Xargon can easily just have his name changed to "God" or "Whatever the hell your deities name is" , pagans worship many apsects of a creator, we all do in some way, hell athiests use science as much as the "Religious" use a god to back their argument. If a person wishes to worship a Speghetti Monster that's fine, in the end it's the same as a christian worshipping the god of the jews or a pagan worshipping say "Pan". If a person can ponder it, concieve it in their minds, it does exist; just not corpreal. Thats religion baby. Still okay with your debate?
That would be nice in a perfect world. If we could jsut leave eachother alone then everything would be fine and dandy. However, that's not going to happen anytime soon. The christians and atheists are constantly at each others throats, the christians are sending missionaries to 3rd world countries to 'save' them, which makes other religions feel threatened. So in short, every religion, and every belief is constantly in conflict with one another. Why? Because each one is fundamentally different. One believes that this and the other believes that, etc.
Oh, and in answer to your last question, I am still perfectly ok with my debate
Well I disagree, all religions are fundementally the same. They all follow the same basic forms , in different ways of course, I'm not speaking for christians it's not my faith, I'm speaking of religion in whole. Worship is worship, prayer is prayer, whether it's magic or asking a god to do whatever for whatever reason.
People are at eachothers throats only because short sight and the lack of ability to cope tha t others just might be different.
In a perfect world none of this would exist, but then again we are humans and when you human+god(s) you'll get =conflict.
Same as debates on a forum, but in this case people die for it. See you are arguing for one set religion, christianity wasn't the first to "invent" god, I'm saying all of religion as a whole.
It's all the same thing, fundementals and all, and as I must add yet again "Just differently".
No one can disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, there he exists.
Lol how to wrap up an entire discussion in a single sentence.
Nice one
Hardly a wrap up mate, actually it just added to the discussion.
The flaw of the speghetti monster is the fact no one is even making attempts to disprove if such a thing exists, there aren't "armies" of folks seeking to disprove or prove is said Flying Spehgetti Monster exists, further more there is evidence to prove more so it does exist.
See the "extra-ultra-new testiment X", it goes into much detail on how the Flying Spehgetti monster was resurrected after Geno the janitor got hungry one late night.
Nor is anyone really able to prove that the Flying Spehgetti's father did not create the meatball of life in 7 days.
Regardless anyone trying to disprove him is an idiot and will be not be listened to. I have my hands over my ears as well as my eyes now.
Back to porn I go.
You are completely agreeing with the one liner mate, I don't undertstand why you bothered yourself with a long explanation.
Atheists cannot disprove religions and the existence of God, because this existance is based on faith rather than well documented facts.
That shows you how easy is for religious people to defend their faith just saying that no one cannot disprove their belief.
But the fact that people cannot disprove it, doesn't make it the truth.
I believe in Mr Fart, and noone can disprove it exists.
So what else can you add to the discussion, if you will never be able to prove me that Mr Fart doesn't exist, I won, end of discussion.
Or are you going to make up a theory just for the joy of debating.
No one can disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, there he exists.
Lol how to wrap up an entire discussion in a single sentence.
Nice one
Hardly a wrap up mate, actually it just added to the discussion.
The flaw of the speghetti monster is the fact no one is even making attempts to disprove if such a thing exists, there aren't "armies" of folks seeking to disprove or prove is said Flying Spehgetti Monster exists, further more there is evidence to prove more so it does exist.
See the "extra-ultra-new testiment X", it goes into much detail on how the Flying Spehgetti monster was resurrected after Geno the janitor got hungry one late night.
Nor is anyone really able to prove that the Flying Spehgetti's father did not create the meatball of life in 7 days.
Regardless anyone trying to disprove him is an idiot and will be not be listened to. I have my hands over my ears as well as my eyes now.
Back to porn I go.
You are completely agreeing with the one liner mate, I don't undertstand why you bothered yourself with a long explanation.
Atheists cannot disprove religions and the existence of God, because this existance is based on faith rather than well documented facts.
That shows you how easy is for religious people to defend their faith just saying that no one cannot disprove their belief.
But the fact that people cannot disprove it, doesn't make it the truth.
I believe in Mr Fart, and noone can disprove it exists.
So what else can you add to the discussion, if you will never be able to prove me that Mr Fart doesn't exist, I won.
Although I would look stupid in believing in Mr Fart, but ehi I think is more fun than God, so bring him on.
Dude, all that yellow text was built as a joke. The purple was of course what I was going to back to.
Christ on a cracker, do people have to "lol","lmao",or "rofl" themselves to make something apparent as a joke?
Maybe had I added a LMAOROLF or something the subtle (not really) joke would be apparent.
I was essentially mocking the stupid abstract, simply because I've heard crap like that before and it boggles the mind how one can assume their creation can be akin to one that has 1000's of years of mythos based on it.
I'm sure in a thousand years if someone unearths that arguement they may find merit, but using abstracts such as that just add to mock bait.
No one can disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, there he exists.
Lol how to wrap up an entire discussion in a single sentence.
Nice one
Hardly a wrap up mate, actually it just added to the discussion.
The flaw of the speghetti monster is the fact no one is even making attempts to disprove if such a thing exists, there aren't "armies" of folks seeking to disprove or prove is said Flying Spehgetti Monster exists, further more there is evidence to prove more so it does exist.
See the "extra-ultra-new testiment X", it goes into much detail on how the Flying Spehgetti monster was resurrected after Geno the janitor got hungry one late night.
Nor is anyone really able to prove that the Flying Spehgetti's father did not create the meatball of life in 7 days.
Regardless anyone trying to disprove him is an idiot and will be not be listened to. I have my hands over my ears as well as my eyes now.
Back to porn I go.
You are completely agreeing with the one liner mate, I don't undertstand why you bothered yourself with a long explanation.
Atheists cannot disprove religions and the existence of God, because this existance is based on faith rather than well documented facts.
That shows you how easy is for religious people to defend their faith just saying that no one cannot disprove their belief.
But the fact that people cannot disprove it, doesn't make it the truth.
I believe in Mr Fart, and noone can disprove it exists.
So what else can you add to the discussion, if you will never be able to prove me that Mr Fart doesn't exist, I won.
Although I would look stupid in believing in Mr Fart, but ehi I think is more fun than God, so bring him on.
Dude, all that yellow text was built as a joke. The purple was of course what I was going to back to.
Christ on a cracker, do people have to "lol","lmao",or "rofl" themselves to make something apparent as a joke?
Maybe had I added a LMAOROLF or something the subtle (not really) joke would be apparent.
I was essentially mocking the stupid abstract, simply because I've heard crap like that before and it boggles the mind how one can assume their creation can be akin to one that has 1000's of years of mythos based on it.
I'm sure in a thousand years if someone unearths that arguement they may find merit, but using abstracts such as that just add to mock bait.
I thought you were taking the piss.
But then yu replied to Walakea so I thought you could actually be serious
No one can disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, there he exists.
Lol how to wrap up an entire discussion in a single sentence.
Nice one
Hardly a wrap up mate, actually it just added to the discussion.
The flaw of the speghetti monster is the fact no one is even making attempts to disprove if such a thing exists, there aren't "armies" of folks seeking to disprove or prove is said Flying Spehgetti Monster exists, further more there is evidence to prove more so it does exist.
See the "extra-ultra-new testiment X", it goes into much detail on how the Flying Spehgetti monster was resurrected after Geno the janitor got hungry one late night.
Nor is anyone really able to prove that the Flying Spehgetti's father did not create the meatball of life in 7 days.
Regardless anyone trying to disprove him is an idiot and will be not be listened to. I have my hands over my ears as well as my eyes now.
Back to porn I go.
You are completely agreeing with the one liner mate, I don't undertstand why you bothered yourself with a long explanation.
Atheists cannot disprove religions and the existence of God, because this existance is based on faith rather than well documented facts.
That shows you how easy is for religious people to defend their faith just saying that no one cannot disprove their belief.
But the fact that people cannot disprove it, doesn't make it the truth.
I believe in Mr Fart, and noone can disprove it exists.
So what else can you add to the discussion, if you will never be able to prove me that Mr Fart doesn't exist, I won.
Although I would look stupid in believing in Mr Fart, but ehi I think is more fun than God, so bring him on.
Dude, all that yellow text was built as a joke. The purple was of course what I was going to back to.
Christ on a cracker, do people have to "lol","lmao",or "rofl" themselves to make something apparent as a joke?
Maybe had I added a LMAOROLF or something the subtle (not really) joke would be apparent.
I was essentially mocking the stupid abstract, simply because I've heard crap like that before and it boggles the mind how one can assume their creation can be akin to one that has 1000's of years of mythos based on it.
I'm sure in a thousand years if someone unearths that arguement they may find merit, but using abstracts such as that just add to mock bait.
I thought you were taking the piss.
But then yu replied to Walakea so I thought you could actually be serious
I'm serious on matters that make sense, not on this stuff.
See that cat took a simple thought and overexagerated it.
Alls my quote means, is that for every person out there who finds god doesn't exist , it empowers a true believer that much more, they consider it a test.
That guy though, boy... talk about taking simplisity (which is best), and making it over complicated and using rediculous abstracts, comparing say "christian faith" (which he/she/it seems to have issues with) to a abstract some other guy with issues against christianity used to battle the god theory, and was thusly shot down because well...where are the texts or even oral passdowns of this monster. See most faith based religions have this thing called "lore" , this guy just pops that speghetti crap down because it makes people laugh to think of it, and thusly easy to laugh at a guy who has faith.
I'm serious on matters that make sense, not on this stuff. See that cat took a simple thought and overexagerated it. Alls my quote means, is that for every person out there who finds god doesn't exist , it empowers a true believer that much more, they consider it a test. That guy though, boy... talk about taking simplisity (which is best), and making it over complicated and using rediculous abstracts, comparing say "christian faith" (which he/she/it seems to have issues with) to a abstract some other guy with issues against christianity used to battle the god theory, and was thusly shot down because well...where are the texts or even oral passdowns of this monster. See most faith based religions have this thing called "lore" , this guy just pops that speghetti crap down because it makes people laugh to think of it, and thusly easy to laugh at a guy who has faith.
The simple matter is that all these arguments to justify ones' belief in a deity can be used to justify ones' belief in anything. Which is dangerous and illogical, to say the least. Maybe now I'm going to believe that I'm inside the matrix, maybe then I should pick up a gun and start killing all the 'agents' I can find. Maybe I'll believe that gravity doesn't exist. Maybe I'll kidnap a child and throw it off a cliff to prove to the world how stupid they are for believing in science.
I'll let you know which thing I decided to put my faith in as soon as I get released from jail
Show me a scientific bonfied 100% proof there is no god.
I'll show you newton's laws, gravity exists. If you want to believe you are in some movie script scenerio IE matrix, feel free to, hell shoot whatever you like, aint my problem. I'm not even gonna touch the kidnapping thing because well, it's just plain sick.
It's a simple matter to understand you are grasping at straws at this point.
It's a simple matter that the more abstract one becomes, it's because they cannot place proper filler in their writings.
It's a simple matter that you have a beef with christians, and you simply fail to realize that these people will defend their religion no matter how many e=mc2's you toss up.
The more and more ones such as yourself pop out of whatever angst filled christian hating science wings, the more and more you empower believers, thats irony good sir.
Faith is illogical, but if you put faith in role playing you are a matrix running kidnapping gun toting loon, thats your deal, just don't compare such stupid abstracts to peoples faith, you insult them more than anything.
If you can't see that then you are probally just a child who tries to talk like an adult.
Take note I'm buddahist, not christian. I can see where you try to go, but you either A). Just wanna argue about faith or . just care to stir up trouble like so many folks tend to do. Eitherway you fail.
Show me a scientific bonfied 100% proof there is no god. I'll show you newton's laws, gravity exists. If you want to believe you are in some movie script scenerio IE matrix, feel free to, hell shoot whatever you like, aint my problem. I'm not even gonna touch the kidnapping thing because well, it's just plain sick.
It's a simple matter to understand you are grasping at straws at this point. It's a simple matter that the more abstract one becomes, it's because they cannot place proper filler in their writings. It's a simple matter that you have a beef with christians, and you simply fail to realize that these people will defend their religion no matter how many e=mc2's you toss up. The more and more ones such as yourself pop out of whatever angst filled christian hating science wings, the more and more you empower believers, thats irony good sir. Faith is illogical, but if you put faith in role playing you are a matrix running kidnapping gun toting loon, thats your deal, just don't compare such stupid abstracts to peoples faith, you insult them more than anything. If you can't see that then you are probally just a child who tries to talk like an adult. Take note I'm buddahist, not christian. I can see where you try to go, but you either A). Just wanna argue about faith or . just care to stir up trouble like so many folks tend to do. Eitherway you fail.
This isn't about proving the exiostence of god, this is about believing in something that may very well not exist.
are you sure you aren't a christian? You seem awfully protective of them, and you keep accusing me of attacking christian. You are right, I do jsut want to talk about faith, because that's the direction that this thread has taken. Antyuhng wrong with debating about faith without name calling and unfounded accusations? It seems to me that you are the child. Your arguments are very aggressive. Just chill, dude. This is just a forum. This is just a debate. No one can win a debate, nor can one lose, we can only share ideas and arguments. So stop trying to win. This isn't soccer practice .
You say that there's a big difference between my matrix example and the idea that faith in god is justified to a certain extent, but you haven't ellaborated, you have simply made such statements as if they're written in stone.
There's nothing more to discuss, unless someone else adds something. I know that you will reply to me with more name calling and passive aggressive crap, but I no longer care. I only hope that you cool down before you read this.
Show me a scientific bonfied 100% proof there is no god. I'll show you newton's laws, gravity exists. If you want to believe you are in some movie script scenerio IE matrix, feel free to, hell shoot whatever you like, aint my problem. I'm not even gonna touch the kidnapping thing because well, it's just plain sick.
It's a simple matter to understand you are grasping at straws at this point. It's a simple matter that the more abstract one becomes, it's because they cannot place proper filler in their writings. It's a simple matter that you have a beef with christians, and you simply fail to realize that these people will defend their religion no matter how many e=mc2's you toss up. The more and more ones such as yourself pop out of whatever angst filled christian hating science wings, the more and more you empower believers, thats irony good sir. Faith is illogical, but if you put faith in role playing you are a matrix running kidnapping gun toting loon, thats your deal, just don't compare such stupid abstracts to peoples faith, you insult them more than anything. If you can't see that then you are probally just a child who tries to talk like an adult. Take note I'm buddahist, not christian. I can see where you try to go, but you either A). Just wanna argue about faith or . just care to stir up trouble like so many folks tend to do. Eitherway you fail.
This isn't about proving the exiostence of god, this is about believing in something that may very well not exist.
are you sure you aren't a christian? You seem awfully protective of them, and you keep accusing me of attacking christian. You are right, I do jsut want to talk about faith, because that's the direction that this thread has taken. Antyuhng wrong with debating about faith without name calling and unfounded accusations? It seems to me that you are the child. Your arguments are very aggressive. Just chill, dude. This is just a forum. This is just a debate. No one can win a debate, nor can one lose, we can only share ideas and arguments. So stop trying to win. This isn't soccer practice .
You say that there's a big difference between my matrix example and the idea that faith in god is justified to a certain extent, but you haven't ellaborated, you have simply made such statements as if they're written in stone.
There's nothing more to discuss, unless someone else adds something. I know that you will reply to me with more name calling and passive aggressive crap, but I no longer care. I only hope that you cool down before you read this.
First off, passive agressive? Man I'm just plain agressive when someone calls out a whole faith that is.
Your 'god' is omnipotent (all powerful), correct?
He is also believed to be THE creator of everything, nothing is beyond his control, correct?
You went and gathered all the kindling, the wood, and even the matches to light the fire, but once you light it you sudden flinch with abstracts about maxtrix theories, which if you believe that, that is fine by me. Hell I don't care if you believe the universe is a toilet for inter-spacial demos of the quasi plains of shrug niggaroth.
Seriously I don't care. But your debates are attacking faiths man. You aren't just looking for a "what if" or even a conversation you are trying to get a rise out of folks. If that first sentence didn't prove that the second easily does.
I'm not name calling, not at all I'm speculating "just as you are", sucks on the otherside of the fence doesn't it?
Except instead of speculating a faith , I'm speculating the person.
I'm pretty sure when I go to temple that I am not christian however I see that for the most parts all faiths are one in someway or another, science may save lives and stave off ignorance, but faith gives people lives to live.
If I were trying to win I'd of won already, you use enough abstracts to gloss the surface, but as soon as you get too deep you sink like a stone.
And now you play the victim role, a very good role.. If you are a victim. You are right this is a forum and many opinions are formed, you are just as agressive as myself, you just play over with the "oh my why are you attacking me" role so many tend to fall back on.
If God doesn't need an explanation to his/her existence, then why does universe need one? Religious people can't seem to accept the Bigbang and Evolution theory, yet they welcome a story of a supreme being with open arms. I guess a made up explanation is better than no explanation at all..
First off, passive agressive? Man I'm just plain agressive when someone calls out a whole faith that is.
Your 'god' is omnipotent (all powerful), correct? He is also believed to be THE creator of everything, nothing is beyond his control, correct? You went and gathered all the kindling, the wood, and even the matches to light the fire, but once you light it you sudden flinch with abstracts about maxtrix theories, which if you believe that, that is fine by me. Hell I don't care if you believe the universe is a toilet for inter-spacial demos of the quasi plains of shrug niggaroth. Seriously I don't care. But your debates are attacking faiths man. You aren't just looking for a "what if" or even a conversation you are trying to get a rise out of folks. If that first sentence didn't prove that the second easily does. I'm not name calling, not at all I'm speculating "just as you are", sucks on the otherside of the fence doesn't it? Except instead of speculating a faith , I'm speculating the person. I'm pretty sure when I go to temple that I am not christian however I see that for the most parts all faiths are one in someway or another, science may save lives and stave off ignorance, but faith gives people lives to live. If I were trying to win I'd of won already, you use enough abstracts to gloss the surface, but as soon as you get too deep you sink like a stone. And now you play the victim role, a very good role.. If you are a victim. You are right this is a forum and many opinions are formed, you are just as agressive as myself, you just play over with the "oh my why are you attacking me" role so many tend to fall back on.
I fail to see why the matrix thing is a world apart from this current debate. The matrix is based on the famous questions that Renes Descartes asked. He asked how we can prove that we aren't being decieved by the devil (which links directly back to christianity. We can't really prove that we aren't being decieved. We can't really disprove that we are in a virtual world.
But when you said that the best way to prove the existence of a god is to first attempt to disprove him. I merely pointed out that using that logic, we can say that anything fictional is actually real. This is madness.
If God doesn't need an explanation to his/her existence, then why does universe need one? Religious people can't seem to accept the Bigbang and Evolution theory, yet they welcome a story of a supreme being with open arms. I guess a made up explanation is better than no explanation at all..
I actually tend to believe that whatever higher power there is, had a hand in all of things.
Science and faith can co-exist if they'd stop dueling.
First off, passive agressive? Man I'm just plain agressive when someone calls out a whole faith that is.
Your 'god' is omnipotent (all powerful), correct? He is also believed to be THE creator of everything, nothing is beyond his control, correct? You went and gathered all the kindling, the wood, and even the matches to light the fire, but once you light it you sudden flinch with abstracts about maxtrix theories, which if you believe that, that is fine by me. Hell I don't care if you believe the universe is a toilet for inter-spacial demos of the quasi plains of shrug niggaroth. Seriously I don't care. But your debates are attacking faiths man. You aren't just looking for a "what if" or even a conversation you are trying to get a rise out of folks. If that first sentence didn't prove that the second easily does. I'm not name calling, not at all I'm speculating "just as you are", sucks on the otherside of the fence doesn't it? Except instead of speculating a faith , I'm speculating the person. I'm pretty sure when I go to temple that I am not christian however I see that for the most parts all faiths are one in someway or another, science may save lives and stave off ignorance, but faith gives people lives to live. If I were trying to win I'd of won already, you use enough abstracts to gloss the surface, but as soon as you get too deep you sink like a stone. And now you play the victim role, a very good role.. If you are a victim. You are right this is a forum and many opinions are formed, you are just as agressive as myself, you just play over with the "oh my why are you attacking me" role so many tend to fall back on.
I fail to see why the matrix thing is a world apart from this current debate. The matrix is based on the famous questions that Renes Descartes asked. He asked how we can prove that we aren't being decieved by the devil (which links directly back to christianity. We can't really prove that we aren't being decieved. We can't really disprove that we are in a virtual world.
But when you said that the best way to prove the existence of a god is to first attempt to disprove him. I merely pointed out that using that logic, we can say that anything fictional is actually real. This is madness.
Anything can be real, just not corpreal, if it's realized it's real.
The reason the matrix is a world apart is simple, even if we were part of a machine would the defeat faith? Would the matrix prevent a "god" from doing his/her job? Would it make them anyless powerful? Would it make the "afterlife" the recycling bin of the construct?
Like I said I could care less if you believe in a speghetti monster stuck in the matrix, if it's your higher power, then good for you because in the end everything is the same to me, I'll hop on a soap box for a hindu as much as I will for a christian, it's just my way.
Now the afterlife (if there is such a thing) would make for a more interesting topic.
It defeats faith as some people have come to the conclusion that they are inside the matrix, and these people spent their last few hours in this life randomly shooting people. How is this any different from when people kill in the name of their deity?
To reiterate an older point. If you justify faith the way you have, then anyone can justfiy crimes through any kind of fiction, which would create a dystopia for us seeing as there are so many stories out there, so many deities and so many systems of belief. Therefore absolute belief is dangerous. Absolute belief in science is just as dangerous.
Believe me, I too want faith and logic towalk hand-in-hand, but that's jsut not going to happen anytime soon. The majority of all groups fear the other groups, fear breeds hatred. Hatred leads to conflict.
Show me a scientific bonfied 100% proof there is no god.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Extravagant claims require extravagant proof. You have claimed that the universe has a creator. The burden of proof is on you.
As a skeptic, I assume that everything is false until proven true. Thus far, no religious person, of any faith, has managed to convince me that:
There is a God
That the creator of the universe, if there truly is such a thing, would have any vested interest in my existence.
You can't prove a negative. However, you CAN prove that something DOES IN FACT exist. The fact that you haven't been able to convince anyone of any intellectual integrity of the existence of God places more than a shadow of a doubt over your claims.
Flying Spaghetti Monster descended and spoke to me in a dream last night. He said we should build a church in my honor - for I am a true profit, er prophet of the Monster. Send me all your money so we can get it built.
You don't want to spend eternity in hell, do you?
Edit: I accept ISK.
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
Flying Spaghetti Monster descended and spoke to me in a dream last night. He said we should build a church in my honor - for I am a true profit, er prophet of the Monster. Send me all your money so we can get it built. You don't wan't to spend eternity in hell, do you?
I do. I hear they serve cold coffee there. Those guys thought of everything!
Show me a scientific bonfied 100% proof there is no god.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Extravagant claims require extravagant proof. You have claimed that the universe has a creator. The burden of proof is on you.
As a skeptic, I assume that everything is false until proven true. Thus far, no religious person, of any faith, has managed to convince me that:
There is a God
That the creator of the universe, if there truly is such a thing, would have any vested interest in my existence.
You can't prove a negative. However, you CAN prove that something DOES IN FACT exist. The fact that you haven't been able to convince anyone of any intellectual integrity of the existence of God places more than a shadow of a doubt over your claims.
I am still waiting to see the proof that a neutrino or gluon exist? Have some other than correlations?
Show me a scientific bonfied 100% proof there is no god.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Extravagant claims require extravagant proof. You have claimed that the universe has a creator. The burden of proof is on you.
As a skeptic, I assume that everything is false until proven true. Thus far, no religious person, of any faith, has managed to convince me that:
There is a God
That the creator of the universe, if there truly is such a thing, would have any vested interest in my existence.
You can't prove a negative. However, you CAN prove that something DOES IN FACT exist. The fact that you haven't been able to convince anyone of any intellectual integrity of the existence of God places more than a shadow of a doubt over your claims.
I am still waiting to see the proof that a neutrino or gluon exist? Have some other than correlations?
From wikipedia:
"Antineutrinos were first detected in 1953 near a nuclear reactor. Reines and Cowan used two targets containing a solution of cadmium chloride in water. Two scintillation detectors were placed next to the cadmium targets. Antineutrino charged current interactions with the protons in the water produced positrons and neutrons. The resulting positron annihilations with electrons created photons with an energy of about 0.5 MeV. Pairs of photons in coincidence could be detected by the two scintillation detectors above and below the target. The neutrons were captured by cadmium nuclei resulting in gamma rays of about 8 MeV that were detected a few microseconds after the photons from a positron annihilation event. Today, the much larger KamLAND detector uses similar techniques and 53 Japanese nuclear power plants to study neutrino oscillation."
It defeats faith as some people have come to the conclusion that they are inside the matrix, and these people spent their last few hours in this life randomly shooting people. How is this any different from when people kill in the name of their deity? To reiterate an older point. If you justify faith the way you have, then anyone can justfiy crimes through any kind of fiction, which would create a dystopia for us seeing as there are so many stories out there, so many deities and so many systems of belief. Therefore absolute belief is dangerous. Absolute belief in science is just as dangerous. Believe me, I too want faith and logic towalk hand-in-hand, but that's jsut not going to happen anytime soon. The majority of all groups fear the other groups, fear breeds hatred. Hatred leads to conflict.
Naturally, but human nature is to kill eachother anyhow, with or without faith. We lost that need to continue the species around the 1 millionth mark (just a made up number but you should get the point) we've spent most of civilization killing eachother anyhow.
Anything absolute is dangerous, that means theres no room for growth. I tend to keep things on a 50/50 scale because it works for me.
People kill in the name of their religion because they can't find any reason otherwise. Humans are sick little creatures, and can be twisted further with just the right pull.
However people also have that inate ability to care when times call for it, so until the next extinction era hits we're going to be doing death to eachother till the cows come home.
It's not the god that causes people to kill it's the human error and pride that do. You can't blame a religion, only the followers and the leaders more so for their influence.
Otherwise I'd hate the bastard who ran into my buddies check point with a strap on and blew himself and others up. It's not his fault, it's the leaders and twisting of doctrine which is made by man as is.
The majority of the gods in human history have been just that - human. A mythologized depiction of our subconscious and our understanding of the Earth. As our understanding of the Earth changed, so changed the gods. We kill them off and create new ones to suit our present needs. The problem is that a Gaian or patriarchal figure is, in fact, tremendously weak. A god or goddess of Earth is just as insignificant as the Earth itself. If there is a "God" in any sense of our understanding of the word, it is infinitely more vast and potent then anything that humanity could imagine to depict. A universal, cosmic deity would be utterly alien to human thought. No, I am perfectly comfortably accepting that anything I could conceive of is either patently false or impossible to prove in any meaningful way.
My morality is humanistic, my learning is skeptically scientific, and my theology is pantheistic. I'm comfortable with that.
Why? Sets of size continuum can be conceived pretty easily by the human mind, which are of cardinality 2|s| where |S| is the cardinality of the natural numbers. That means that you can take any single possible subset conceivable of the rational numbers and find an element in the reals to map it to uniquely.
This is possible by virtue of the Cantor Bernstein theorem that proves that the cardinality of a set is necessarily smaller than that of it's power set (the set of all subsets of the set). What does that mean? It means you can keep taking the power set of a set with cardinality >= the natural numbers to keep getting sets that are much larger than infinity.
Whether these sets actually exist in nature or not is irrelevant, but even if they did exist we already have a grasp of them thanks to axiomatic set theory.
Before you start waving your magic wand of arrogance around, because your hypothesis cannot be disproved you should realize that there were many men more brilliant than you and I that laid the foundations (both in pure and applied sciences) for what we take for granted today; imagine having to derive something so abstract from absolutely NOTHING. Most people just use calculus today as if it were something obvious and axiomatic, but it isn't: Newton, Leibnitz, Riemann and others devoted their lives to the derivation of ideas that were completely foreign and unimaginable at the time.
Maybe you and I are not capable of grasping such a god (if he does exist), but to assert that all others are as feebleminded as ourselves is a godly degree of stupid.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
The majority of the gods in human history have been just that - human. A mythologized depiction of our subconscious and our understanding of the Earth. As our understanding of the Earth changed, so changed the gods. We kill them off and create new ones to suit our present needs. The problem is that a Gaian or patriarchal figure is, in fact, tremendously weak. A god or goddess of Earth is just as insignificant as the Earth itself. If there is a "God" in any sense of our understanding of the word, it is infinitely more vast and potent then anything that humanity could imagine to depict. A universal, cosmic deity would be utterly alien to human thought. No, I am perfectly comfortably accepting that anything I could conceive of is either patently false or impossible to prove in any meaningful way.
My morality is humanistic, my learning is skeptically scientific, and my theology is pantheistic. I'm comfortable with that.
Why? Sets of size continuum can be conceived pretty easily by the human mind, which are of cardinality 2|s| where |S| is the cardinality of the natural numbers. That means that you can take any single possible subset conceivable of the rational numbers and find an element in the reals to map it to uniquely.
This is possible by virtue of the Cantor Bernstein theorem that proves that the cardinality of a set is necessarily smaller than that of it's power set (the set of all subsets of the set). What does that mean? It means you can keep taking the power set of a set with cardinality >= the natural numbers to keep getting sets that are much larger than infinity.
Whether these sets actually exist in nature or not is irrelevant, but even if they did exist we already have a grasp of them thanks to axiomatic set theory.
Before you start waving your magic wand of arrogance around, because your hypothesis cannot be disproved you should realize that there were many men more brilliant than you and I that laid the foundations (both in pure and applied sciences) for what we take for granted today; imagine having to derive something so abstract from absolutely NOTHING. Most people just use calculus today as if it were something obvious and axiomatic, but it isn't: Newton, Leibnitz, Riemann and others devoted their lives to the derivation of ideas that were completely foreign and unimaginable at the time.
Maybe you and I are not capable of grasping such a god (if he does exist), but to assert that all others are as feebleminded as ourselves is a godly degree of stupid.
You speak the truth when you say that killing is something that humans do, but to kill for something that may not exist? When one kills to protect his country, I can respect him. But to kill someone simply because they don't believe in the same god as you? Such an act is repulsive at best. This, for instance http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4968717.html made my blood boil.
I agree that gods don't kill people, it's people who kill people. People who are taught that anything they don't understand is evil. I don't want religion to disappear, I jsut want it to become a little more vague so that a few less people can die at the hands of fanatics.
You speak the truth when you say that killing is something that humans do, but to kill for something that may not exist? When one kills to protect his country, I can respect him. But to kill someone simply because they don't believe in the same god as you? Such an act is repulsive at best. This, for instance http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4968717.html made my blood boil. I agree that gods don't kill people, it's people who kill people. People who are taught that anything they don't understand is evil. I don't want religion to disappear, I jsut want it to become a little more vague so that a few less people can die at the hands of fanatics.
One thing we can atleast agree on I suppose.
Atleast it's the basic human core too "killing eachother is bad".
I find holy wars just the same as wars we have now, Leaders pulling the strings of the populace, it's the same thing. Only usually a heaven is involved in the end.
It's a sick and perverted thing, but saddly thats life, as many honest folks as there are, there is atleast on dishonest one to take his place when he dies.
Well tarnations..... guess I gotta go get me some ovaries and one of them uteruses, or... I heard that ol Bushie's gonna hold a bake sale ah sorts of aged boiled eggs.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Comments
That would be nice in a perfect world. If we could jsut leave eachother alone then everything would be fine and dandy. However, that's not going to happen anytime soon. The christians and atheists are constantly at each others throats, the christians are sending missionaries to 3rd world countries to 'save' them, which makes other religions feel threatened. So in short, every religion, and every belief is constantly in conflict with one another. Why? Because each one is fundamentally different. One believes that this and the other believes that, etc.
Oh, and in answer to your last question, I am still perfectly ok with my debate
Well I disagree, all religions are fundementally the same. They all follow the same basic forms , in different ways of course, I'm not speaking for christians it's not my faith, I'm speaking of religion in whole. Worship is worship, prayer is prayer, whether it's magic or asking a god to do whatever for whatever reason.
People are at eachothers throats only because short sight and the lack of ability to cope tha t others just might be different.
In a perfect world none of this would exist, but then again we are humans and when you human+god(s) you'll get =conflict.
Same as debates on a forum, but in this case people die for it. See you are arguing for one set religion, christianity wasn't the first to "invent" god, I'm saying all of religion as a whole.
It's all the same thing, fundementals and all, and as I must add yet again "Just differently".
Lol how to wrap up an entire discussion in a single sentence.
Nice one
Hardly a wrap up mate, actually it just added to the discussion.
The flaw of the speghetti monster is the fact no one is even making attempts to disprove if such a thing exists, there aren't "armies" of folks seeking to disprove or prove is said Flying Spehgetti Monster exists, further more there is evidence to prove more so it does exist.
See the "extra-ultra-new testiment X", it goes into much detail on how the Flying Spehgetti monster was resurrected after Geno the janitor got hungry one late night.
Nor is anyone really able to prove that the Flying Spehgetti's father did not create the meatball of life in 7 days.
Regardless anyone trying to disprove him is an idiot and will be not be listened to. I have my hands over my ears as well as my eyes now.
Back to porn I go.
You are completely agreeing with the one liner mate, I don't undertstand why you bothered yourself with a long explanation.
Atheists cannot disprove religions and the existence of God, because this existance is based on faith rather than well documented facts.
That shows you how easy is for religious people to defend their faith just saying that no one cannot disprove their belief.
But the fact that people cannot disprove it, doesn't make it the truth.
I believe in Mr Fart, and noone can disprove it exists.
So what else can you add to the discussion, if you will never be able to prove me that Mr Fart doesn't exist, I won, end of discussion.
Or are you going to make up a theory just for the joy of debating.
Lol how to wrap up an entire discussion in a single sentence.
Nice one
Hardly a wrap up mate, actually it just added to the discussion.
The flaw of the speghetti monster is the fact no one is even making attempts to disprove if such a thing exists, there aren't "armies" of folks seeking to disprove or prove is said Flying Spehgetti Monster exists, further more there is evidence to prove more so it does exist.
See the "extra-ultra-new testiment X", it goes into much detail on how the Flying Spehgetti monster was resurrected after Geno the janitor got hungry one late night.
Nor is anyone really able to prove that the Flying Spehgetti's father did not create the meatball of life in 7 days.
Regardless anyone trying to disprove him is an idiot and will be not be listened to. I have my hands over my ears as well as my eyes now.
Back to porn I go.
You are completely agreeing with the one liner mate, I don't undertstand why you bothered yourself with a long explanation.
Atheists cannot disprove religions and the existence of God, because this existance is based on faith rather than well documented facts.
That shows you how easy is for religious people to defend their faith just saying that no one cannot disprove their belief.
But the fact that people cannot disprove it, doesn't make it the truth.
I believe in Mr Fart, and noone can disprove it exists.
So what else can you add to the discussion, if you will never be able to prove me that Mr Fart doesn't exist, I won.
Although I would look stupid in believing in Mr Fart, but ehi I think is more fun than God, so bring him on.
Dude, all that yellow text was built as a joke. The purple was of course what I was going to back to.
Christ on a cracker, do people have to "lol","lmao",or "rofl" themselves to make something apparent as a joke?
Maybe had I added a LMAOROLF or something the subtle (not really) joke would be apparent.
I was essentially mocking the stupid abstract, simply because I've heard crap like that before and it boggles the mind how one can assume their creation can be akin to one that has 1000's of years of mythos based on it.
I'm sure in a thousand years if someone unearths that arguement they may find merit, but using abstracts such as that just add to mock bait.
Lol how to wrap up an entire discussion in a single sentence.
Nice one
Hardly a wrap up mate, actually it just added to the discussion.
The flaw of the speghetti monster is the fact no one is even making attempts to disprove if such a thing exists, there aren't "armies" of folks seeking to disprove or prove is said Flying Spehgetti Monster exists, further more there is evidence to prove more so it does exist.
See the "extra-ultra-new testiment X", it goes into much detail on how the Flying Spehgetti monster was resurrected after Geno the janitor got hungry one late night.
Nor is anyone really able to prove that the Flying Spehgetti's father did not create the meatball of life in 7 days.
Regardless anyone trying to disprove him is an idiot and will be not be listened to. I have my hands over my ears as well as my eyes now.
Back to porn I go.
You are completely agreeing with the one liner mate, I don't undertstand why you bothered yourself with a long explanation.
Atheists cannot disprove religions and the existence of God, because this existance is based on faith rather than well documented facts.
That shows you how easy is for religious people to defend their faith just saying that no one cannot disprove their belief.
But the fact that people cannot disprove it, doesn't make it the truth.
I believe in Mr Fart, and noone can disprove it exists.
So what else can you add to the discussion, if you will never be able to prove me that Mr Fart doesn't exist, I won.
Although I would look stupid in believing in Mr Fart, but ehi I think is more fun than God, so bring him on.
Dude, all that yellow text was built as a joke. The purple was of course what I was going to back to.
Christ on a cracker, do people have to "lol","lmao",or "rofl" themselves to make something apparent as a joke?
Maybe had I added a LMAOROLF or something the subtle (not really) joke would be apparent.
I was essentially mocking the stupid abstract, simply because I've heard crap like that before and it boggles the mind how one can assume their creation can be akin to one that has 1000's of years of mythos based on it.
I'm sure in a thousand years if someone unearths that arguement they may find merit, but using abstracts such as that just add to mock bait.
I thought you were taking the piss.
But then yu replied to Walakea so I thought you could actually be serious
Lol how to wrap up an entire discussion in a single sentence.
Nice one
Hardly a wrap up mate, actually it just added to the discussion.
The flaw of the speghetti monster is the fact no one is even making attempts to disprove if such a thing exists, there aren't "armies" of folks seeking to disprove or prove is said Flying Spehgetti Monster exists, further more there is evidence to prove more so it does exist.
See the "extra-ultra-new testiment X", it goes into much detail on how the Flying Spehgetti monster was resurrected after Geno the janitor got hungry one late night.
Nor is anyone really able to prove that the Flying Spehgetti's father did not create the meatball of life in 7 days.
Regardless anyone trying to disprove him is an idiot and will be not be listened to. I have my hands over my ears as well as my eyes now.
Back to porn I go.
You are completely agreeing with the one liner mate, I don't undertstand why you bothered yourself with a long explanation.
Atheists cannot disprove religions and the existence of God, because this existance is based on faith rather than well documented facts.
That shows you how easy is for religious people to defend their faith just saying that no one cannot disprove their belief.
But the fact that people cannot disprove it, doesn't make it the truth.
I believe in Mr Fart, and noone can disprove it exists.
So what else can you add to the discussion, if you will never be able to prove me that Mr Fart doesn't exist, I won.
Although I would look stupid in believing in Mr Fart, but ehi I think is more fun than God, so bring him on.
Dude, all that yellow text was built as a joke. The purple was of course what I was going to back to.
Christ on a cracker, do people have to "lol","lmao",or "rofl" themselves to make something apparent as a joke?
Maybe had I added a LMAOROLF or something the subtle (not really) joke would be apparent.
I was essentially mocking the stupid abstract, simply because I've heard crap like that before and it boggles the mind how one can assume their creation can be akin to one that has 1000's of years of mythos based on it.
I'm sure in a thousand years if someone unearths that arguement they may find merit, but using abstracts such as that just add to mock bait.
I thought you were taking the piss.
But then yu replied to Walakea so I thought you could actually be serious
I'm serious on matters that make sense, not on this stuff.
See that cat took a simple thought and overexagerated it.
Alls my quote means, is that for every person out there who finds god doesn't exist , it empowers a true believer that much more, they consider it a test.
That guy though, boy... talk about taking simplisity (which is best), and making it over complicated and using rediculous abstracts, comparing say "christian faith" (which he/she/it seems to have issues with) to a abstract some other guy with issues against christianity used to battle the god theory, and was thusly shot down because well...where are the texts or even oral passdowns of this monster. See most faith based religions have this thing called "lore" , this guy just pops that speghetti crap down because it makes people laugh to think of it, and thusly easy to laugh at a guy who has faith.
The simple matter is that all these arguments to justify ones' belief in a deity can be used to justify ones' belief in anything. Which is dangerous and illogical, to say the least. Maybe now I'm going to believe that I'm inside the matrix, maybe then I should pick up a gun and start killing all the 'agents' I can find. Maybe I'll believe that gravity doesn't exist. Maybe I'll kidnap a child and throw it off a cliff to prove to the world how stupid they are for believing in science.
I'll let you know which thing I decided to put my faith in as soon as I get released from jail
Show me a scientific bonfied 100% proof there is no god.
I'll show you newton's laws, gravity exists. If you want to believe you are in some movie script scenerio IE matrix, feel free to, hell shoot whatever you like, aint my problem. I'm not even gonna touch the kidnapping thing because well, it's just plain sick.
It's a simple matter to understand you are grasping at straws at this point.
It's a simple matter that the more abstract one becomes, it's because they cannot place proper filler in their writings.
It's a simple matter that you have a beef with christians, and you simply fail to realize that these people will defend their religion no matter how many e=mc2's you toss up.
The more and more ones such as yourself pop out of whatever angst filled christian hating science wings, the more and more you empower believers, thats irony good sir.
Faith is illogical, but if you put faith in role playing you are a matrix running kidnapping gun toting loon, thats your deal, just don't compare such stupid abstracts to peoples faith, you insult them more than anything.
If you can't see that then you are probally just a child who tries to talk like an adult.
Take note I'm buddahist, not christian. I can see where you try to go, but you either A). Just wanna argue about faith or
. just care to stir up trouble like so many folks tend to do. Eitherway you fail.
are you sure you aren't a christian? You seem awfully protective of them, and you keep accusing me of attacking christian. You are right, I do jsut want to talk about faith, because that's the direction that this thread has taken. Antyuhng wrong with debating about faith without name calling and unfounded accusations? It seems to me that you are the child. Your arguments are very aggressive. Just chill, dude. This is just a forum. This is just a debate. No one can win a debate, nor can one lose, we can only share ideas and arguments. So stop trying to win. This isn't soccer practice
.
You say that there's a big difference between my matrix example and the idea that faith in god is justified to a certain extent, but you haven't ellaborated, you have simply made such statements as if they're written in stone.
There's nothing more to discuss, unless someone else adds something. I know that you will reply to me with more name calling and passive aggressive crap, but I no longer care. I only hope that you cool down before you read this.
This isn't about proving the exiostence of god, this is about believing in something that may very well not exist.are you sure you aren't a christian? You seem awfully protective of them, and you keep accusing me of attacking christian. You are right, I do jsut want to talk about faith, because that's the direction that this thread has taken. Antyuhng wrong with debating about faith without name calling and unfounded accusations? It seems to me that you are the child. Your arguments are very aggressive. Just chill, dude. This is just a forum. This is just a debate. No one can win a debate, nor can one lose, we can only share ideas and arguments. So stop trying to win. This isn't soccer practice
.
You say that there's a big difference between my matrix example and the idea that faith in god is justified to a certain extent, but you haven't ellaborated, you have simply made such statements as if they're written in stone.
There's nothing more to discuss, unless someone else adds something. I know that you will reply to me with more name calling and passive aggressive crap, but I no longer care. I only hope that you cool down before you read this.
First off, passive agressive? Man I'm just plain agressive when someone calls out a whole faith that is.
Your 'god' is omnipotent (all powerful), correct?
He is also believed to be THE creator of everything, nothing is beyond his control, correct?
You went and gathered all the kindling, the wood, and even the matches to light the fire, but once you light it you sudden flinch with abstracts about maxtrix theories, which if you believe that, that is fine by me. Hell I don't care if you believe the universe is a toilet for inter-spacial demos of the quasi plains of shrug niggaroth.
Seriously I don't care. But your debates are attacking faiths man. You aren't just looking for a "what if" or even a conversation you are trying to get a rise out of folks. If that first sentence didn't prove that the second easily does.
I'm not name calling, not at all I'm speculating "just as you are", sucks on the otherside of the fence doesn't it?
Except instead of speculating a faith , I'm speculating the person.
I'm pretty sure when I go to temple that I am not christian however I see that for the most parts all faiths are one in someway or another, science may save lives and stave off ignorance, but faith gives people lives to live.
If I were trying to win I'd of won already, you use enough abstracts to gloss the surface, but as soon as you get too deep you sink like a stone.
And now you play the victim role, a very good role.. If you are a victim. You are right this is a forum and many opinions are formed, you are just as agressive as myself, you just play over with the "oh my why are you attacking me" role so many tend to fall back on.
If God doesn't need an explanation to his/her existence, then why does universe need one? Religious people can't seem to accept the Bigbang and Evolution theory, yet they welcome a story of a supreme being with open arms. I guess a made up explanation is better than no explanation at all..
I fail to see why the matrix thing is a world apart from this current debate. The matrix is based on the famous questions that Renes Descartes asked. He asked how we can prove that we aren't being decieved by the devil (which links directly back to christianity. We can't really prove that we aren't being decieved. We can't really disprove that we are in a virtual world.
But when you said that the best way to prove the existence of a god is to first attempt to disprove him. I merely pointed out that using that logic, we can say that anything fictional is actually real. This is madness.
Science and faith can co-exist if they'd stop dueling.
I fail to see why the matrix thing is a world apart from this current debate. The matrix is based on the famous questions that Renes Descartes asked. He asked how we can prove that we aren't being decieved by the devil (which links directly back to christianity. We can't really prove that we aren't being decieved. We can't really disprove that we are in a virtual world.
But when you said that the best way to prove the existence of a god is to first attempt to disprove him. I merely pointed out that using that logic, we can say that anything fictional is actually real. This is madness.
Anything can be real, just not corpreal, if it's realized it's real.
The reason the matrix is a world apart is simple, even if we were part of a machine would the defeat faith? Would the matrix prevent a "god" from doing his/her job? Would it make them anyless powerful? Would it make the "afterlife" the recycling bin of the construct?
Like I said I could care less if you believe in a speghetti monster stuck in the matrix, if it's your higher power, then good for you because in the end everything is the same to me, I'll hop on a soap box for a hindu as much as I will for a christian, it's just my way.
Now the afterlife (if there is such a thing) would make for a more interesting topic.
It defeats faith as some people have come to the conclusion that they are inside the matrix, and these people spent their last few hours in this life randomly shooting people. How is this any different from when people kill in the name of their deity?
To reiterate an older point. If you justify faith the way you have, then anyone can justfiy crimes through any kind of fiction, which would create a dystopia for us seeing as there are so many stories out there, so many deities and so many systems of belief. Therefore absolute belief is dangerous. Absolute belief in science is just as dangerous.
Believe me, I too want faith and logic towalk hand-in-hand, but that's jsut not going to happen anytime soon. The majority of all groups fear the other groups, fear breeds hatred. Hatred leads to conflict.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Extravagant claims require extravagant proof. You have claimed that the universe has a creator. The burden of proof is on you.
As a skeptic, I assume that everything is false until proven true. Thus far, no religious person, of any faith, has managed to convince me that:
You can't prove a negative. However, you CAN prove that something DOES IN FACT exist. The fact that you haven't been able to convince anyone of any intellectual integrity of the existence of God places more than a shadow of a doubt over your claims.
Flying Spaghetti Monster descended and spoke to me in a dream last night. He said we should build a church in my honor - for I am a true profit, er prophet of the Monster. Send me all your money so we can get it built.
You don't want to spend eternity in hell, do you?
Edit: I accept ISK.
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
I do. I hear they serve cold coffee there. Those guys thought of everything!
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Extravagant claims require extravagant proof. You have claimed that the universe has a creator. The burden of proof is on you.
As a skeptic, I assume that everything is false until proven true. Thus far, no religious person, of any faith, has managed to convince me that:
You can't prove a negative. However, you CAN prove that something DOES IN FACT exist. The fact that you haven't been able to convince anyone of any intellectual integrity of the existence of God places more than a shadow of a doubt over your claims.
I am still waiting to see the proof that a neutrino or gluon exist? Have some other than correlations?
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Extravagant claims require extravagant proof. You have claimed that the universe has a creator. The burden of proof is on you.
As a skeptic, I assume that everything is false until proven true. Thus far, no religious person, of any faith, has managed to convince me that:
You can't prove a negative. However, you CAN prove that something DOES IN FACT exist. The fact that you haven't been able to convince anyone of any intellectual integrity of the existence of God places more than a shadow of a doubt over your claims.
I am still waiting to see the proof that a neutrino or gluon exist? Have some other than correlations?
From wikipedia:
"Antineutrinos were first detected in 1953 near a nuclear reactor. Reines and Cowan used two targets containing a solution of cadmium chloride in water. Two scintillation detectors were placed next to the cadmium targets. Antineutrino charged current interactions with the protons in the water produced positrons and neutrons. The resulting positron annihilations with electrons created photons with an energy of about 0.5 MeV. Pairs of photons in coincidence could be detected by the two scintillation detectors above and below the target. The neutrons were captured by cadmium nuclei resulting in gamma rays of about 8 MeV that were detected a few microseconds after the photons from a positron annihilation event. Today, the much larger KamLAND detector uses similar techniques and 53 Japanese nuclear power plants to study neutrino oscillation."
it's all here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Artificially_produced_neutrinos
Naturally, but human nature is to kill eachother anyhow, with or without faith. We lost that need to continue the species around the 1 millionth mark (just a made up number but you should get the point) we've spent most of civilization killing eachother anyhow.
Anything absolute is dangerous, that means theres no room for growth. I tend to keep things on a 50/50 scale because it works for me.
People kill in the name of their religion because they can't find any reason otherwise. Humans are sick little creatures, and can be twisted further with just the right pull.
However people also have that inate ability to care when times call for it, so until the next extinction era hits we're going to be doing death to eachother till the cows come home.
It's not the god that causes people to kill it's the human error and pride that do. You can't blame a religion, only the followers and the leaders more so for their influence.
Otherwise I'd hate the bastard who ran into my buddies check point with a strap on and blew himself and others up. It's not his fault, it's the leaders and twisting of doctrine which is made by man as is.
The majority of the gods in human history have been just that - human. A mythologized depiction of our subconscious and our understanding of the Earth. As our understanding of the Earth changed, so changed the gods. We kill them off and create new ones to suit our present needs. The problem is that a Gaian or patriarchal figure is, in fact, tremendously weak. A god or goddess of Earth is just as insignificant as the Earth itself. If there is a "God" in any sense of our understanding of the word, it is infinitely more vast and potent then anything that humanity could imagine to depict. A universal, cosmic deity would be utterly alien to human thought. No, I am perfectly comfortably accepting that anything I could conceive of is either patently false or impossible to prove in any meaningful way.
My morality is humanistic, my learning is skeptically scientific, and my theology is pantheistic. I'm comfortable with that.
Why? Sets of size continuum can be conceived pretty easily by the human mind, which are of cardinality 2|s| where |S| is the cardinality of the natural numbers. That means that you can take any single possible subset conceivable of the rational numbers and find an element in the reals to map it to uniquely.
This is possible by virtue of the Cantor Bernstein theorem that proves that the cardinality of a set is necessarily smaller than that of it's power set (the set of all subsets of the set). What does that mean? It means you can keep taking the power set of a set with cardinality >= the natural numbers to keep getting sets that are much larger than infinity.
Whether these sets actually exist in nature or not is irrelevant, but even if they did exist we already have a grasp of them thanks to axiomatic set theory.
Before you start waving your magic wand of arrogance around, because your hypothesis cannot be disproved you should realize that there were many men more brilliant than you and I that laid the foundations (both in pure and applied sciences) for what we take for granted today; imagine having to derive something so abstract from absolutely NOTHING. Most people just use calculus today as if it were something obvious and axiomatic, but it isn't: Newton, Leibnitz, Riemann and others devoted their lives to the derivation of ideas that were completely foreign and unimaginable at the time.
Maybe you and I are not capable of grasping such a god (if he does exist), but to assert that all others are as feebleminded as ourselves is a godly degree of stupid.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
The majority of the gods in human history have been just that - human. A mythologized depiction of our subconscious and our understanding of the Earth. As our understanding of the Earth changed, so changed the gods. We kill them off and create new ones to suit our present needs. The problem is that a Gaian or patriarchal figure is, in fact, tremendously weak. A god or goddess of Earth is just as insignificant as the Earth itself. If there is a "God" in any sense of our understanding of the word, it is infinitely more vast and potent then anything that humanity could imagine to depict. A universal, cosmic deity would be utterly alien to human thought. No, I am perfectly comfortably accepting that anything I could conceive of is either patently false or impossible to prove in any meaningful way.
My morality is humanistic, my learning is skeptically scientific, and my theology is pantheistic. I'm comfortable with that.
Why? Sets of size continuum can be conceived pretty easily by the human mind, which are of cardinality 2|s| where |S| is the cardinality of the natural numbers. That means that you can take any single possible subset conceivable of the rational numbers and find an element in the reals to map it to uniquely.
This is possible by virtue of the Cantor Bernstein theorem that proves that the cardinality of a set is necessarily smaller than that of it's power set (the set of all subsets of the set). What does that mean? It means you can keep taking the power set of a set with cardinality >= the natural numbers to keep getting sets that are much larger than infinity.
Whether these sets actually exist in nature or not is irrelevant, but even if they did exist we already have a grasp of them thanks to axiomatic set theory.
Before you start waving your magic wand of arrogance around, because your hypothesis cannot be disproved you should realize that there were many men more brilliant than you and I that laid the foundations (both in pure and applied sciences) for what we take for granted today; imagine having to derive something so abstract from absolutely NOTHING. Most people just use calculus today as if it were something obvious and axiomatic, but it isn't: Newton, Leibnitz, Riemann and others devoted their lives to the derivation of ideas that were completely foreign and unimaginable at the time.
Maybe you and I are not capable of grasping such a god (if he does exist), but to assert that all others are as feebleminded as ourselves is a godly degree of stupid.
Sorry Enigma.... //\//\oo have my babies?
You speak the truth when you say that killing is something that humans do, but to kill for something that may not exist? When one kills to protect his country, I can respect him. But to kill someone simply because they don't believe in the same god as you? Such an act is repulsive at best. This, for instance http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4968717.html made my blood boil.
I agree that gods don't kill people, it's people who kill people. People who are taught that anything they don't understand is evil. I don't want religion to disappear, I jsut want it to become a little more vague so that a few less people can die at the hands of fanatics.
One thing we can atleast agree on I suppose.
Atleast it's the basic human core too "killing eachother is bad".
I find holy wars just the same as wars we have now, Leaders pulling the strings of the populace, it's the same thing. Only usually a heaven is involved in the end.
It's a sick and perverted thing, but saddly thats life, as many honest folks as there are, there is atleast on dishonest one to take his place when he dies.
Sorry Enigma.... //\//\oo have my babies?
Well tarnations..... guess I gotta go get me some ovaries and one of them uteruses, or... I heard that ol Bushie's gonna hold a bake sale ah sorts of aged boiled eggs.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.