|
|
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - psyche
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
51
« on: July 02, 2008, 02:05:35 pm »
Just curious, but why do you hope there is a god?
Me, I hope there isn't lol! ah, so the truth comes out - you are biased towards your beliefs. Good to see you can atleast admit it as I could.  I have to agree. If there is a god, he is the biggest fucking troll ever. Honestly, I think most of us have felt a little bit of glee when trolling some moron, but this dude trolls entire fucking nations until they kill each other.
That's pretty troll. It comes back to the problem of free will. If there is a God that created all existence as we know it - it was obviously intended for us to have free will and not adhere to some deterministic rules or laws besides the physical laws of the universe - take away free will and the ability to do what would be considered bad things - we would essentially become the equivalent of mindless ants in a ant colony or something - with a divine being constantly intervening to micromanage everything we do would never learn from our mistakes, never develop as a species; the evil and bad things in the world sucks, but would you rather live without free will? Basically, damned if you do, damned if you don't. I would rather have us write the story of our lives ourselves than have God write the story for us. And that seems to be how the universe has been set up. I'm not really talking about religion at all, or even story telling, sorry. I don't really know how to explain it.
Like:
What about the idea that people can "sense" something out there? If you took a brand new baby, isolated it and let it grow up with absolutely no influence from anything or anyone, would it still grow up and be able to sense that something or someone is out there? I know what you mean, I think even the staunchest of atheists have that feeling but they just seem to ascribe it to something else for some reason. although Einstein might not be the best person to quote in defense of religion - I think it can be best summed up by this quote: "To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull facilities can comprehend only in the most primitive forms--this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the ranks of the devoutly religious men." - Albert Einstein Again, you're focusing on the influence of religion in creating God.
My question was, why - when any influence, including religion, is absent - does mankind still seem to come to the conclusion that God exists? I have noticed this too - apparently some of the poorest and most poverty-stricken countries still tend to be quite 'religious' people, suprisingly - but if not God in the conventional sense, atleast something that seems similar to what it represents (ie. some cultures might have a deep appreciation for the beauty and order in nature and the universe, but don't have the conventional concept of God that you and I do - or maybe they do? Hard to say..) For some reason, people like yourself seem to believe that science has replaced God, and I sincerely believe that is not the case at all. Also agree.
I've been reading and thinking about the implications of quantum theory recently. Gazing into the abyss of what underpins reality can be very unsettling. Strangely enough there's room down there in the probabilistic quantum foam for an intelligence that would easily exceed any current requirements of godhood. I have a suspicion that if such a sentience were actually found, many people will still be looking for a god elsewhere.
Ironically, Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory, was apparently a deeply religious man aswell. Though i'm sure that means nothing to you, as usual.
52
« on: May 31, 2008, 04:29:18 pm »
Oh yes please. Maybe while you're at it you can get down and polish my knob for me too.
Seriously though, someone who comes into a discussion like this with absolutely nothing intelligent to contribute except being a douchebag deserves a bit of abuse in return. If he had actually put in some effort to contribute his own opinions, thoughts or beliefs to the discussion like I have then sweet as then he might be justified in his criticisms, but he hasn't, so fuck him.
53
« on: May 31, 2008, 04:00:31 pm »
lol, fuck Zarkov, he can eat a dick. Though i'm sure he does on a regular basis anyway.
54
« on: May 31, 2008, 03:51:43 pm »
Hey, how about get fucked you cat-loving weirdo.
55
« on: May 31, 2008, 02:59:05 pm »
There must have been something special about him otherwise no-one would still be talking about him to this day and he wouldn't be such an iconic figure in history, would he? The dates and years of our history are based on his life and death ffs.
Honestly though, some of the shit that gets posted here makes me wants to stab a rusty fork into my brain. Where the hell do you people get your education, the University of Monkeys?
56
« on: May 31, 2008, 02:52:59 pm »
What, like the entire clergy in the dark ages? Fuckin hell, do you actually try to be a complete moron or does it just come naturally to you? 
( He was just another dude psyche.)
Oh okay, so Jesus was 'just another dude' because you and your silly picture say so. Well, thanks for that enlightening bit of information.
57
« on: May 30, 2008, 07:49:28 pm »
Nice, Bill O'Reilly (Oh Really!) is a kneejerk interviewer not worth the time of day..."We saw Apollo down there, he's not in a good way"...wtf!
But I'll wait, because there's sure to be something juicy about Dawkins being an idiot etc :asian:
I thought he came across as someone eminently reasonable, even when faced with stupidity. They're both muppets. Like I said I don't think Richard Dawkins is all that bad, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and I haven't read any of his books (only bits and pieces of his arguments) so I can't critisize him too much. It's the veracity of his ridiculous claims that people who believe in God or something more meaningful behind the universe are deluded that make him not worth paying any attention to at all really. The God Delusion is a book made by a fanatical atheist made for atheists - I see no appeal or worth to it beyond that whatsoever. And the whole evolution thing; okay, so evolution explains how life and the universe evolves and adapts over time; but it doesn't explain why it all happens to work so effectively or why it was set into motion in the first place - I find the questions of HOW and WHEN it all happened a bit too boring, I want to know WHY it all happened! I think some people underestimate the mystery of nature. Why is mankind the only creature on this entire planet and possibly within the observable universe that gained true sentient intelligence and moral awareness; is it just a sheer coincidence or is there something else going on..? Very cleverly and subtly insinuated, but it appears I'm in good intellectual company if I'm in your group of the retarded. Re the anthropic principle, you've misrepresented it and not considered objections against the reactions against it you posted, this being an example of your utter inability to consider stuff that doesn't clearly lead to a white-bearded God in the sky. It's because the objections are not worth considering - the notion that this universe is just one of many possible universes that just happened to 'get it all right' is so utterly ludicrous it's laughable. So what's the other options? If chance is supposedly not a factor, and an intelligent first cause is supposedly not a factor for the existence of the universe, then what is!?and if you seriously think that my idea of God is a "white-bearded old man in the sky" you are misinformed my friend. You think that just because some artists in earlier times portrayed God as an old man resting above the clouds that that forms the common modern conception of what God is? Pffft. lol @ hitler being an atheist
Hitler wasn't anything dude, just a deranged madman; plain and simple. He miscontrued religion as propoganda to sway his people in public, but I wouldn't say he was atheist or religious to be honest, just a crazy sonofabitch. Not even worth thinking about. Have you seen Der Untergang? The whole fucking German country were a bunch of loons back then. Or the whole Third Reich atleast.
58
« on: May 30, 2008, 01:48:52 pm »
It's actually a quite good argument, and one that's been related to you about twenty times now mate. I'm really starting to believe you're just trying to fuck with everyone. You should take a hard look inward an ask yourself whether that's all you're ever going to achieve. No, it really isn't - and i'm really starting to believe that some of you are just thick as pig shit and/or not willing or capable to consider any viewpoint which hasn't been drummed into your head by fanatical atheists :/ "i cant understand whats going on"
if you cant understand adult conversation then you should leave it to the adults Look, you said that neither chance nor an 'intelligent designer' could account for the structure and intelligence present in the universe - but you have yet to explain to me how you think the universe got it's structure and intelligence? What you said is a bastardization of the anthropic principle. It's like an atheist invoking multiverses to try and explain the fine-tuned physical constants of the universe. It's a cop out. It's like saying "We are here because we are, so there! NEEEHH" and then not bothering to think about it any further because that is the ignorant conclusion you have come to. It's an attempt by atheists to get out of having to explain why the universe is so finely-tuned for life, but it only makes you look foolish. Read this:
Anthropic Principle
"everything about the universe tends toward humans, toward making life possible and sustaining it" Hugh Ross
"... the Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common--these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life." Patrick Glynn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Anthropic Principle was first suggested in a 1973 paper, by the astrophysicist and cosmologist Brandon Carter from Cambridge University, at a conference held in Poland to celebrate the 500th birthday of the father of modern astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus. The Anthropic Principle is an attempt to explain the observed fact that the fundamental constants of physics and chemistry are just right or fine-tuned to allow the universe and life at we know it to exist. (see Cosmic Matters). The Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common--these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life.
- Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, "stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster."
- The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example).
- A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons--yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.
If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron--then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it--and to life.
- The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery (a point noticed by one of the forerunners of anthropic reasoning in the nineteenth century, Harvard biologist Lawrence Henderson). Unique amongst the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to the unique properties of the hydrogen atom.
- The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the centre of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12--allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long. Taken from God the Evidence by Patrick Glynn
- The fact that we are living and can observe the universe, implies that the fundamental constants must be "just right" to produce life. There is an element of circular reasoning here, because if the constants were not "just right", we would not be here to observe the universe. However, the fact is that the universe does not seem to be a random or chance event. We can postulate a many universe scenario, in which only one or some universes produce life, but we cannot validate that scientifically because we only live in one of those universes.
Here are some definitions, first from Barrow and Tipler:
Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.
Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history. Because:
There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers'. Or...
Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being (Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP)). Or...
An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe (which may be related to the Many_Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics).
Final Anthropic Principle (FAP): Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.
Copernicus suggested the sun-centred model of the planetary system rather than an earth-centred model. 500 years later the Anthropic Principle puts mankind back to centre-stage. The Anthropic Principle refutes the Darwinist's claim that we are the product of mere chance. The universe is not so random as we thought. We have a universe with a beginning and designed for man.
The Universe. Congratulations. 
59
« on: May 30, 2008, 03:47:25 am »
you are using faulty logic, if the universe didn't exist in a way that we could observe it then we wouldn't be here to observe it, given that we are here the universe must be suited for us, chance doesn't come into this nor does a god Yeah ok, you keep telling yourself that.. what atheist book did you get that ridiculous argument from? so neither chance NOR God come into the equation? What then accounts for the structure and intelligence in the universe that we observe?
60
« on: May 29, 2008, 03:41:01 pm »
give examples of this hard evidence, because most scientists and most modern philosophers might disagree with you The fact that the universe (arguably, but evidence tends to confirm it) had a finite beginning. So in essense a 'beginning' implies that the universe was created, thus requiring a beginner, a first cause. As in my above post I believe that if there were no purpose or intelligence behind that beginning whatsoever, we could not exist as we are today. That the universe is incomprehensible, but still intelligible and structured in a way that we can understand it. There is more, just cbf thinking right now... I'm not sure what kind of evidence you are referring to though, if you talking about scientists that might physically find God and say hello, then no I don't think that is very realistic.
61
« on: May 29, 2008, 03:25:49 pm »
this is a lie - there is no hard evidence for god Just your opinion really; many scientists, theologians, religious people and philosophers might disagree with you. Reminds of these two quotes: God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. - J.B. Phillips A God who let us prove his existence would be an idol. --Deitrich Bonhoeffer um... Dawkins has a D.Phil, so he is a doctor of philosophy - again you have no idea about his works so you are just a shit geyser (spouting shit) Well his philosophy sucks then >_<
62
« on: May 29, 2008, 03:22:05 pm »
But what is the difference between 'God' and 'pixies'?
They are both manifestations of overactive imaginings....or are they?
The 'proof' for 'pixies' is as strong as the 'proof' for 'God'. God is a word that (mostly, english) people use to describe the first cause that brought all physical being into existence, the source of life, intelligence, the cosmos and everything inbetween. Proof of God for me comes back to the fact that time, space, energy, the universe, everything did not exist, so there must have been nothing. Yet somehow everything that we know came into existence from (arguably) nothing, now if there were absolutely no intention or purpose or intelligence behind that event whatsoever I honestly don't believe it could have turned out how it is now; there are too many coincidences to simply ignore in my opinion. It's not undeniable proof but coupled with other evidence and various philosophies I find it to be a more realistic than most other, particulary atheistic theories about life and the universe. Now what implication I think that haves on our lives, heaven and hell and all that stuff... I won't say because i'm not religious, but to be quite honest I like the idea of moral punishment, I think murderers and rapists should receive some kind of eternal hell, and I also like the idea that there may be an existence that is beyond what we perceive in our mortal shells in this physical, material universe. That all the pain, suffering and misery with fleeting moments of love and happiness that we experience doesn't just continue in an endless cycle, but there's something more to it. Don't get me wrong, i'm not entirely convinced by the existence of God which is why im agnostic but I think it's a very plausible explanation for the beginning of everything that we know. Just my thoughts.. If you want to call it 'pixies' instead, by all means, just don't expect me to take you seriously.
63
« on: May 29, 2008, 02:49:50 pm »
What I mean is, there is evidence to support God and there is evidence to support other theories, there is no evidence to support 'pixies' whatsoever so until there is it's a waste of time and intellectual effort to even mention it. Come on - did the greatest philosophical thinkers ever use ridiculous analogies like pixies? No, the majority of them were beyond that kind of immature notion so why should any of you stoop to that level? Richard Dawkins doesn't count as a philosophical thinker either, he's just a biologist.
64
« on: May 29, 2008, 02:33:28 pm »
Well I have faith that there aren't little green pixies living under the surface of the sun. Is that the same? No, that's irrational faith based on nothing..
65
« on: May 29, 2008, 01:22:23 pm »
Depends where you get your definition of faith from then, doesn't it? There are many people that would agree with me that atheism requires a form of faith. Whatever, agree to disagree anyway, pretty pointless thing to argue about.
66
« on: May 29, 2008, 01:07:13 pm »
So let me get this straight, in laymans terms:
Faith = belief in something that can only be "sensed".
Atheism = rejection of the notion that such a being exists.
So how does Atheism require Faith?
Pure and simple, it doesn't.
Idiot.
'Faith' is not something you associate only with religion. Atheism DOES require faith. Main Entry: 1faith Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\ Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)To be a true atheist is to believe in something for which there is no proof. So next time you consider calling me an idiot without a good reason, maybe you should just STFU and eat a dick instead. "To be an atheist requires an infinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny." - Joseph Addison Pseudoscience
And what have I been discussing that is pseudoscience? Guess what? String theory/M-theory/multiverses are pseudoscience bullshit. crap Oh well, if you seriously believe mankind will evolve to a stage of being able to create universes like our own from nothing then you really aren't worth arguing or discussing anything with. lol supreme alien being. Go read some more Richard Dawkins and further delude yourself buddy. lol....no worries bro...I find if I talk it affects my gameplay adversely!
Righto: back on topic:following on from philo and pyro...arguably if religion hadn't been the major dominating factor in the Dark Ages, we would be 1500 years ahead with our technology.
Makes you think! What a load of shit.
67
« on: May 28, 2008, 11:50:17 pm »
How many times must you be corrected?
Dawkins explored the idea of the earth being seeded by aliens, he said it was interesting BECAUSE it only led to the same questions about the origins of said aliens. HE DOESN'T BELEIVE IN ALIENS. HE EVEN STATES THE ALIENS IN THIS HYPOTHESIS WOULD HAVE HAD THEIR OWN KIND OF EVOLUTION. How many times does it have to be pointed out to YOU? It's the fact that he thinks it's more intriguing possibility than God; the supposed source of ALL intelligence. So he's saying it's plausible for intelligent alien beings to have 'intelligently designed' life, but if you believe it was God instead according to him you are delusional. He made the fucking statement whether you like it or not. Apparently in the same interview he was asked what he thought the likely chance of God existing is. He said "there is a 99% chance that God does not exist" - then when asked if it might be something close to 70% he said "it might be closer to 70% or 60%....oh I don't want to name a number.." (not an exact quote but it is similar to this) Meh, he's a joke. Like I said there are much more knowledgeable people than him, if you want to take him seriously and hang onto his every word... go for it. In the end it really doesn't matter, you can think what you like of atheists, your opinion means nothing to nobody -except yourself. Why the fuck are you even replying to my posts then numbnuts? And if you think theres a god good luck figuring out what meaning he's got for your life. Nobody has worked it out yet. Maybe they just weren't blindly following their own wild conjecture for long enough. Thats the only way I can see you've got an advantage on the millions of lives that have gone before you. Man, sorry for being curious about where the existence of everything came from, where we came from, and why and how and all these fascinating questions that one can ponder. I guess I should go play World of Warcraft and fondle my ballsacks for the rest of the week because that's a much more constructive thing to do.
68
« on: May 28, 2008, 11:31:48 pm »
If only it was that easy. Yes without religion or gods id be happy for atheism to totally disappear. But as it stand there are people who claim gods exist and use this to gain power, and this is where the problems start. Sounds more like you have a problem with the doctrination and structure of religions than whether God exists or not then, do you agree? Is the only reason you relate to atheism because of the minority (and it is a minority) that use religion as a means to gain power? Surely we can give some merit to all the other many intelligent and respect-worthy people that claim God exists that aren't corrupted by the greed of power? I'm not sure if you are aware but there are plenty of other religious people that are some of the most kind, accepting people on the face of the planet, and have no desire for power or self-gain whatsoever?
69
« on: May 28, 2008, 11:11:02 pm »
Oh man... actually i have never seen dawkins mention anything like this. Yeah and i'm Elvis Presley. AAHTHANKYOUVERYMUCH. why is there need to deny the existence of something for which there is no evidence to begin with? So basically you are saying there is no need for atheism, right? I agree with you. I do not agree with you that there is 'no evidence' though, you're just not looking hard enough This quote comes to mind: To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" If you are so damn sure about your belief - why do you even bother coming here to argue about it? Wouldn't you just say something like "You're all idiots, and anyone in the world that has ever believed in God or a being that is the source of physical existence are all idiots, because I am infinitely knowledgeable and all-knowing. Idiots." and leave it at that?
70
« on: May 28, 2008, 10:25:50 pm »
Have you ever considered that you may be wrong about certain things? It seems to me that you will not consider such an occurrence is possible. It's like you have blinkers on. Of course i've considered it, i'm just fairly convinced that i'm not wrong about certain things. It's almost like I have a "gut instinct" that there is something more meaningful behind life and the universe beyond what we only perceive in our physical existence that cannot be explained simply by sway of opinion, or how I was raised, or anything like that. Gut instincts have turned out to be wrong before though I guess.. I'm also fairly sure that i'm right about it not being possible for time to have existed before the universe aswell; but I can't back that up with anything solid just at the moment so I won't be ignorant enough to claim that I know it for a fact (Ok? happy?  )
71
« on: May 28, 2008, 10:02:10 pm »
thats right resort to insults when you have nothing intelligent to reply with.
try taking your own advice Yes, well considering you are using 'pixies at the end of your garden' as an argument for atheism not requiring faith, am I not far from the truth? I dunno, you may not use insults directly but you seem to go out of your way to deride religion and particulary Christianity - is that not a form of insult aswell? (just cleverly disguised insult, methinks) See, i'm past the point of being 'nice'. It's alright for others to throw insults in my direction but as soon as you receive one you get on your high horse and have a moan about it? I already offered my idea for a practical solution to this problem on the previous page, yet it was completely ignored. More coherent argument?
trying reading it. i know you have problems thinking for yourself but try looking a little harder I did read it. It's just more crap from Richard Dawkins - the man that thinks aliens being the cause of all intelligent life is a 'more intriguing possibility' than God - the funny thing is, I don't think you even understand or analyze his arguments at all, or make any attempt to question them. Pixies and fairy's? Get the fuck out with that shit and go back to reading your Harry Potter books kid. Why, of all people in this world, do you hold Richard Dawkins opinion in such high regard? There are many people in this world significantly more knowledgeable than that twat.
72
« on: May 28, 2008, 09:59:11 pm »
thats right resort to insults when you have nothing intelligent to reply with.
try taking your own advice Yes, well considering you are using 'pixies at the end of your garden' as an argument for atheism not requiring faith, am I not far from the truth? I dunno, you may not use insults directly but you seem to go out of your way to deride religion and particulary Christianity - is that not a form of insult aswell? (just cleverly disguised insult, methinks) See, i'm past the point of being 'nice'. It's alright for others to throw insults in my direction but as soon as you receive one you get on your high horse and have a moan about it? I already offered my idea for a practical solution to this problem on the previous page, yet it was completely ignored. More coherent argument?
trying reading it. i know you have problems thinking for yourself but try looking a little harder I did read it. It's just more crap from Richard Dawkins - the man that thinks aliens being the cause of all intelligent life is a 'more intriguing possibility' than God - the funny thing is, I don't think you even understand or analyze his arguments at all, or make any attempt to question them. Pixies and fairy's? Get the fuck out with that shit and go back to reading your Harry Potter books kid. Why, of all people in this world, do you hold Richard Dawkins opinion in such high regard? There are many people in this world significantly more knowledgeable than that twat.
73
« on: May 28, 2008, 09:30:04 pm »
Oh look, it's a deluded Dawkins nutter. I suppose you believe aliens designed life on Earth aswell? Pfffft. Try coming up with a more coherent argument than just raving about fairy's and pixies, it gives absolutely no credibility to your arguments whatsoever
74
« on: May 28, 2008, 09:24:35 pm »
Oh look, it's a deluded Dawkins nutter. I suppose you believe aliens designed life on Earth aswell? Pfffft. Try coming up with a more coherent argument than just raving about fairy's and pixies, it gives absolutely no credibility to your arguments whatsoever
75
« on: May 28, 2008, 09:07:39 pm »
religion is belief based on faith so saying christianity isnt religious because you identify it with faith is wrong. Wtf? Ironically, atheism is a faith-based belief aswell. So is atheism a religion also? It certainly seems like it. ahhh kk just thought she was an idiot. :chuckle: More irony.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
|
|
|
