An image that got me wondering

[bright maroon]

I have to default back to the confuscian concept of the circle...

The circle representing all possibilities...
and how we as people occupy different places on the circle as we experience life...
and how good and bad is really irrelevant as it is relative and unfixed

- what is relevant is helping each other traverse whatever it is..
because we are all in this world...

cause and effect

I was a vegetaran multiple times in my life - for 7 years at one point..
Because - I like my animals alive...and am a hypocrite in eating them pre-slaughtered..

But a cat cannot live without meat - Does that make a cat a demon or just a result of it's biology..

In the same breath - the panda is a bear that has forgone predation
...is higher than a kite and can barely reproduce...

Is the Panda on the verge of escaping the christian purgatory of earth?

I am pretty frikken confush-ed as you can see.

[JTMMusicuk]

Cats are egyptian gods so they can do what the fuck they want

[wilson]

Cats are egyptian gods so they can do what the fuck they want

They certainly seem to have retained that mentality. Cocky little bastads.

[garethom]

Is the Panda on the verge of escaping the christian purgatory of earth?

Yes.

Is that the answer?

[particle-jim]

If anyone flat out say's that there is no God then this is as much a statement of faith as saying there definitely is a God, you cannot prove that there is no God so to make such statements is a bit hypocritical if you also accuse religious people of blindly follwing their faith.

nah G

its not

making a statement that you are unable to prove with empirical evidence and saying that it is the absolute truth?

sounds like faith to me

[bright maroon]

My Mom's...(bastard)



recently did battle with...(whores)



but I was unable to see the actual event from the...

[Today]

If anyone flat out say's that there is no God then this is as much a statement of faith as saying there definitely is a God, you cannot prove that there is no God so to make such statements is a bit hypocritical if you also accuse religious people of blindly follwing their faith.

nah G

its not

making a statement that you are unable to prove with empirical evidence and saying that it is the absolute truth?

sounds like faith to me

it is to a degree, faith. but it's a common, exhausting, and flawed argument. it's apples to oranges. Comparing faith in a claim that has zero empirical evidence, with faith in a claim that's backed by centuries of empirical evidence, is not the same. It takes a level of faith to believe there is no god, but it takes BLIND faith to believe there is a god.
The atheist faith is in the idea that future investigations will uphold the current conclusion. Theist faith is in the idea that future (afterlife) experiences will prove the current conclusions wrong

it just isn't the same faith.

It might be irrelevant, since faith is faith period and the point is we don't know for sure either way. but it isn't quite equal like that (imho)

[magma]

If anyone flat out say's that there is no God then this is as much a statement of faith as saying there definitely is a God, you cannot prove that there is no God so to make such statements is a bit hypocritical if you also accuse religious people of blindly follwing their faith.

nah G

its not

making a statement that you are unable to prove with empirical evidence and saying that it is the absolute truth?

sounds like faith to me

it is to a degree, faith. but it's a common, exhausting, and flawed argument. it's apples to oranges. Comparing faith in a claim that has zero empirical evidence, with faith in a claim that's backed by centuries of empirical evidence, is not the same. It takes a level of faith to believe there is no god, but it takes BLIND faith to believe there is a god.
The atheist faith is in the idea that future investigations will uphold the current conclusion. Theist faith is in the idea that future (afterlife) experiences will prove the current conclusions wrong

it just isn't the same faith.

What is the empirical evidence for lack of a God? I can see plenty of circumstantial evidence for one not being required, but actual evidence that there isn't one? That's skipped me by...

It doesn't require faith not to believe in God, but it does to actively believe there isn't one.

[cmgoodman1226]

Here's my take: I personally believe in God. Obviously I lack empirical evidence to prove in, and I don't claim to have any. But in my short time alive, I have seen enough things that for me personally make me believe there is a God. Plenty of other people would look at what I've seen and just say coincedence, but I personally don't. I don't adhere to any strict religion, but I do pray and meditate and the like.
I have nothing against organized religion as a whole, but I DO have plenty against people (including some of the writers of the bible) who take a great idea and try to twist it for their own selfish ends. IMO, it's not organized religion that has started wars and the like, it's people taking what was and still is in my belief a good idea and misconstrueing it to justify murder. Humans are fallible and are prone to crave power, sometimes by any means necessary.
On the other side, I'm a science major and believe in evolution and that the earth is billions of years old, not thousands. I also see nothing wrong with atheism. I don't presume to know what's written on another man's heart and I firmly believe any athiest can live a just and moral and fullfilling life, just as I can. I also don't go around trying to convert non-believers. If you ask me what my opinion is, I'll give it, but I believe everybody has their own journey, and who am I to try to force you down my path? If there is a god, it's my belief that the measure of a good man is one who spends his life searching for his own truth.
In the end of the day, I know there's plenty of things that would point to the lack of a God, but for me personally, I see far more that points to a god's existence. I don't call him jesus or yahweh or allah, I call him God only because it's simple and everybody knows what I'm talking about when I say it. It's certainly not original but that's my philosophy anyways.

You surname (I assume the middle bit of your handle is your surname) is very
apt. Enjoy your time in this realm, comrade.

haha thank you. And yes, it is my surname.

[Today]

If anyone flat out say's that there is no God then this is as much a statement of faith as saying there definitely is a God, you cannot prove that there is no God so to make such statements is a bit hypocritical if you also accuse religious people of blindly follwing their faith.

nah G

its not

making a statement that you are unable to prove with empirical evidence and saying that it is the absolute truth?

sounds like faith to me

it is to a degree, faith. but it's a common, exhausting, and flawed argument. it's apples to oranges. Comparing faith in a claim that has zero empirical evidence, with faith in a claim that's backed by centuries of empirical evidence, is not the same. It takes a level of faith to believe there is no god, but it takes BLIND faith to believe there is a god.
The atheist faith is in the idea that future investigations will uphold the current conclusion. Theist faith is in the idea that future (afterlife) experiences will prove the current conclusions wrong

it just isn't the same faith.

What is the empirical evidence for lack of a God? I can see plenty of circumstantial evidence for one not being required, but actual evidence that there isn't one? That's skipped me by...

It doesn't require faith not to believe in God, but it does to actively believe there isn't one.

Touche

[Phigure]

there's no empirical evidence against one because of the very nature of a god as by its definition. but there is ontological, deductive reasoning that completely rules out gods that are omniscient, omnipotent personal beings (such as the abrahamic god). which basically just leaves ideas like pantheism and deism, which i have no problems with.

[unwind]

If anyone flat out say's that there is no God then this is as much a statement of faith as saying there definitely is a God, you cannot prove that there is no God so to make such statements is a bit hypocritical if you also accuse religious people of blindly follwing their faith.

nah G

its not

making a statement that you are unable to prove with empirical evidence and saying that it is the absolute truth?

sounds like faith to me

it is to a degree, faith. but it's a common, exhausting, and flawed argument. it's apples to oranges. Comparing faith in a claim that has zero empirical evidence, with faith in a claim that's backed by centuries of empirical evidence, is not the same. It takes a level of faith to believe there is no god, but it takes BLIND faith to believe there is a god.
The atheist faith is in the idea that future investigations will uphold the current conclusion. Theist faith is in the idea that future (afterlife) experiences will prove the current conclusions wrong

it just isn't the same faith.

What is the empirical evidence for lack of a God? I can see plenty of circumstantial evidence for one not being required, but actual evidence that there isn't one? That's skipped me by...

It doesn't require faith not to believe in God, but it does to actively believe there isn't one.

This got me thinking...

It depends entirely on how it is worded.
For example, take these two statements:

I believe there is not a God.

I do not believe in a God.

OR:

I believe God does not exist.

I do not believe in God.

EDIT: Never mind, I suppose in both cases it would 'require' some sort of faith in oneself to make such a statement. I think I was just thinking too hard. Although the latter example does kiiiiind of make the assumption that God does exist in some way, shape or form...

My head hurts.

[magma]

[particle-jim]

If anyone flat out say's that there is no God then this is as much a statement of faith as saying there definitely is a God, you cannot prove that there is no God so to make such statements is a bit hypocritical if you also accuse religious people of blindly follwing their faith.

nah G

its not

making a statement that you are unable to prove with empirical evidence and saying that it is the absolute truth?

sounds like faith to me

it is to a degree, faith. but it's a common, exhausting, and flawed argument. it's apples to oranges. Comparing faith in a claim that has zero empirical evidence, with faith in a claim that's backed by centuries of empirical evidence, is not the same. It takes a level of faith to believe there is no god, but it takes BLIND faith to believe there is a god.
The atheist faith is in the idea that future investigations will uphold the current conclusion. Theist faith is in the idea that future (afterlife) experiences will prove the current conclusions wrong

it just isn't the same faith.

What is the empirical evidence for lack of a God? I can see plenty of circumstantial evidence for one not being required, but actual evidence that there isn't one? That's skipped me by...

It doesn't require faith not to believe in God, but it does to actively believe there isn't one.

thank you, you put that much better than i did

[bright maroon]

I also have a soft spot in my heart for those uber christian women
who drown their children - because god told them to...

sometimes a decent amount of disobidience to god would be in order...

insert olympic symbol here...


Anyone seen the movie "The Devils" by Ken Russell?
...it was based on Huxleys' book "The Devils of Loudon"...?

Great - extrememly twisted film - that film is messed up in about fifty million different ways...

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8Xgm1u_SF4" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

[vishes]

... Ok I need to see that film.

[garethom]

bitch I luv it when u suk dat sexy spear wound

[wormcode]

If anyone flat out say's that there is no God then this is as much a statement of faith as saying there definitely is a God, you cannot prove that there is no God so to make such statements is a bit hypocritical if you also accuse religious people of blindly follwing their faith.

nah G

its not

making a statement that you are unable to prove with empirical evidence and saying that it is the absolute truth?

sounds like faith to me

it is to a degree, faith. but it's a common, exhausting, and flawed argument. it's apples to oranges. Comparing faith in a claim that has zero empirical evidence, with faith in a claim that's backed by centuries of empirical evidence, is not the same. It takes a level of faith to believe there is no god, but it takes BLIND faith to believe there is a god.
The atheist faith is in the idea that future investigations will uphold the current conclusion. Theist faith is in the idea that future (afterlife) experiences will prove the current conclusions wrong

it just isn't the same faith.

What is the empirical evidence for lack of a God? I can see plenty of circumstantial evidence for one not being required, but actual evidence that there isn't one? That's skipped me by...

It doesn't require faith not to believe in God, but it does to actively believe there isn't one.

There is more than circumstantial and common sense type evidence, but the definition of 'god' varies from person to person, sometimes even amongst the same religions, which makes it hard to even debate. Like how a lot of Catholics don't pay much attention to Jesus at all, they prefer saints and such. I mean things like lack of geological evidence of certain supposed events, lack of written testimony outside the specific religious circle, and far too many opposing and contradictory ideas and writings from around the same times, often in the same religious works that have been edited to shreds over time.

That mixed with logical fallacies and paradoxes such as the omnipotence paradox, and the idea of 'where did god come from? How is an all-powerful being created? If it always existed, why couldn't the universe and atoms always have existed, thus having no need for a conscious creator.'

Those 2 main ideas are more than enough for most people, which is one of the main reasons there are not loads of scientists everywhere trying to find a conscious creator, and why there is only a handful of traditionally religious scientists in comparison.

As for trying to prove it with science, that's how things like Bertrand Russell's Teapot argument and Occams Razor came to be.

Tl;dr faith like this is tied to what we call the 'supernatural' (as in not natural) and already a firm belief, not an idea or hypothesis, and has no real relationship with natural science.

What I really find interesting/funny is when a religious person brushes off the idea of extraterrestrials as stupid, or even worse as 'heresy'. Maybe the best is when they refer to aliens (or even creatures on Earth) as 'godless beings'. There is a real sick arrogance about religion, as if their god would only create humans (and sometimes only a specific race of human) yet somehow would also not be responsible for other lifeforms, yet they never really ask themselves where those lifeforms might have come from. Asking such things is considered heresy, because when you ask such things and question them, that's how religion starts to lose its power and die off, and that's why it's taboo and could get you easily murdered in the past, and sometimes still today.

[vishes]

bitch I luv it when u suk dat sexy spear wound

yeah that made go "...Ok, what the fuck?..."

[wormcode]

I'm curious how many people here believe in god but do not believe in aliens or something like sasquatch? It seems very common based on discussions I've had or read in the past.

If you believe in one or the other, do you think they were created by the same creator/god as humans?