FH news Steven Hawking reverses opinion on God!

[nath]

The funny part is that so many anti-god people are SO against a theory that would remove god from the equation

That's cute, but you're anti-anti-god attitude blinds you from reasonable debate here. You're now trying to remove god from the equation? I thought you were trying to prove God using with "misdescription"? Suggesting that God as we currently understand it is not what God actually is but something else entirely. Now you're saying your theory removes God from the equation?

Every time, every fucking time a debate happens with you, you weave about with no firm point or understanding of what the hell you're saying. You *always* complain and state that it's other people at fault, misreading you, misquoting you etc, and yet so many people are having the same issues with what you say. You had a brief epiphany where you worked out that perhaps it was the way you were saying things but it seems that's long gone.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No, i'll quite happily discuss your placebo effect prayer idea. In fact I think it has been discussed and pointed out that it's nothing more than a placebo effect. It was also pointed out that a placebo effect comes from an internal belief as opposed to external sources, which was something you appeared to skip over. You can't compare the support and assistance provided from say friends and family (i.e. an external source) to the percieved strength you gain from your belief in prayer (i.e. an internal belief); they are two completely separate issues that operate in a completely different manner.

To be honest I fail to see why you're so stuck on the use of the word 'god'. Why does your act of prayer have to be changed into god? What is the insistence of needing to find some way you can say god exists? In this case by changing the fairly universally held definition of what god is?

Except you haven't removed god from the equation, you've simply altered the definition to suit your proposal. You're also continuing to use words intrinsically linked with god and religion when you keep speaking about prayer.

Don't try to turn it around, the problem isn't me using the word god, the problem is people not standing the word.

If support from friends brings +1 hope and praying to god brings +1 hope, then the effect is the same. You also need to accept it, believe in it and let that hope take effect. Since you can't measure levels of hope(etc) with a gauge, you can't prove that x gives more hope then y, or that y is a placebo while x isn't.

In other words;

If your friend says "You'll be alright" or you ask god "Let me be alright" and you believe both in equal amount, then the effect will be equal. Same shit, different wrapper. Both require you to believe in it and both require you to let it sink in.

Ofcourse i'll use the word god when talking about praying/belief. You are still missing the key point, which i've said all along; belief/prayer IS the god because prayer/belief gives what god is supposed to.

Nath, ignoring you as you're taking it into that topic -yet- again.

Yes, i'm removing god, the sky fairy god you all hate so much.

Here's an idea;

Would you agree more if i said "Prayer/belief provides what god is supposed to"?

 

[nath]

Would you agree more if i said "Prayer/belief provides what god is supposed to"?

If you'd said that from the start, I very much doubt we'd still be discussing things - though not for the reasons you think.

 

[old.Tohtori]

If you'd said that from the start, I very much doubt we'd still be discussing things - though not for the reasons you think.

It's the same thing...

 

[nath]

It's the same thing...

It's demonstrably not.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Then demon-thef*ck-strate away.

"If god is(atleast expected to be) someone who gives strength through hard times, and prayer/belief gives that, then the prayer/belief is god."

is the same thing as;

"Prayer/belief gives what god is supposed to."

Just not in so many words and because i was saying "what is god", that's what i did!

 

[Bugz]

Nvm. Really not worth it :l

 

[nath]

"If god is(atleast expected to be) someone who gives strength through hard times, and prayer/belief gives that, then the prayer/belief is god."

Thankyou for providing the most concise and simple proof that you do not understand logic.

God is someone who gives strength through hard times, anti-depressants also give that, therefore anti-depressants are God.

Are we beginning to understand the flaw in your deductive reasoning? No? What a shock.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It's from the initial post, i simply proved that you're against something because you take it as something it isn't.

Two phrases, same meaning, different reaction from you. Also you've proven that you're capable of taking one line at a time, not discussing context or longer explanations.

The reason it's not the same as "anti-depressants are god" is because i'm talking of the activity that IS belief/prayer. I'm stating where god is in the religious action as that's where the god definition is at the moment.

You could rub your dick against a lamp-post and that would be your god if taken into the context i proposed.

 

[nath]

You could rub your dick against a lamp-post and that would be your god if taken into the context i proposed.

Exactly.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Exactly.

Well i never claimed it couldn't, my example was simply from the place where the theory stemmed from. Like i said; you taking it into some kind of religious "god is reals!" discussion is not my fault.

 

[nath]

Actually we had a nice talk about this in another place and i proposed a theory to prove 'god'.

So you're trying to prove 'god' but it's our fault for interpreting that as you wanting to prove 'god'.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It's your fault in taking one line out of ALL of text and sticking to that with tooth and nail.

I've clearly stated "the god in question changes", that "there's no supernatural thing in that theory" and still it comes back to "But yous is trying to prove existance of god!", when i made it clear that i'm not talking about proving the skyfairy, but giving a theory on what god could be.

A concept, an idea, a thing that changes person to person but provides the same thing.

Hell, it's no different then coming up with Y to prove X in science.

Just admit that the anti-crew got too hung up on words to actually read and consider something

 

[Bugz]

I think the problem here Toht is, and I may be wrong, but that what you meant was something that is common sense. It's hardly a theory you've proposed.

The fact you needed to spread it over god knows how many pages to explain the fact that "we all get our faith/strength/<insert> from different sources" is a testament to your failure at literacy and probably life.

 

[nath]

It's your fault in taking one line out of ALL of text and sticking to that with tooth and nail.

I've clearly stated "the god in question changes", that "there's no supernatural thing in that theory" and still it comes back to "But yous is trying to prove existance of god!", when i made it clear that i'm not talking about proving the skyfairy, but giving a theory on what god could be.

A concept, an idea, a thing that changes person to person but provides the same thing.

Ah I'm taking things out of context, that old chestnut. You need to find a new script mate .

Doesn't 'God' become irrelevant if it becomes so esoteric as to be simply a feeling evoked by people? Kids believe in Santa, they get a great deal of happiness from this belief, but the belief does not *create* Santa, it's still make believe. Their happiness is entirely legitimate and real but that has no bearing on the reality of Santa.

 

[old.Tohtori]

and I may be wrong

Yeah you are.

I don't think i need to explain further as it's common knowledge and you fail at life.

(But mostly you're just trying to blame one person, which is always wrong)

Ah I'm taking things out of context, that old chestnut. You need to find a new script mate .

Doesn't 'God' become irrelevant if it becomes so esoteric as to be simply a feeling evoked by people? Kids believe in Santa, they get a great deal of happiness from this belief, but the belief does not *create* Santa, it's still make believe. Their happiness is entirely legitimate and real but that has no bearing on the reality of Santa.

You talking of a new script hmm? Funny.

God doesn't become irrelevant, because it still is a concept that gives that hope etc to people who find it there. It's to prove, like said, that god is there, just not the skyfairy kind of god.

If the definition of god is "the thingy you pray to to get strength(as it often is)", then that definition, and the corresponding word 'god', fits that. Redefinition. If you pray a lamp post, or a bottle of pills, then there's ya god.

So if we draw crap from different sources, doesn't it prove god if god is defined as "someone you draw crap from".

And no Bugz it doesn't fit everything as everyone doesn't require god/belief/blah to get X.

For example; everyone doesn't need weetabix to get started in the morning, but it doesn't remove weetabix from existance

 

[nath]

If the definition of god is "the thingy you pray to to get strength(as it often is)", then that definition, and the corresponding word 'god', fits that. Redefinition. If you pray a lamp post, or a bottle of pills, then there's ya god.

Using this logic, again, applied to Santa we can say that he does exist given that the reaction brought about by thinking about him is very real. I don't think many adults are suggesting that Santa actually exists. It's a lie that's made up for Kids - it's *entirely* analogous to your position on God. So would you say that 'Santa' exists too?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Using this logic, again, applied to Santa we can say that he does exist given that the reaction brought about by thinking about him is very real. I don't think many adults are suggesting that Santa actually exists. It's a lie that's made up for Kids - it's *entirely* analogous to your position on God. So would you say that 'Santa' exists too?

Well, santa lives in finland so

But seriously, the belief in santa and the effects are real and by my definition, santa is the kids belief in santa, not the magical gift giving bigbeard.

 

[nath]

Well, santa lives in finland so

But seriously, the belief in santa and the effects are real and by my definition, santa is the kids belief in santa, not the magical gift giving bigbeard.

So given your previous statements, you'd consider that proof that 'Santa' exists?

 

[Tom]

How did I know before clicking on this thread that it would be eight pages of Toht with more bullshit arguments?

God told me.

 

[nath]

God told me.

Don't be absurd.









It was Santa.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So given your previous statements, you'd consider that proof that 'Santa' exists?

I never claimed god exists as santa would exist, or vice versa(as the supernatural beings).

But it would be proof that santa, the concept that makes kids happy and all that, does exist and as such is real.

Afterall, you can't deny that the belief in santa(etc) is not real can you?

(And ignoring the pokeys again)

 

[rynnor]

Doesn't 'God' become irrelevant if it becomes so esoteric as to be simply a feeling evoked by people? Kids believe in Santa, they get a great deal of happiness from this belief, but the belief does not *create* Santa, it's still make believe. Their happiness is entirely legitimate and real but that has no bearing on the reality of Santa.

Ah reality - you realise that none of us experience objective reality - we all see to a certain extent what we want to see due to various filters in the brain.

What about love - its an internal psychological state - does it really exist?

You could probably program kids to see Santa - kids are extremely suggestible.

 

[nath]

I never claimed god exists as santa would exist, or vice versa(as the supernatural beings).

But it would be proof that santa, the concept that makes kids happy and all that, does exist and as such is real.

Afterall, you can't deny that the belief in santa(etc) is not real can you?

(And ignoring the pokeys again)

The belief in Santa is obviously real, as is the belief in God. Obviously.

This is not what you put across initially though, you said you were proving 'god' and if all you were proving is that people believe in God then this has been an utter waste of time. It's utterly common sense that people believe in God, so I absolutely do not believe that that's what your point was initially.

 

[throdgrain]

You lot sound like a load of sixth formers who never grew up.

 

[old.Tohtori]

The belief in Santa is obviously real, as is the belief in God. Obviously.

This is not what you put across initially though, you said you were proving 'god' and if all you were proving is that people believe in God then this has been an utter waste of time. It's utterly common sense that people believe in God, so I absolutely do not believe that that's what your point was initially.

Grr.

I said, initially and many times after, that i'm not proving god, i said that there's a misdescription and i propose a theory to prove 'god'. Those little marks mean something you know. i didn't claim i'm proving a skyfairy, or that i'm proving the all-giving beardy guy. Never claimed that. I was giving a theory on what 'god' could be, what defines god and what part of praying fits that.

If all you were arguing is that "You is not proving the skyfairy" then it's REALLY not my problem. Which is the problem a lot of you had, thinking i meant that i'm proving the skyfairy. EVEN IF i said it very clearly that i wasn't.

 

[nath]

If all you were arguing is that "You is not proving the skyfairy" then it's REALLY not my problem. Which is the problem a lot of you had, thinking i meant that i'm proving the skyfairy. EVEN IF i said it very clearly that i wasn't.

I have never been arguing the point that you're trying to prove a skyfairy. You're completely misunderstanding/taking out of context what I'm saying.

 

[Cadelin]

How did I know before clicking on this thread that it would be eight pages of Toht with more bullshit arguments?

God told me.

Pro tip:
Click the number on the right of the thread title it lists the the number of posts by each user. If Toht is in the top two its not worth reading. There is one exception to this rule, if Edmond is one of the top posters, it is always worth viewing.

 

[Scouse]

The placebo effect is the effect of faith - generally peoples faith in a medical cure though it can be in a witch doctor, faith healer, hypnotist or even therapist

I agree. I wanted to point out that, simply because we don't know the mechanism doesn't make it religious faith. Or make it magical in any way.

And yes i keep my stance that it's not a placebo effect

So, we are back to magical sky-fairy stuff then?

Faith "magically" heals. To the same extent as a placebo might. But it's still magic, right?

It doesn't matter what they're praying to, it was never the point. The point was that the action gives what the target of the action is asked. Prayer = god as prayer gives what god is asked.

It matters very much what people pray to. In order for it to have a real placebo effect they have to actually believe that they're praying to god - otherwise why would they pray? They have to believe for there to be an effect.

And it's been shown that the action rarely does anything. In fact, so rarely as to beggar another explanation...

The funny part is that so many anti-god people are SO against a theory that would remove god from the equation

No. We're against at theory that still involves magical nonsense. Couldn't give a fuck if god featured myself...

 

[Scouse]

If support from friends brings +1 hope and praying to god brings +1 hope, then the effect is the same. You also need to accept it, believe in it and let that hope take effect. Since you can't measure levels of hope(etc) with a gauge, you can't prove that x gives more hope then y, or that y is a placebo while x isn't.

The support from friends and the support religious people get from their particular delusion is measurable (almost with a gague).

They're also very different.

If your friend says "You'll be alright" or you ask god "Let me be alright" and you believe both in equal amount, then the effect will be equal. Same shit, different wrapper. Both require you to believe in it and both require you to let it sink in.

You are not required to "believe" in the support of your friends. You have physical evidence of their support. They ring you, talk to you, come round your house, hug you, tell you you're great, laugh and share the good times with you.

You are required to "believe" when asking your god "let me be alright" - because he's never been there for you, he's never turned up for you, he's never bought you pizza or given you a hug or laughed at one of your jokes - 'cause he's in your mind...


Granted. Both can have very real effects. It's just that one method requires you to be a little bit batshit crazy