if god is real

[old.Tohtori]

im not sure what law it breaks to post an image of two cartoon characters having sex, it may break forum rules but not laws.

unless it breaks a law i dont know what the real problem is.

PG rated forum. Non PG images. You do the math. It may not "break laws", but it could still cause trouble.

Forum rules are the laws of this place, should understand it.

 

[TdC]

foo's, the image was deemed inappropriate. end of. don't make me come up there Tristram

 

[Calaen]

foo's, the image was deemed inappropriate. end of. don't make me come up there Tristram

I find your avatar very offensive

 

[TdC]

it stems from this very forum. there were people who disagreed with the joy that was BoobCat

 

[tris-]

foo's, the image was deemed inappropriate. end of. don't make me come up there Tristram

you dont cum up there enough these days

 

[TdC]

I know. I have rl issues enfeebling me mate

 

[tris-]

I know. I have rl issues enfeebling me mate

no wonder i have to get my kicks from pokemon porn these days

 

[TdC]

I wouldn't have pegged you for pokecox though. you seem more a Mariosammich kin of person. Do you ever wear dungarees and speak in a faux italian accent?

 

[echome]

no wonder i have to get my kicks from pokemon porn these days

I must admid that I've always been more of a disney porn kind a guy myself. KimPossible and Ariel in a hot lesbo scene... Damn!!







P.s I am being serious.

 

[CorNokZ]

If you have poképorn you should share it!

Porn! Porn porn porn? Poooooooorn!

That's how I would sound if I was a pokémon..

 

[TdC]

heh a pornémon. I envisiage tris- in a pink bunny-suit

 

[Binky the Bomb]

And, now for a quick break

Enjoy.

 

[Roalith]

Aha, knew I had it somewhere:

 

[old.Tohtori]

Roalith, that's all fine and dandy, but care to tell me why the anti-religious people are mostly intolerant, abusive and outright rude while the religious people don't really go out of their way to insult and mock those who don't?

Or how about, why every question that the anti-religious people ask, can be answered, but when answered, it's just "more bullsh*t"?

Or even, why the same "cop outs" and "excuses" that the anti-religious people claim religious people have, are almost identical, from the opposing view, and used every time there is a religious discussion, by the anti-religious people?

 

[Calaen]

Roalith, that's all fine and dandy, but care to tell me why the anti-religious people are mostly intolerant, abusive and outright rude while the religious people don't really go out of their way to insult and mock those who don't?

Or how about, why every question that the anti-religious people ask, can be answered, but when answered, it's just "more bullsh*t"?

Or even, why the same "cop outs" and "excuses" that the anti-religious people claim religious people have, are almost identical, from the opposing view, and used every time there is a religious discussion, by the anti-religious people?

Well non of its is fact though is it? Do you know of someone who ate some of his 5000 fish?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well non of its is fact though is it? Do you know of someone who ate some of his 5000 fish?

Neither is none of your answer related to what i said, but i'll humor you and say, what is scientific facts? Stuff that other people tell you are facts...right?

You haven't been on mars, just seen the pictures and read of these "planets".

Ah yes, do have to correct on my previous post that only some anti-religious people are intolerant etc, and some religious people are as tolerant etc too, but mostly i get intolerance from anti-religious people.

Funny thing though, when i say i'm a "viking" believer, both sides give me the evil eye...

 

[Calaen]

my point is that most religion is based on books from centuries ago, which to me seems all rather backwards.

yes I am believing what scientists tell me to a certain extent, I know that people are living longer due to science providing cures for diseases and pointing us away from things that are bad for us.

Believing in the bible means that I should believe in magic. I dont cause its bollocks

 

[tris-]

You haven't been on mars, just seen the pictures and read of these "planets".

wow.

comparing an actual object you can personally observe with a telescope, to something which is unlikely to exist is a new low.

 

[old.Tohtori]

wow.

comparing an actual object you can personally observe with a telescope, to something which is unlikely to exist is a new low.

Taking it so literally isn't a new thing from the anti-brigade though. Don't. It was an example, to point out what the rest of the post was meant to say.

my point is that most religion is based on books from centuries ago, which to me seems all rather backwards.

yes I am believing what scientists tell me to a certain extent, I know that people are living longer due to science providing cures for diseases and pointing us away from things that are bad for us.

Believing in the bible means that I should believe in magic. I dont cause its bollocks

Yes, religion is based on old books, and as such, you could think that a thousands years from now, people might think of other people silly when they believe in "science". You know? THye had limited science to write their books on, so as an example, "chariot that shoot flames", could easily be an F-16 with rockets.

The only reason most of, say, bibles stories sound like magic, is because that was the science of that day.

 

[tris-]

Taking it so literally isn't a new thing from the anti-brigade though.

actually, everytime someone picks you up on something you always say dont take it literally.

 

[old.Tohtori]

actually, everytime someone picks you up on something you always say dont take it literally.

Oh i always do that this week. Nice. There's a new "cop out"...

But if you really want to be so anal about it, i'll just give you another more suitable example:

Scientists say that the sun looks a different color from the surface of mars, you believe this no?

 

[tris-]

Oh i always do that this week. Nice. There's a new "cop out"...

not this week.

all the time.

 

[Calaen]

Oh i always do that this week. Nice. There's a new "cop out"...

But if you really want to be so anal about it, i'll just give you another more suitable example:

Scientists say that the sun looks a different color from the surface of mars, you believe this no?

Of course it would be a different colour though, we are closer to it and have a different atmosphere. We can see the effects of the northern lights. Shit changes.

Meanwhile on the beach Jesus is pulling his 16th loaf from his ass.

 

[old.Tohtori]

not this week.

all the time.

Please just stop it, disucss the matter, sure, but stop pulling out some personality or "you do this" things. It's neither here nor there when discussing something. I don't do it to you do i?

Of course it would be a different colour though, we are closer to it and have a different atmosphere. We can see the effects of the northern lights.

Kinda my point up there.

Because other people say it is so, you believe it to be so. Isn't it? You can't see the different sun on mars(unless you're some god), but you believe it. What is to say, that those scientists aren't just "controlling" you as someone claimed religion is for.

If you know what i mean?

 

[Lethul]

Kinda my point up there.

Because other people say it is so, you believe it to be so. Isn't it? You can't see the different sun on mars(unless you're some god), but you believe it. What is to say, that those scientists aren't just "controlling" you as someone claimed religion is for.

If you know what i mean?

Well thats kinda easily tested with shooting light through different gases from different range and different impact angels? I don't really have to be on mars to realize thats the way it is?

 

[Roalith]

Because other people say it is so, you believe it to be so. Isn't it? You can't see the different sun on mars(unless you're some god), but you believe it. What is to say, that those scientists aren't just "controlling" you as someone claimed religion is for.

If you know what i mean?

Toh, there is a MASSIVE difference between belief and scientifically verifiable fact. To whit:

People who believe in something only have their belief in that matter to sustain them.

People who accept a scientific fact as truth do so on the basis of evidence; that if they were to follow and learn the same processes, perform the same experiments, they would naturally reach the same deductions about that process.

Prime example of the scientific process for you: Pasteurisation of milk. Try taking 100 people, feeding 50 of them 2 week old unpasteurised milk, and the other 50 pasteurised milk. See what happens. Then make your deductions, after looking at the two samples of milk under a microsope. Oh yeah, the unpasteurised stuff has all this little moving wiggling stuff in it... let's call them viruses and bacteria... they must be what cause people to get ill when they drink old milk!

The fact that people don't follow the entire scientific process behind pasteurised milk doesn't mean they 'just believe' it's safe to drink. People know that pasteurised milk is safe to drink because it has been through a scientifically proven process which proves it is safe to drink.

Now, in your example. The appearance of the sun in different atmospheric compositions and pressures CAN actually be tested here on earth. Probably has been, too. If I thought about it hard enough I could probably come up with something suitable. I quite simply, don't need to - because I know the scientific process behind so much we take for granted in every day life is just, quite simply, true.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Hmm. Maybe i wasn't good enough in explaning what i meant, and as such, i can agree that direct comparison between science and belief isn't really valid. Even if, theories of things are taken as "believable" by some people, even if not proven.

I'll try to explain, hopefully it makes sense.

I could not phantom thinking that scientific facts are all that are possible, as in, nothing "supernatural"(ghosts, ufos(bit different), things we can't explain) is possible. Pretty much in the same way, someone might say they couldn't phantom anything IS possible.

As such, if one believes that there can be supernatural phenomenon around, and simple scientific facts aren't the end all of things around, one would have to admit that it is also possible for a godlike being.

With so much folklore, different cultures having similar, if not identical, stories and even objects of worship, in the world, i just can't see how nothing of it could not be in existance. Especially with such a vast universe outside our little globe.

I guess it all boils down to what you think is possible, is it simply science, or can there be more. And if there is more, what is the limit, if any, on this "more". I think there can, and as such, with "research"(even if you don't like the word in this context), i've found what i believe is the truth.

I personally hold a very wide spectrum on how things came to be, and how some things are, and msotly my religion is a way of life more then worship.

But the point, before this science/religion "control" thing started, stands. People who are against religion, often rely on insults, rude behaviour and outright intolerance, while those who do have religion(whatever it may be), don't mind the ones who don't.(not on every case).

 

[Roalith]

Just because something is not understood does not make it 'supernatural' and therefore is certainly not evidence of a 'godlike being'.

The word 'supernatural' itself is highly misleading; people use it when they simply mean they saw something they do not understand. It is human nature to attempt to identify things and attribute order to them - you see a reflection in a pane of glass that looks like a scary face, you see a ghost instead of: a composite reflection from 4 different objects at wildly varying different angles which just happened to correspond into a vaguely anthropomorphic image.

It's all in the rationalisation.

Now, as to the argument over the aggressiveness of atheists vs that of believers.

When was the last time an atheist blew up a bus/train/building because of their 'belief'?

When was the last time an atheist came knocking on your front door at 8 o'clock on a cold Sunday morning when you're dressed in your kecks and tried to bring Jesus into your life?

When was the last time... do I need to carry on? Wildly extreme examples, yes, but I'm sure you see my point. The fact that atheists are being belligerant these days may even have something to do with how bloody downtrodden and suppressed we've been as an intelligent sub-division of the human species. Even Einstein was roundly mocked and abused for calling himself an Atheist. It's only in the last 30 years that we've had the freedom of speech to actually show people that the truth really is out there - and a godless world really wouldn't be that bad a place.

I for one am glad we do. Else I'd still be going to church and not actually thinking about religions and what they entail. My own path through religion has taken in a long, twisting road, from fundamental Christianity, a nod and a wink to Judaism and Islam (Admittedly English translations of both texts), a several-year-long attempt at Buddhism which failed fairly badly (although of the bunch it is the most worthwhile), through to clinging on to the fence of agnosticism in the vague desire for there to be more to it. Through to acceptance, and atheism.

There really doesn't have to be anything more.

What I gather from your posts Toht, is that you have a belief in what is known as Einsteinian atheism - which too put a very loose and easy definition of it would be something along the lines of 'the Force' if you're a Star Wars fan, or possibly a belief that every molecule, every atom, itself comprises God - which also has loose connotations behind the Buddhist religion.

Ultimately though, the point remains: No religion is any more valid than any other. The fact that there are so many is solely down to Humankind: which leads us to the statement that Man created God, not the other way round.

Maybe part of the reason we're so vociferous is because we believe that ultimately everyone is capable of sufficient intelligence to not need the psychological crutch of gods any more.

If anyone else is actually even remotely interested in this discussion, try reading Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion". Derren Brown's (He of "Trick of the Mind" fame) book is also well worth reading as a primer. Vaguely recall mentioning it in another thread, but really; it's worth it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I can quickly answer two parts, as i'm at work, so no "long winded" answer:

If something is "unknown"(i use term supernatural because it's known), it doesn't mean it can be explained scientifically either. As said, it comes down to your personal belief. In science or in something else. AND, if you can admit there can be something "else", there's no limit to that "else".

About your examples of religious people blowing up and jehovas knocking at doors, wasn't the point on what i said though. I'm talking about normal people around. You, me, them, friends, family, etc. and the attitude towards eachother. I just don't get why anti-religious people have to be so rude and vocal, about a thing they don't even care/believe about. It honestly sometimes scares me how aggressive anti-religious people get in their writings and things they say, so much, that it nears genocidal proportions(not saying it's equal!), as in, that if it keeps up, soon religion will be hunted.

If you're seriously using "oppression" of atheists as a reason to now ridicule and "oppress" religious people, you're not that intelligent of a "sub-division". Seriously, "you hit me so i now hit you", only means you're no smarter, nor dumber, then the ones hitting you.

Also, religion is only a crutch to those who perceive it as such, and those people often are the ones who are against it.

Most reasons why anti-religious people hate religion, makes no more sense then the anti-religious people claim religion does.

You're rather wrong about my beliefs(viking/nordic still), but, those aren't really here nor there regarding this discussion.

 

[noblok]

When was the last time an atheist blew up a bus/train/building because of their 'belief'?

One word: nationalism. Some more: socialism/communism, animal rights etc. I think most ideologies have at one time been perverted enough to have lead to violence.