not the sole factor, but a contributing one?
A single drop of rain contributes to a flood.
But to put the Catholic Africian aids thing into perspective you need to give numbers. Other wise it's like the drop of rain.
Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: some stuff....and answer the question, seeing as you make such a point of other people having to answer yours. What brand of christian are you? Until you answer, and based on your stance..."
Well I didn't know christians came in brands, but yes Catholic.
cs wrote: ".... oh and remind me who was responsible for the atomic bomb, religion........or was that science?"science.
Who decided to drop it rather than demonstrate its power? A southern baptist. Next.
"Q Dr. Szilard, what was your attitude in 1945 toward the question of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?
A I opposed it with all my power, but I'm afraid not as effectively as I should have wished.
Q Did any other scientists feel the same way you did?
A Very many other scientists felt this way. This is particularly true of Oak Ridge and the Metallurgical Laboratory of the University of Chicago. I don't know how the scientists felt at Los Alamos.
Q At the Oak Ridge and Chicago branches of the A-bomb project, was there any division of opinion?
A I'll say this: Almost without exception, all the creative physicists had misgivings about the use of the bomb. I would not say the same about the chemists. The biologists felt very much as the physicists did."
cs wrote: "Travis wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "In other words it was a random statement that has no validity and it is not important to give estimates as these would not be valid proof anyway. "Are yo..."
The atomic bomb...?
Wow, you went to the atomic bomb in order to dodge the catholic/aids issue.
I am impressed that you weren't so cliche as to use Hitler, but seeing as he was christian and cut a deal with the pope during WW2, you had to get more creative.
cs wrote: "Travis wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "In other words it was a random statement that has no validity and it is not important to give estimates as these would not be valid proof anyway. "Are yo..."
Science was responsible for it but so too was Nazi Germany (who was supported by Catholicism)as well as the U.S. government (supported by many religions). On August 2, 1939, just before the beginning of World War II, Albert Einstein wrote to then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Einstein and several other scientists told Roosevelt of efforts in Nazi Germany to purify uranium-235, which could be used to build an atomic bomb. It was shortly thereafter that the United States Government began the serious undertaking known then only as "The Manhattan Project." Simply put, the Manhattan Project was committed to expediting research that would produce a viable atomic bomb.
cs wrote: "A single drop of rain contributes to a flood. "So you would agree that the catholic church's position on contraception is a contributing factor in the spread of aids then?
What is responsible for most of the wars around the world wherein the military uses such weapons, religion.
Drew wrote: "What is responsible for most of the wars around the world wherein the military uses such weapons, religion."
Disagree on this one. Responsible for many but not most, at least historically.
Disagree on this one. Responsible for many but not most, at least historically.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
And the burden of proof for the existence of god still remains on those who claim his existence. It's not for science to disprove it, it's for the theist to prove it.
"
That's true but I don't want to prove to anyone that God exists. It's my personal belief.