|
IF YOU DO NOT STOP THE HARRASING, I'LL REPORT YOU. CP DOESN'T LET ME BLOCK YOU, BUT I CAN REPORT YOU.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, do. Tell them that you want to run your private censorship regime on CP, ask then if they will condone it.
Maybe CP knows what UDHR-19 is all about. It seems like you don't.
|
|
|
|
|
BernardIE5317 wrote: agnostic . i believe science in particular Physics will sooner or later settle the matter one way or the other
That's not what agnostic means.
ag·nos·tic : a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God
In my opinion, one can be both theistic and agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive.
modified 15-Dec-23 12:06pm.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: In my opinion, one can be theist and agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive.
Humanity is full of contradictions.
That is actually a standard trop in science fiction where they drive the computer (android, whatever) mad by presenting it with a logical contradiction.
Myself I am not sure that any sane human can exist without contradictions.
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for the clarification . it seems i do not know the proper term for my situation . perhaps it is "idonotknowanddonotcareonewayortheother" .
|
|
|
|
|
And yet perfectly valid for a human to have that view. Yet at least some would claim it is not possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine that I am presented for some religion that I have never heard of before, and might never hear about again. "There is this group of a few thousand people down in Brazil (or somewhere) who has this idea that if they lay out colored stones in a specific pattern and show their palms to the sky, the gods will make it rain."
If I was presented for some person of this jungle tribe religion, I would of course try to react in a polite manner. But my true reaction would be a shrug, 'You can believe in that if you like to. But I don't care at all; it affects me in no way.'
Even when the religion is a big and powerful one, with lots of churches and clergy, my response is the same, a shrug and 'You can believe in that if you like to. But I don't care at all; it affects me in no way.' Any religion has the same value to me, whether a small tribal one or a mighty world religion - zero. As long as it doesn't insist on bothering me, controlling my life.
If I were a psychologist, I might want to study religions and beliefs as a mental phenomenon, to try to understand how the human brain works. But the 'religious' content of the religion would be more or less irrelevant; the fascinating part is how a religion, regardless of which one, works on humans.
|
|
|
|
|
BernardIE5317 wrote: i believe science in particular Physics will sooner or later settle the matter one way or the other
Odd supposition.
Normal definition of God is being outside the universe.
Normal definition of Physics is that is contained within the universe. It cannot prove anything outside. Which as best I understand is proving something of a problem with String Theory (for some variants.)
|
|
|
|
|
perhaps the "normal" definitions are not correct . i give it at most one-thousand years for the matter to be settled . by then we will either know or know we can not know .
|
|
|
|
|
There can be nothing outside the Universe, hence the term. By definition, the Universe contains everything.
If you have a circle, and discover something outside the circle, simply draw a bigger circle, the first circle was in error.
Theists may state that religion is the study of the works of God, but if God exists, then science is the study of the works of God.
|
|
|
|
|
Which god? There are many. Why should I bet on the god of a fairly recent religion when I can choose the Norse pantheon, the ancient Greek one and the Roman copy, the Egyptian one or even any of the fertility goddesses that pre-date even the Egyptian society?
What makes one true and the other false? Pascal chose to bet on a single deity out of thousands, his probability of winning is basically the same as to not bet at all.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” ― Stephen Roberts
I've always liked this quote. If I recall it was in someone's signature here a VERY LONG time ago.
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: What makes one true and the other false?
Trying to prove that God or indeed any event defined to be outside normal physics does not exist is the same as attempting to prove that it does.
Both require assumptions which by their very nature cannot be proven. And in logic if one refutes the assumptions then the proof no longer has any value.
This is of course different then taking a given proof, any proof, and invalidating it. Either because the proof is badly formed or because, as above, the assumptions are rejected.
It is of course not up to the person that rejected an assumption to then prove the assumption false. Rather it is up to the original author of the proof to then validate the assumption to the reader.
Additionally one often forgets or attempts to ignore than one does not actually need to be a theist, agnostic or atheist. Humans are more flexible than that because they can choose to simply ignore the question altogether. Similar to ignoring who will win a national sport championship at the start of a season.
|
|
|
|
|
"I refuse to prove that I exist." -- God, HHGTTG
|
|
|
|
|
many assumptions in your discussion of assumptions .
|
|
|
|
|
True. Including that logic itself is valid.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life.
I guarantee that you won't be disappointed when your days are counted. You won't be anything.
|
|
|
|
|
I told you to leave me alone. I don't need a commie who argues about pics of children talking to me. Go away. I don't associate with evil. Have enough self-respect to stop. And go be the miserable person we all know you really are.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy:
I have to remind you of UDHR Article 19.
Please note that my posts are directed to every reader of this forum. Others may care for what I write, even if it was triggered by something you wrote. You have no right to censor what other people read, written by others than yourself, certainly not on the grounds that it is triggered by what you wrote. You have no god-given right to have the last word in a conversation. That is a right I might give you, by not answering to your last word, but that is my choice.
|
|
|
|
|
I AM NOT READING YOUR REPLY. TAKE A HINT! I DO NOT WANT TO TALK TO YOU. GO AWAY!
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
So how can you be so angry? And so eager on censorship?
You really should read UDHR-19.
|
|
|
|
|
if a God exists who is he she it ? he she it presumably is an entity being "person" . why that particular entity being "person" is God and not another . how did he she it get the job ?
|
|
|
|
|
Let's assume one can't see past the personification of God with questions like that... Assuming neither of us are color blind, how do we know when you see the color green it's in fact the same color I see when I see green?
The atheist would say, "oh we have the same color receptors in the eye, blah blah". But, how do we know for sure?
In the context of this discussion one might also say, "we don't, so that proves my doubt". But, we trust that we do as system of understanding of existence for a concept none of us barely understand. Saying we understand because we know what green means to us is a shallow misrepresentation of the point and only demonstrates a person cannot think deep enough.
That's same with God. If you equate God with the likes of Santa, then you're doing it wrong buddy.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
If you take the entire set of laws of nature, both those that we know well and those we do not yet fully understand, and call it "god", that is OK with me. I call them laws of nature.
If you say that some entity can tell nature and its laws to bug off, set aside the laws, then I am not with you. Like setting aside math: 1 + 1 is no longer 2. Or logic: true OR false is not necessarily true.
If you dead serious present an entity that can cancel math, logic and laws of nature, then you make me stall. (Well, not actually - to me it is so far out that I do not care to spend the effort of stalling). If math, logic and laws of nature are absolute, then there is no need for an entity that cannot set them aside.
If there really was such an entity, it would be noticeable, in ways that left no doubt. Like math: If I got this many: *** and this many: ** and add them together, I obviously have this many: *****. Noone in their right senses would argue that. If someone says: I've got a god that can make *** + ** to be **** or ******! then I consider that person not to be in his right senses, even if he refers to something he calls 'god'. As long as that god is not willing to really show his ability to set my addition aside (without stealing one * away, or let an extra one roll out of his sleeve), then I tend to think that this 'god' entity only exists in the fantasy of the person promoting the belief.
I will not be willing to cease believing in math, logic and laws of nature even on my dying day, no matter what you "know".
(Jeremy: Don't forget UDHR Article 19 this time!)
|
|
|
|
|
I AM NOT READING YOUR REPLY. TAKE A HINT! I DO NOT WANT TO TALK TO YOU. GO AWAY!
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
