Jump to content


God's Existence Scientifically Proven.


  • Please log in to reply
799 replies to this topic

#1 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,918 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:48 PM

2livs07.jpg

 

 

2gx4hvc.jpg



#2 Heads Up

Heads Up

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Location:Lake Michigan

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:53 PM

As a true Christian I don't need science to tell me God exists. You Mormon types and other non believers will burn in hell.

#3 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:55 PM

Awesome. So if I tell this God thing to go fuck Itself and strike me dead, then unless He works for Comcast or ATT I'm as good as gone.

Darn, still here.

#4 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,340 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:57 PM

You guys have Jack spun up like a top. 

Nicely done. 



#5 Heads Up

Heads Up

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Location:Lake Michigan

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:59 PM

Why strike you dead when he can just wait tor you to suffer for eternity? God's time is better spent watching over his flock. Your lifespan is an insignificant spec of time to him.

#6 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,223 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 19 November 2013 - 06:00 PM

Two things I find curious. First is the egocentric response, such as Olsonist, who somehow thinks a supreme being has nothing better to do than strike him down. The second is that people who claim to be of science, dismiss outright the possibility of the existence of a god, God literally or gods. Always love to watch that argument unfold as it makes me laugh.



#7 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 19 November 2013 - 06:04 PM

Now waiting to suffer for eternity seems darned near ironic or redundant, your choice. Why can't the Dickhead just get on with it? I can serve as an example to show good folks the right path. As an added benefit there'd be one less liberal.

#8 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,676 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 19 November 2013 - 06:04 PM

I am fully willing to accept the existence of a "supreme being".  There just isn't any evidence.  This God of yours is very good at hiding.



#9 Centurion

Centurion

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 06:49 PM

Proof already existed in the Babel fish.

 

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:


"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.



#10 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,954 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 19 November 2013 - 07:28 PM

Old news.

 

http://www.colbertna...-degrasse-tyson



#11 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,633 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 07:49 PM

Now waiting to suffer for eternity seems darned near ironic or redundant, your choice. Why can't the Dickhead just get on with it? I can serve as an example to show good folks the right path. As an added benefit there'd be one less liberal.

I am fully willing to accept the existence of a "supreme being".  There just isn't any evidence.  This God of yours is very good at hiding.

There isn't any evidence god does not exist either.

#12 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,782 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:01 PM


Now waiting to suffer for eternity seems darned near ironic or redundant, your choice. Why can't the Dickhead just get on with it? I can serve as an example to show good folks the right path. As an added benefit there'd be one less liberal.

I am fully willing to accept the existence of a "supreme being".  There just isn't any evidence.  This God of yours is very good at hiding.

There isn't any evidence god does not exist either.

What would that evidence look like?

#13 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,223 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:06 PM

I am fully willing to accept the existence of a "supreme being".  There just isn't any evidence.  This God of yours is very good at hiding.

I take it this was aimed my way. I am agnostic however.

See you think there isn't any evidence. To me, there is tons of it, we just probably aren't sophisticated enough to comprehend it all.



#14 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,633 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:14 PM



Now waiting to suffer for eternity seems darned near ironic or redundant, your choice. Why can't the Dickhead just get on with it? I can serve as an example to show good folks the right path. As an added benefit there'd be one less liberal.

I am fully willing to accept the existence of a "supreme being".  There just isn't any evidence.  This God of yours is very good at hiding.

There isn't any evidence god does not exist either.


What would that evidence look like?


It doesn’t exist, what could it possibly look like?

#15 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,676 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:25 PM

Now waiting to suffer for eternity seems darned near ironic or redundant, your choice. Why can't the Dickhead just get on with it? I can serve as an example to show good folks the right path. As an added benefit there'd be one less liberal.

>I am fully willing to accept the existence of a "supreme being".  There just isn't any evidence.  This God of yours is very good at hiding.

There isn't any evidence god does not exist either.

 

nor is there evidence that the pink bunny, santa claus, thor, Ra, etc, etc, etc  "do not exist" either.

 

But it's pretty clear that none of them are needed to make the universe work.

 

What's the old adage, you can't prove a negative.



#16 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,676 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:29 PM

Logic and belief don't go together - that's really all there is.

 

If you Believe, logic won't sway you.  Not in the short term anyway.

 

If you use logic, belief doesn't matter.  Evidence does.



#17 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,223 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:38 PM

Your belief in logic is not the same thing as believing in truth.

Your stance that there is no such thing as God, is in of itself not logical. It is much like passing by a closed door every day of your life, but because you have never gone through that door, it is logical to conclude that there is not a room on the other side of that door.



#18 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,633 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:42 PM

Logic and belief don't go together - that's really all there is.
 
If you Believe, logic won't sway you.  Not in the short term anyway.
 
If you use logic, belief doesn't matter.  Evidence does.

And when it comes god we have no empirical evidence for or against.

#19 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,676 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:53 PM

There is no "belief" in logic. You can practice it, use it as a tool, etc, but it's not a divine being.

 

I've not postulated that there is "no god". If someone asks if I believe, my standard answer is "I have no evidence to believe".  I don't need evidence to "not believe" as if I did, there would an infinite number of things that I would have to ask for evidence of non-existence. all the gods by all the names, fairies (my girls really want to believe in fairies), goblins, all sorts of imaginary creatures.

 

We can likely agree on the vast majority of non-existent beings.  I doubt there are many believers these days in the old Inca gods, egyptian gods, Norse gods (although the wiccans are seeing a resurgence), etc.  I just take it the logical conclusion that there is no evidence for any of them, or the current monotheistic God.

 

Pretty soon Saorsa will chime in about my belief system, and this thread will go sideways.



#20 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:54 PM

And when it comes god we have no empirical evidence for or against.


So you're saying the bible is bullshit?

#21 pond sailor

pond sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 378 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:56 PM

Proof already existed in the Babel fish.

 

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:


"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

42



#22 soak_ed

soak_ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • Location:Poland

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:12 PM

And when it comes god we have no empirical evidence for or against.


So you're saying the bible is bullshit?

So you are saying everything in the bible is true????  Besides, I would hardly call the bible " empirical evidence" no matter how you distort the definition of empirical.  Yeah, the world was created in six days and is only 6,000 years old.  Right.



#23 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,223 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:22 PM

There is no "belief" in logic. You can practice it, use it as a tool, etc, but it's not a divine being.

Sure there is. You take a series of ifs and thens and they logically lead you to conclude that something exists or doesn't exist. This is your belief but that doesn't mean it is based in facts or truth. Don't get me wrong, logic is great stuff and often all we have to go on, but looking at something in a way we think to be logical doesn't always enlighten us.

To expand on that briefly, I think it is most illogical that you have concluded that there is no evidence that God exists. I see it that everything revolves around something else, all things big and small, if you will. Is that just happenstance or is there some greater order to the universe and everything that we just don't understand.

To expand even further, was Douglas Adams suggesting that the order of the great unknown was in fact something we just could never really understand? Much as we could never understand what the ultimate question was? we all believe the answer to be 42, and that may be true, but we are not powerful enough to comprehend the question, never mind the answer.



#24 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:27 PM


And when it comes god we have no empirical evidence for or against.

So you're saying the bible is bullshit?
So you are saying everything in the bible is true????  Besides, cI would hardly call the bible " empirical evidence" no matter how you distort the definition of empirical.  Yeah, the world was created in six days and is only 6,000 years old.  Right.

Sorry, but I think you misunderstood my point.

#25 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,676 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:29 PM

It's very possible that we might not have brains evolved enough to understand the universe.  But that starts us down the road of not asking any questions, and just saying "god did it" - God of the gaps if you will.

 

Logic and scientific method has god down to some pretty small gaps, like what happened the 1/1 millionth (or whatever the time was) between the big bang and the settling in of the laws of physics. After the laws settled in, pretty much everything else can be explained.

 

 

And that rotation thing is called gravity...



#26 soak_ed

soak_ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • Location:Poland

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:33 PM

Your belief in logic is not the same thing as believing in truth.

Your stance that there is no such thing as God, is in of itself not logical. It is much like passing by a closed door every day of your life, but because you have never gone through that door, it is logical to conclude that there is not a room on the other side of that door.

By definition, here is no "truth" in faith, only faith.  There are of course different degrees of truth so it really depends on the truthiness of your particular truth.  



#27 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,223 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:39 PM

I don't buy into degrees of truth. Either it is or it isn't.

 

There may be not truth in faith, but is there faith in truth?



#28 Mojo Risin

Mojo Risin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,917 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:40 PM

Awesome. So if I tell this God thing to go fuck Itself and strike me dead, then unless He works for Comcast or ATT I'm as good as gone.

Darn, still here.

Maybe he/she/it does it in its own time.  You don't know what tomorrow has in store for you.



#29 Mojo Risin

Mojo Risin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,917 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:42 PM

It's very possible that we might not have brains evolved enough to understand the universe.  But that starts us down the road of not asking any questions, and just saying "god did it" - God of the gaps if you will.

 

Logic and scientific method has god down to some pretty small gaps, like what happened the 1/1 millionth (or whatever the time was) between the big bang and the settling in of the laws of physics. After the laws settled in, pretty much everything else can be explained.

 

 

And that rotation thing is called gravity...

Weren't the laws of physics already "settled in" before the big bang?  Surely they governed physical matter that existed before that event.



#30 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,262 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:44 PM

Two things I find curious. First is the egocentric response, such as Olsonist, who somehow thinks a supreme being has nothing better to do than strike him down. The second is that people who claim to be of science, dismiss outright the possibility of the existence of a god, God literally or gods. Always love to watch that argument unfold as it makes me laugh.

 

Some things are taken on faith.

 

I never ask an atheist to prove a negative, I ask them to prove their beliefs.



#31 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,848 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:50 PM

 i am god. someone daughter calls me "OH GOD" at least twice a week................



#32 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,633 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:50 PM


And when it comes god we have no empirical evidence for or against.

So you're saying the bible is bullshit?


No, I don't know if it' bullshit or not. I'm saying we have no empiricle evidence so it's faith based, like atheism.

#33 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,633 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:58 PM

It's very possible that we might not have brains evolved enough to understand the universe.  But that starts us down the road of not asking any questions, and just saying "god did it" - God of the gaps if you will.
 
Logic and scientific method has god down to some pretty small gaps, like what happened the 1/1 millionth (or whatever the time was) between the big bang and the settling in of the laws of physics. After the laws settled in, pretty much everything else can be explained.
 
 
And that rotation thing is called gravity...

These “laws” are just what we deem to be operative for now, they come and go.

#34 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,646 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:58 PM

Some people here are very quick to discount the existence of God because of a lack of evidence.  Yet they approach their faith in climate change, absent evidence, with such certainty and zealotry.



#35 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,676 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:06 PM

It's very possible that we might not have brains evolved enough to understand the universe.  But that starts us down the road of not asking any questions, and just saying "god did it" - God of the gaps if you will.
 
Logic and scientific method has god down to some pretty small gaps, like what happened the 1/1 millionth (or whatever the time was) between the big bang and the settling in of the laws of physics. After the laws settled in, pretty much everything else can be explained.
 
 
And that rotation thing is called gravity...

These “laws” are just what we deem to be operative for now, they come and go.

They definitely started, at some point after the big bang. We can't be sure, but it seems reasonable that they will exist for the 100 billion years or so for the last stars to fade away, and I suppose they can exist even longer than that.  

 

There is no relevance to the question "before the big bang" as it's not possible to ascertain.  The laws of physics break down.   Feel free to create any answer you'd like, but realize that's just a logic based brain looking for cause/effect.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster myth works as well as any other.  As a human being, we're just not very comfortable with knowing only the effect, we need to know the cause, or invent something.  What we do know is that even nothing(empty space) is full of something - quantum mechanics is just damn weird. Too weird for me to understand let alone try to explain.



#36 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,676 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:09 PM

Some people here are very quick to discount the existence of God because of a lack of evidence.  Yet they approach their faith in climate change, absent evidence, with such certainty and zealotry.

 

The climate is most definitely changing, and will continue to change. For me one piece of irrefutable proof is in glacier bay.  Take a visit there, look at photos going back about 100 years.  Compare to what your eyes see.  It's different. Significantly.  

 

I think the debate is, is it human caused, and whether human caused or not, what the heck to do (if anything) about it.



#37 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,954 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:21 PM

I think the debate is, is it human caused, and whether human caused or not, what the heck to do (if anything) about it.

 

This is the framework in which I choose to operate.

 

IMHO, we cannot be helping by all the crap we release, be it into the air, water, or soil.

 

Maybe we should try to leave the Earth in better shape for future generations.



#38 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,918 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:26 PM

So.  

 

  1. Where did the universe come from?
  2. If it has not always existed what and how was it created.
  3. What created the thing that created the universe?
  4. Why is there a universe?
  5. What if there is no universe and I only think there is one.. There is  a fair amount of good evidence some of you are figments.
  6. Why are we self aware?
  7. How do we feel emotion. I don't mean how was the emotion stimulated. I mean how for we FEEL it. A computer can sense what emotion is appropriate in a certain context but it can't feel it.


#39 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,918 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:31 PM

I think the debate is, is it human caused, and whether human caused or not, what the heck to do (if anything) about it.

 

This is the framework in which I choose to operate.

 

IMHO, we cannot be helping by all the crap we release, be it into the air, water, or soil.

 

Maybe we should try to leave the Earth in better shape for future generations.

 

Why?

 

If there is no God and no afterlife and this is all any of us gets then why do we owe anything to posterity? there are no moral imperatives without a God. That sympathetic emotion you feel toward the Earth and anything else, for that matter, is just a chemical reaction. There is no morality in a chemical reaction. 



#40 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:33 PM

 

Now waiting to suffer for eternity seems darned near ironic or redundant, your choice. Why can't the Dickhead just get on with it? I can serve as an example to show good folks the right path. As an added benefit there'd be one less liberal.

>I am fully willing to accept the existence of a "supreme being".  There just isn't any evidence.  This God of yours is very good at h

iding.
There isn't any evidence god does not exist either.

nor is there evidence that the pink bunny, santa claus, thor, Ra, etc, etc, etc  "do not exist" either.

 

But it's pretty clear that none of them are needed to make the universe work.

 

What's the old adage, you can't prove a negative.

 

 

Look chief, God needs someone to laugh at... 



#41 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,848 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:33 PM

So.  

 

  1. Where did the universe come from?
  2. If it has not always existed what and how was it created.
  3. What created the thing that created the universe?
  4. Why is there a universe?
  5. What if there is no universe and I only think there is one.. There is  a fair amount of good evidence some of you are figments.
  6. Why are we self aware?
  7. How do we feel emotion. I don't mean how was the emotion stimulated. I mean how for we FEEL it. A computer can sense what emotion is appropriate in a certain context but it can't feel it.

question 1 and 2.

replace the word "universe" with the word "god"

 

take your time with your reply................



#42 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,848 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:37 PM

Some people here are very quick to discount the existence of God because of a lack of evidence.  Yet they approach their faith in climate change, absent evidence, with such certainty and zealotry.

climate change a faith? so there has never been an ice age? 



#43 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,646 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:51 PM

I think the debate is, is it human caused, and whether human caused or not, what the heck to do (if anything) about it.

 

This is the framework in which I choose to operate.

 

IMHO, we cannot be helping by all the crap we release, be it into the air, water, or soil.

 

Maybe we should try to leave the Earth in better shape for future generations.

 

I agree with Mike Wofsey - lets reduce carbon emissions because they contain poisonous particulates that enter our air and our water. 

 

I agree that we should try our best to leave the planet in good shape, but with emerging economies and population growth, it is highly unlikely we can leave it in better shape.

 

I was and still remain an atheist when it comes to embracing the doctrine of Climate Change.  I think more people like me would be more easily persuaded by Mike's argument.

 

The Flash -- RE: Glacier Bay

 

The Little Ice age reached its maximum extent here about 1750, when general melting began. Today's advance or retreat of a glacier snout reflects many factors: snowfall rate, topography, and climate trends. Glacial retreat continues today on the bay's east and southwest sides, but on its west side several glaciers are advancing. (link). 



#44 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,646 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:52 PM

Some people here are very quick to discount the existence of God because of a lack of evidence.  Yet they approach their faith in climate change, absent evidence, with such certainty and zealotry.

climate change a faith? so there has never been an ice age? 

 

I'm talking about "climate change" as a movement/ideology, not as a naturally occurring phenomenon.



#45 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,676 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:52 PM

So.  

 

  1. Where did the universe come from?
  2. If it has not always existed what and how was it created.
  3. What created the thing that created the universe?
  4. Why is there a universe?
  5. What if there is no universe and I only think there is one.. There is  a fair amount of good evidence some of you are figments.
  6. Why are we self aware?
  7. How do we feel emotion. I don't mean how was the emotion stimulated. I mean how for we FEEL it. A computer can sense what emotion is appropriate in a certain context but it can't feel it.

Thought I was on ignore, darn.  There are people much better able to answer these questions, but I'll give it a shot:

 

1: Don't know.  Pretty sure theoretical physicists are still working it, personally, I don't know that they will find an answer. We may not be able to. I do know that even in empty space, particles come into existence through the mechanism of quantum mechanics.   Now, just because I don't know, doesn't mean there is proof that a God that created it.  It's simply a "don't know."

2. See #1

3. see quantum mechanics for a possibility, but also a "don't know"

4. why?  strange question. There is no need for a Why.  

5. Could be one, could be many. No way to know.  As to figments, I have to trust my senses, as do we all. If we don't, then we might all be in the matrix and this is just a fun mental exercise.

6. Define please.

7. We are social creatures, ability to feel and sense emotion is an adaptive trait.  Works in dogs, chimps, lions, etc, etc, etc. Seems to work in birds as well.



#46 godolkin

godolkin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia
  • Interests:Sailing<br />Scuba diving

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:55 PM

Sorry but which god are we referring to?  happy jack thinks it refers to his dog or more accurately what his particular cult believes but lot's of other would disagree (sometimes violently) and that's just for the cults/sects in existence right now.  If we add all the gods of old into the equation we end up with a very high number (>10,000) so which dog is the one true one?  My money is on the New Guinean mud god 'Pikkiwoki' mainly because you get a pig and all the coconuts you can carry which is a good start for a bloody decent curry.

 

So my questions are - why do you believe in your particular dog and deny the existence of all the others?  What makes you so sure that your right? (is it the vibe of the thing or just how you were brought up?)



#47 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,262 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:59 PM

Sorry but which god are we referring to?  happy jack thinks it refers to his dog or more accurately what his particular cult believes but lot's of other would disagree (sometimes violently) and that's just for the cults/sects in existence right now.  If we add all the gods of old into the equation we end up with a very high number (>10,000) so which dog is the one true one?  My money is on the New Guinean mud god 'Pikkiwoki' mainly because you get a pig and all the coconuts you can carry which is a good start for a bloody decent curry.

 

So my questions are - why do you believe in your particular dog and deny the existence of all the others?  What makes you so sure that your right? (is it the vibe of the thing or just how you were brought up?)

 

There is a difference between god and religion.



#48 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,471 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:59 PM

 

 

Now waiting to suffer for eternity seems darned near ironic or redundant, your choice. Why can't the Dickhead just get on with it? I can serve as an example to show good folks the right path. As an added benefit there'd be one less liberal.

I am fully willing to accept the existence of a "supreme being".  There just isn't any evidence.  This God of yours is very good at h

iding.
There isn't any evidence god does not exist either.

 

What would that evidence look like?
It doesn’t exist, what could it possibly look like?

 

 Obama's Kenyan birth certificate, I reckon. 



#49 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,918 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 20 November 2013 - 12:00 AM

Sorry but which god are we referring to?  happy jack thinks it refers to his dog or more accurately what his particular cult believes but lot's of other would disagree (sometimes violently) and that's just for the cults/sects in existence right now.  If we add all the gods of old into the equation we end up with a very high number (>10,000) so which dog is the one true one?  My money is on the New Guinean mud god 'Pikkiwoki' mainly because you get a pig and all the coconuts you can carry which is a good start for a bloody decent curry.

 

So my questions are - why do you believe in your particular dog and deny the existence of all the others?  What makes you so sure that your right? (is it the vibe of the thing or just how you were brought up?)

 

There has always been just one. As I tried to explain with satire. There is an opponent to God. One of his tactics is to subvert and distort the one true Gods message. Hence so many divergent sects. A Mormon believes that most religion have a part of the truth but only one has the full truth. 

 

If there is a God and he has a message for us then I trust he created a way for us to receive that message.



#50 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 12:12 AM

Why strike you dead when he can just wait tor you to suffer for eternity? God's time is better spent watching over his flock. Your lifespan is an insignificant spec of time to him.

 

Him? 



#51 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,848 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 20 November 2013 - 12:18 AM

 

Some people here are very quick to discount the existence of God because of a lack of evidence.  Yet they approach their faith in climate change, absent evidence, with such certainty and zealotry.

climate change a faith? so there has never been an ice age? 

 

I'm talking about "climate change" as a movement/ideology, not as a naturally occurring phenomenon.

thank you.



#52 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,555 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 12:20 AM

Now waiting to suffer for eternity seems darned near ironic or redundant, your choice. Why can't the Dickhead just get on with it? I can serve as an example to show good folks the right path. As an added benefit there'd be one less liberal.

I am fully willing to accept the existence of a "supreme being".  There just isn't any evidence.  This God of yours is very good at hiding.

There isn't any evidence god does not exist either.
Biden specifically asked for Gods help yesterday with the ObamaCare launch.
Proof positive.

#53 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,848 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 20 November 2013 - 12:35 AM

like anyone else could help?



#54 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,646 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 12:38 AM

God is good when selling Obamacare, according to Michelle Obama.

 

“But we also understand one simple principle — that there but for the grace of God go I; that in the blink of an eye, any of us — any of us — could be faced with a terrible diagnosis. Any of us could be injured in a horrible accident. Any of us could lose the job we count on to support our family — any of us,” she said. (link)

 

Wow.  The President's wife invokes the power of God?  WTF, people?



#55 godolkin

godolkin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia
  • Interests:Sailing<br />Scuba diving

Posted 20 November 2013 - 12:44 AM

Sorry but which god are we referring to?  happy jack thinks it refers to his dog or more accurately what his particular cult believes but lot's of other would disagree (sometimes violently) and that's just for the cults/sects in existence right now.  If we add all the gods of old into the equation we end up with a very high number (>10,000) so which dog is the one true one?  My money is on the New Guinean mud god 'Pikkiwoki' mainly because you get a pig and all the coconuts you can carry which is a good start for a bloody decent curry.

 

So my questions are - why do you believe in your particular dog and deny the existence of all the others?  What makes you so sure that your right? (is it the vibe of the thing or just how you were brought up?)

 

There has always been just one. As I tried to explain with satire. There is an opponent to God. One of his tactics is to subvert and distort the one true Gods message. Hence so many divergent sects. A Mormon believes that most religion have a part of the truth but only one has the full truth. 

 

If there is a God and he has a message for us then I trust he created a way for us to receive that message.

And the only one that has the full truth is...............your particular cult?



#56 Point Break

Point Break

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,154 posts
  • Location:Long Beach, California

Posted 20 November 2013 - 12:45 AM

Just___-Just-Stop.jpg



#57 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:24 AM

Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

Hell from an engineering approach

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington engineering mid term. The answer was so profound that the Professor shared it with colleagues, which is why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or Endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law, (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

"First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:

If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa Banyan during my Freshman year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you." and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze."

This student received the only A.

#58 HardOnWind

HardOnWind

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts
  • Location:Tacoma, WA

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:25 AM

Can you use the same mathematical method to prove the existence of pussy? If it can't prove there is pussy then it can't prove there is God. There must be a theorem for that?

#59 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,782 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:28 AM

Explain Cancer, beautiful Sailing Anarchistas and Anarchists, and God.

Convince me.

#60 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,555 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:37 AM

God is good when selling Obamacare, according to Michelle Obama.

 

“But we also understand one simple principle — that there but for the grace of God go I; that in the blink of an eye, any of us — any of us — could be faced with a terrible diagnosis. Any of us could be injured in a horrible accident. Any of us could lose the job we count on to support our family — any of us,” she said. (link)

 

Wow.  The President's wife invokes the power of God?  WTF, people?

If Michelle says so, it must be true.



#61 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,848 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:45 AM

Explain Cancer, beautiful Sailing Anarchistas and Anarchists, and God.

Convince me.

some would say that the "beautiful Sailing Anarchistas and Anarchists" are an example of gods presence. cancer, however would be an absence of gods presence. that they can co-exist? fucked if i know



#62 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,163 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:46 AM

Go watch the Book Of Mormon.  It explains this perfectly.  



#63 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,848 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:47 AM

Can you use the same mathematical method to prove the existence of pussy? If it can't prove there is pussy then it can't prove there is God. There must be a theorem for that?

pussy.i can smell it, i can feel it, and i can taste it, and i like it enough to stick a valuable body part in it. i can't say the same about god



#64 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,848 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:49 AM

Sorry but which god are we referring to?  happy jack thinks it refers to his dog or more accurately what his particular cult believes but lot's of other would disagree (sometimes violently) and that's just for the cults/sects in existence right now.  If we add all the gods of old into the equation we end up with a very high number (>10,000) so which dog is the one true one?  My money is on the New Guinean mud god 'Pikkiwoki' mainly because you get a pig and all the coconuts you can carry which is a good start for a bloody decent curry.

 

So my questions are - why do you believe in your particular dog and deny the existence of all the others?  What makes you so sure that your right? (is it the vibe of the thing or just how you were brought up?)

 

There has always been just one. As I tried to explain with satire. There is an opponent to God. One of his tactics is to subvert and distort the one true Gods message. Hence so many divergent sects. A Mormon believes that most religion have a part of the truth but only one has the full truth. 

 

If there is a God and he has a message for us then I trust he created a way for us to receive that message.

 

 

Go watch the Book Of Mormon.  It explains this perfectly.  

do i need to bring a hat or do they supply one?



#65 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,163 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:58 AM

Go watch the Book Of Mormon.  It explains this perfectly.  

do i need to bring a hat or do they supply one?

Bring a rubber frog.  Trust me.



#66 mikeys clone no1

mikeys clone no1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,848 posts
  • Location:mikes left foot

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:08 AM

a rubber frog? wtf?



#67 HardOnWind

HardOnWind

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts
  • Location:Tacoma, WA

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:18 AM


Can you use the same mathematical method to prove the existence of pussy? If it can't prove there is pussy then it can't prove there is God. There must be a theorem for that?

pussy.i can smell it, i can feel it, and i can taste it, and i like it enough to stick a valuable body part in it. i can't say the same about god


That was my point exactly.

#68 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:28 AM




And when it comes god we have no empirical evidence for or against.

So you're saying the bible is bullshit?

No, I don't know if it' bullshit or not. I'm saying we have no empiricle evidence so it's faith based, like atheism.

Did someone say believer?

#69 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,340 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:31 AM

This thread proves one thing:  Happy ain't no scientist. 



#70 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,646 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:45 AM

How much does it bother you anti-God people that you can't get the reaction you want from people of faith no matter how much you torment them? 

 

How often do you anti-God people jump ugly on Muslims for their faith?

 

I was in diapers when a Catholic Papist was elected President.  Another famous assassinated President who freed the slaves gave credit to God.  Obama mentions God on a regular basis.

 

The Reverend Al Sharpton has his own show on MSNBC, he and the Reverend Jackson have run for President of these United States.

 

Religion in politics is good...sometimes.



#71 President Eisenhowler

President Eisenhowler

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,477 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:55 AM

Logic and belief don't go together - that's really all there is.
 
If you Believe, logic won't sway you.  Not in the short term anyway.
 
If you use logic, belief doesn't matter.  Evidence does.

And when it comes god we have no empirical evidence for or against.

 

What would emprical evidence against the existence of something look like?



#72 President Eisenhowler

President Eisenhowler

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,477 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 03:01 AM

 

I think the debate is, is it human caused, and whether human caused or not, what the heck to do (if anything) about it.

 

This is the framework in which I choose to operate.

 

IMHO, we cannot be helping by all the crap we release, be it into the air, water, or soil.

 

Maybe we should try to leave the Earth in better shape for future generations.

 

Why?

 

If there is no God and no afterlife and this is all any of us gets then why do we owe anything to posterity? there are no moral imperatives without a God. That sympathetic emotion you feel toward the Earth and anything else, for that matter, is just a chemical reaction. There is no morality in a chemical reaction. 

 

That's a weak argument that's easily defeated by, e.g., the Kantian imperative, or iterative prisoners' dliemma, etc.



#73 President Eisenhowler

President Eisenhowler

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,477 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 03:07 AM

 

Some people here are very quick to discount the existence of God because of a lack of evidence.  Yet they approach their faith in climate change, absent evidence, with such certainty and zealotry.

climate change a faith? so there has never been an ice age? 

 

I'm talking about "climate change" as a movement/ideology, not as a naturally occurring phenomenon.

The only way to have an intelligent conversation is to be specific about the proposition that you are either supporting or refuting. "I believe/don't believe in God/climate change" are not testable, refutable hypotheses.



#74 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,471 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 03:15 AM

How much does it bother you anti-God people that you can't get the reaction you want from people of faith no matter how much you torment them? 

 

How often do you anti-God people jump ugly on Muslims for their faith?

 

I was in diapers when a Catholic Papist was elected President.  Another famous assassinated President who freed the slaves gave credit to God.  Obama mentions God on a regular basis.

 

The Reverend Al Sharpton has his own show on MSNBC, he and the Reverend Jackson have run for President of these United States.

 

Religion in politics is good...sometimes.

 

   Have to let go of the good/bad binary thinking in "the art of the possible", aka: "politics", "diplomacy", et al. 

 

 Case in point: Modern Russia. The big mistake Pussy Riot made was in incorporating an assumed association with the budding RO church in their act. Turning the church against the state? Nyet!

 

  It's been heavily encouraged, courted, even chaperoned, into the world of post-Stalinist Russia. Vladi handles religion pragmatically and intelligently on the international front as well. 

 

 Russian President Vladimir Putin is in the process of reviving a tradition of Russian Church-State diplomacy in the Middle East that may hold the key to successfully solving the Syrian and Iranian crises.   In the course of these efforts, Russia is also in the process of greatly enhancing its power projection in the region and reopening large-scale arms sales to countries that been outside Russian reach since the fall of Nasser.  The Russian footprint in the Near East has greatly expanded.   After brokering the Syria chemical weapons deal and helping to enforce strict adherence by the Assad government, President Putin is pressing for the convening of a Geneva II conference to solve the real Syria crisis.  On Sunday, November 10, Putin initiated a telephone call with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.  While details of the phone conversation have been kept secret, it was notable that the very next day, the Saudi-linked head of the Syrian National Coalition, Ahmad al-Jarba announced that the group's leadership had agreed to participate in the Geneva II meeting without the precondition that Assad leave power.    

Simultaneous to the Putin-Abdullah talks, Russian foreign minister Lavrov and defense minister Shoigu made an historic visit to Cairo, where they reached a series of agreements, including a $2 billion arms sale which will be paid by Saudi Arabia.  In Cairo, Lavrov gave a defacto endorsement to the "non-coup" that took place in July with the ouster of President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood from power. 

As Lavrov and Shoigu were meeting with their Egyptian counterparts and Gen. al-Sissi, the foreign affairs director of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Hilarion, was in Beirut and Vatican City, promoting a joint Russian Orthodox-Catholic protection of the Christians living in the Levant. On November 25, President Putin will be in Rome to meet personally with Pope Francis I.  

All of these Russian diplomatic manuevers have a common objective:  to expand Russia's political, military and economic clout in the region, while helping to bring about an added degree of stability in the most volatile region in the world.  Russia has given Washington the lead role in pursuing the P5+1 agenda with Iran, given the apparent rapport that has developed between secretary of state Kerry and foreign minister Zarif.  Lavrov has recently praised Kerry's tireless work in pursuit of an interim agreement between Iran and the P5+1.  We could see the makings of a new arrangement among leading powers to bring a modicum of stability to the Persian Gulf and Near East.  

For President Obama, this would be a welcome relief from the collapse of his presidency into lame duck status or worse.  It burned him badly that Forbes magazine this week declared President Putin of Russia to be the most powerful leader in the world, with Obama coming in a very weak second.  But so what.



#75 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,646 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 03:35 AM

How much does it bother you anti-God people that you can't get the reaction you want from people of faith no matter how much you torment them? 

 

How often do you anti-God people jump ugly on Muslims for their faith?

 

I was in diapers when a Catholic Papist was elected President.  Another famous assassinated President who freed the slaves gave credit to God.  Obama mentions God on a regular basis.

 

The Reverend Al Sharpton has his own show on MSNBC, he and the Reverend Jackson have run for President of these United States.

 

Religion in politics is good...sometimes.

 

   Have to let go of the good/bad binary thinking in "the art of the possible", aka: "politics", "diplomacy", et al. 

 

 Case in point: Modern Russia. The big mistake Pussy Riot made was in incorporating an assumed association with the budding RO church in their act. Turning the church against the state? Nyet!

 

  It's been heavily encouraged, courted, even chaperoned, into the world of post-Stalinist Russia. Vladi handles religion pragmatically and intelligently on the international front as well. 

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin is in the process of reviving a tradition of Russian Church-State diplomacy in the Middle East that may hold the key to successfully solving the Syrian and Iranian crises.   In the course of these efforts, Russia is also in the process of greatly enhancing its power projection in the region and reopening large-scale arms sales to countries that been outside Russian reach since the fall of Nasser.  The Russian footprint in the Near East has greatly expanded.   After brokering the Syria chemical weapons deal and helping to enforce strict adherence by the Assad government, President Putin is pressing for the convening of a Geneva II conference to solve the real Syria crisis.  On Sunday, November 10, Putin initiated a telephone call with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.  While details of the phone conversation have been kept secret, it was notable that the very next day, the Saudi-linked head of the Syrian National Coalition, Ahmad al-Jarba announced that the group's leadership had agreed to participate in the Geneva II meeting without the precondition that Assad leave power.    

Simultaneous to the Putin-Abdullah talks, Russian foreign minister Lavrov and defense minister Shoigu made an historic visit to Cairo, where they reached a series of agreements, including a $2 billion arms sale which will be paid by Saudi Arabia.  In Cairo, Lavrov gave a defacto endorsement to the "non-coup" that took place in July with the ouster of President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood from power. 

As Lavrov and Shoigu were meeting with their Egyptian counterparts and Gen. al-Sissi, the foreign affairs director of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Hilarion, was in Beirut and Vatican City, promoting a joint Russian Orthodox-Catholic protection of the Christians living in the Levant. On November 25, President Putin will be in Rome to meet personally with Pope Francis I.  

All of these Russian diplomatic manuevers have a common objective:  to expand Russia's political, military and economic clout in the region, while helping to bring about an added degree of stability in the most volatile region in the world.  Russia has given Washington the lead role in pursuing the P5+1 agenda with Iran, given the apparent rapport that has developed between secretary of state Kerry and foreign minister Zarif.  Lavrov has recently praised Kerry's tireless work in pursuit of an interim agreement between Iran and the P5+1.  We could see the makings of a new arrangement among leading powers to bring a modicum of stability to the Persian Gulf and Near East.  

For President Obama, this would be a welcome relief from the collapse of his presidency into lame duck status or worse.  It burned him badly that Forbes magazine this week declared President Putin of Russia to be the most powerful leader in the world, with Obama coming in a very weak second.  But so what.

 

 

Crazy.  How could God Obama allow this to happen?



#76 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,163 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 20 November 2013 - 03:47 AM

a rubber frog? wtf?


If you go to the play, trust me. Bring the frog. Elder jack can explain.

#77 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,471 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 03:53 AM

 

How much does it bother you anti-God people that you can't get the reaction you want from people of faith no matter how much you torment them? 

 

How often do you anti-God people jump ugly on Muslims for their faith?

 

I was in diapers when a Catholic Papist was elected President.  Another famous assassinated President who freed the slaves gave credit to God.  Obama mentions God on a regular basis.

 

The Reverend Al Sharpton has his own show on MSNBC, he and the Reverend Jackson have run for President of these United States.

 

Religion in politics is good...sometimes.

 

   Have to let go of the good/bad binary thinking in "the art of the possible", aka: "politics", "diplomacy", et al. 

 

 Case in point: Modern Russia. The big mistake Pussy Riot made was in incorporating an assumed association with the budding RO church in their act. Turning the church against the state? Nyet!

 

  It's been heavily encouraged, courted, even chaperoned, into the world of post-Stalinist Russia. Vladi handles religion pragmatically and intelligently on the international front as well. 

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin is in the process of reviving a tradition of Russian Church-State diplomacy in the Middle East that may hold the key to successfully solving the Syrian and Iranian crises.   In the course of these efforts, Russia is also in the process of greatly enhancing its power projection in the region and reopening large-scale arms sales to countries that been outside Russian reach since the fall of Nasser.  The Russian footprint in the Near East has greatly expanded.   After brokering the Syria chemical weapons deal and helping to enforce strict adherence by the Assad government, President Putin is pressing for the convening of a Geneva II conference to solve the real Syria crisis.  On Sunday, November 10, Putin initiated a telephone call with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.  While details of the phone conversation have been kept secret, it was notable that the very next day, the Saudi-linked head of the Syrian National Coalition, Ahmad al-Jarba announced that the group's leadership had agreed to participate in the Geneva II meeting without the precondition that Assad leave power.    

Simultaneous to the Putin-Abdullah talks, Russian foreign minister Lavrov and defense minister Shoigu made an historic visit to Cairo, where they reached a series of agreements, including a $2 billion arms sale which will be paid by Saudi Arabia.  In Cairo, Lavrov gave a defacto endorsement to the "non-coup" that took place in July with the ouster of President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood from power. 

As Lavrov and Shoigu were meeting with their Egyptian counterparts and Gen. al-Sissi, the foreign affairs director of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Hilarion, was in Beirut and Vatican City, promoting a joint Russian Orthodox-Catholic protection of the Christians living in the Levant. On November 25, President Putin will be in Rome to meet personally with Pope Francis I.  

All of these Russian diplomatic manuevers have a common objective:  to expand Russia's political, military and economic clout in the region, while helping to bring about an added degree of stability in the most volatile region in the world.  Russia has given Washington the lead role in pursuing the P5+1 agenda with Iran, given the apparent rapport that has developed between secretary of state Kerry and foreign minister Zarif.  Lavrov has recently praised Kerry's tireless work in pursuit of an interim agreement between Iran and the P5+1.  We could see the makings of a new arrangement among leading powers to bring a modicum of stability to the Persian Gulf and Near East.  

For President Obama, this would be a welcome relief from the collapse of his presidency into lame duck status or worse.  It burned him badly that Forbes magazine this week declared President Putin of Russia to be the most powerful leader in the world, with Obama coming in a very weak second.  But so what.<

/span>

 

Crazy.  How could God Obama allow this to happen?

 

 

 Same way Tom Sawyer allowed a fence to be painted, I reckon. 



#78 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,676 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 20 November 2013 - 05:05 AM

How much does it bother you anti-God people that you can't get the reaction you want from people of faith no matter how much you torment them? 

 

How often do you anti-God people jump ugly on Muslims for their faith?

 

I was in diapers when a Catholic Papist was elected President.  Another famous assassinated President who freed the slaves gave credit to God.  Obama mentions God on a regular basis.

 

The Reverend Al Sharpton has his own show on MSNBC, he and the Reverend Jackson have run for President of these United States.

 

Religion in politics is good...sometimes.

 

Not looking for reaction, just responding to the OP.

 

It's obvious that leaders of both parties are believers, or at least claim they believe. They wouldn't be elected otherwise.

 

That doesn't mean I shouldn't challenge decisions that are based on religious belief if I find the decision to be plain, dumbass crazy.



#79 HardOnWind

HardOnWind

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts
  • Location:Tacoma, WA

Posted 20 November 2013 - 05:15 AM

Why doesn't God tweet? No tweeting no God.

#80 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,262 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 05:47 AM

 

 

I think the debate is, is it human caused, and whether human caused or not, what the heck to do (if anything) about it.

 

This is the framework in which I choose to operate.

 

IMHO, we cannot be helping by all the crap we release, be it into the air, water, or soil.

 

Maybe we should try to leave the Earth in better shape for future generations.

 

Why?

 

If there is no God and no afterlife and this is all any of us gets then why do we owe anything to posterity? there are no moral imperatives without a God. That sympathetic emotion you feel toward the Earth and anything else, for that matter, is just a chemical reaction. There is no morality in a chemical reaction. 

 

That's a weak argument that's easily defeated by, e.g., the Kantian imperative, or iterative prisoners' dliemma, etc.

 

Declaring something an imperative or dilemma doesn't make it so.  The Kantian imperative, for example, requires a firm definition of rational.  The prisoners dilemma requires an underlying moral framework.

 

Change the definition of rational or moral and they both fall apart.

 

But then, religion takes the values of a society and codifies them without the force of law to enforce them.  Pretty damn libertarian if you ask me.  Once a secular government comes in and makes those law it is a different story.



#81 austin1972

austin1972

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,851 posts
  • Location:Sandwich, IL

Posted 20 November 2013 - 06:20 AM

Proof already existed in the Babel fish.

 

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:


"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

 

 

4 book trilogies are the best trilogies.

Don't panic.



#82 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,918 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:50 AM

God is good when selling Obamacare, according to Michelle Obama.

 

“But we also understand one simple principle — that there but for the grace of God go I; that in the blink of an eye, any of us — any of us — could be faced with a terrible diagnosis. Any of us could be injured in a horrible accident. Any of us could lose the job we count on to support our family — any of us,” she said. (link)

 

Wow.  The President's wife invokes the power of God?  WTF, people?

 

She just threw "separation" under the bus.



#83 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,918 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 20 November 2013 - 08:12 AM

How much does it bother you anti-God people that you can't get the reaction you want from people of faith no matter how much you torment them? 

 

How often do you anti-God people jump ugly on Muslims for their faith?

 

I was in diapers when a Catholic Papist was elected President.  Another famous assassinated President who freed the slaves gave credit to God.  Obama mentions God on a regular basis.

 

The Reverend Al Sharpton has his own show on MSNBC, he and the Reverend Jackson have run for President of these United States.

 

Religion in politics is good...sometimes.

 

You misspelled "entertain".

 

On a serious note. Somewhere on this forum, I wish I could find it, i asked one of them why Obama invokes God and why they never challenge him on it. They answered directly, in what I am convinced is one of the few times a liberal has not weaseled on answer, because that is the only way you can get elected. 

 

A comment that is ripe with sub-text, e.g.

 

  1. Obama is an atheist
  2. Obama lied to get elected
  3. The Democrat elite knew it was a lie
  4. Democrats think lying is OK if it helps you win
  5. The Democrat base is biased against atheists
  6. The Democrat elite think their base is too stupid to see the duplicity

Edited by Happy Jack, 20 November 2013 - 08:16 AM.


#84 Keith

Keith

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,806 posts
  • Location:Vancouver B.C.

Posted 20 November 2013 - 08:36 AM

Why doesn't God tweet? No tweeting no God.

Ding ding winner winner chicken dinner............



#85 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,918 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 20 November 2013 - 08:51 AM

Why doesn't God tweet? No tweeting no God.

Ding ding winner winner chicken dinner............

 

Only AT&T services heaven and you know how bad their coverage is...



#86 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,340 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 12:51 PM

How much does it bother you anti-God people that you can't get the reaction you want from people of faith no matter how much you torment them? 

 

How often do you anti-God people jump ugly on Muslims for their faith?

 

I was in diapers when a Catholic Papist was elected President.  Another famous assassinated President who freed the slaves gave credit to God.  Obama mentions God on a regular basis.

 

The Reverend Al Sharpton has his own show on MSNBC, he and the Reverend Jackson have run for President of these United States.

 

Religion in politics is good...sometimes.

 

You misspelled "entertain".

 

On a serious note. Somewhere on this forum, I wish I could find it, i asked one of them why Obama invokes God and why they never challenge him on it. They answered directly, in what I am convinced is one of the few times a liberal has not weaseled on answer, because that is the only way you can get elected. 

 

A comment that is ripe with sub-text, e.g.

 

  1. Obama is an atheist
  2. Obama lied to get elected
  3. The Democrat elite knew it was a lie
  4. Democrats think lying is OK if it helps you win
  5. The Democrat base is biased against atheists
  6. The Democrat elite think their base is too stupid to see the duplicity

Gee, if only Obama would state that Proof of God has been Scientifically Proven we might get somewhere. 

 

Happy Jack's Dagger Bored Malarkey Company has nowhere to go but downhill.



#87 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,954 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:11 PM

 

I think the debate is, is it human caused, and whether human caused or not, what the heck to do (if anything) about it.

 

This is the framework in which I choose to operate.

 

IMHO, we cannot be helping by all the crap we release, be it into the air, water, or soil.

 

Maybe we should try to leave the Earth in better shape for future generations.

 

Why?

 

If there is no God and no afterlife and this is all any of us gets then why do we owe anything to posterity? there are no moral imperatives without a God. That sympathetic emotion you feel toward the Earth and anything else, for that matter, is just a chemical reaction. There is no morality in a chemical reaction. 

 

Because I love my children more than I could ever fathom.  You say you are a father.  Do you?

 

Sometimes, a little selflessness is in order and we make sacrifices for our children.  Do you?



#88 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,163 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:25 PM

People of weak character and moral fiber require a god to fortify their imperfections.

#89 SNEEZY

SNEEZY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:27 PM

That is just stupid BD. Please stop being stupid, you're a teacher.

 

Do you know a father who would not sacrifice anything for his kids?

 

Can we work towards sensible discussion while some of the idiots are on time out please?



#90 SNEEZY

SNEEZY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:30 PM

Bugger! Idiot Ed snuck in.



#91 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,918 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:50 PM

 

 

I think the debate is, is it human caused, and whether human caused or not, what the heck to do (if anything) about it.

 

This is the framework in which I choose to operate.

 

IMHO, we cannot be helping by all the crap we release, be it into the air, water, or soil.

 

Maybe we should try to leave the Earth in better shape for future generations.

 

Why?

 

If there is no God and no afterlife and this is all any of us gets then why do we owe anything to posterity? there are no moral imperatives without a God. That sympathetic emotion you feel toward the Earth and anything else, for that matter, is just a chemical reaction. There is no morality in a chemical reaction. 

 

Because I love my children more than I could ever fathom.  You say you are a father.  Do you?

 

Sometimes, a little selflessness is in order and we make sacrifices for our children.  Do you?

 

You are just being duped by your hormonal chemical reactions.

 

You are the Dope in Dopamine.



#92 SNEEZY

SNEEZY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:55 PM

Right here BD, right now. Just scroll your wheel and don't worry.

 

It's not worth a response.



#93 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,918 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:57 PM

Right here BD, right now. Just scroll your wheel and don't worry.

 

It's not worth a response.

 

If you can make that happen I'll send you a nice present.



#94 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,954 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:13 PM

You are the Dope in Dopamine.

 

"Insults are the virtual guns of Blograge" - Happy Jack 
 

You normally have to pay for this type of entertainment.



#95 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,116 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:25 PM

it was funny..

 

a rubber frog? wtf?


If you go to the play, trust me. Bring the frog. Elder jack can explain.


#96 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,223 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:43 PM

I am always fascinated by those who equate to a deity in a corporal sense. Not sure which this demonstrates more, arrogance or a lack of scientific curiosity.



#97 soak_ed

soak_ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • Location:Poland

Posted 20 November 2013 - 06:35 PM

I am always fascinated by those who equate to a deity in a corporal sense. Not sure which this demonstrates more, arrogance or a lack of scientific curiosity.

God did not create man, man created god.  If you view it that way, it answers almost every theological question.  Except Mormons. The answer to Mormons is polygamy.



#98 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,676 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 20 November 2013 - 06:44 PM

I am always fascinated by those who equate to a deity in a corporal sense. Not sure which this demonstrates more, arrogance or a lack of scientific curiosity.

God did not create man, man created god.  If you view it that way, it answers almost every theological question.  Except Mormons. The answer to Mormons is was desire for polygamy.

 

a bit of an edit

 

 

a bit like Koresh, etc



#99 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,729 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 20 November 2013 - 06:56 PM

 

I think the debate is, is it human caused, and whether human caused or not, what the heck to do (if anything) about it.

 

This is the framework in which I choose to operate.

 

IMHO, we cannot be helping by all the crap we release, be it into the air, water, or soil.

 

Maybe we should try to leave the Earth in better shape for future generations.

 

Why?

 

If there is no God and no afterlife and this is all any of us gets then why do we owe anything to posterity? there are no moral imperatives without a God. That sympathetic emotion you feel toward the Earth and anything else, for that matter, is just a chemical reaction. There is no morality in a chemical reaction. 

 

News to me.  Morality exists outside of the framework of religion for many, and is conspicuously absent among many of the supposed devout.  The two have little to do with one another as far as I can tell.



#100 TornadoCAN99

TornadoCAN99

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,816 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:29 PM


 


I think the debate is, is it human caused, and whether human caused or not, what the heck to do (if anything) about it.

 

This is the framework in which I choose to operate.

 

IMHO, we cannot be helping by all the crap we release, be it into the air, water, or soil.

 

Maybe we should try to leave the Earth in better shape for future generations.

 

Why?

 

If there is no God and no afterlife and this is all any of us gets then why do we owe anything to posterity? there are no moral imperatives without a God. That sympathetic emotion you feel toward the Earth and anything else, for that matter, is just a chemical reaction. There is no morality in a chemical reaction. 

 

Wrong.

 

See the many examples of moral behaviour in the animal kingdom...

Wiki has a few good references on the matter:

The basic reason that social animals live in groups is that opportunities for survival and reproduction are much better in groups than living alone. The social behaviors of mammals are more familiar to humans. Highly social mammals such as primates and elephants have been known to exhibit traits that were once thought to be uniquely human, like empathy and altruism.[3][4]

 

 

Further, if there are no moral imperatives without god, then how do you account for the fact that millions of atheists around the world are not amoral?

 

Or, are you saying animals also believe in gods?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users