# Your fav religious /anti religious vids



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Nov 11, 2011)

heres one of my all time favs .......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ


----------



## BA142 (Nov 12, 2011)

[video=youtube;SSxgnu3Hww8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8[/video]


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 13, 2011)

LOL!!!!!!!!!! Fucking loser ass boxer, well not boxer, a uuuuuhhh..... A Has been slacker no good two shoes wannabe athlete quitter!

Dont you get it, no one finds you amuzing anymore... I fucking hate you and others dislike you


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Nov 13, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> LOL!!!!!!!!!! Fucking loser ass boxer, well not boxer, a uuuuuhhh..... A Has been slacker no good two shoes wannabe athlete quitter!
> 
> Dont you get it, no one finds you amuzing anymore... I fucking hate you and others dislike you


listen sunshine , your thoughts on me are irelivent .you type dat shit like your opinion matters to someone , guess what ? it dont sunshine , you dont mean shit to nobody ,loser . you are a indocrinated fool ,you have no evidence for your god existing , your a joke , a smear on society , your brain is stalled with faith lol .to be frank your way of thinking ( belief without evidence ) is a disgrace to the human mind . you lack logical thinking ,AND BLINDLEYfollow faith like a sheep wandering over to the wolf . you are STUPID .
you have yet to come up with one well structed thought out sentance , my only conclusion on you is that your suffer from mental retardation .


----------



## spandy (Nov 13, 2011)

Wow this dude has been on a roll lately.

Issues?


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Nov 13, 2011)

hi spandex , have you become one of his bum chums ?


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Nov 13, 2011)

hey olly lifter this video is me to you , watch it right to the end this is exactly how i am towards you , this sums it up ......................http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01r1Tz4k3m8&feature=related


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 13, 2011)

LOL!!!!!!

Lalalala!!!!

Spagetti

Chumly

Lion

Pancake

Graft

Tangible

Periodization

£&#8364;$&#8364;#%()=,,,:::&#8364;$)(#%&#8364;


----------



## 420God (Nov 13, 2011)

[video=youtube;61ReohCr35U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61ReohCr35U[/video]


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 13, 2011)

This was from me to you, you bum!

It was not and is not intended for anyone else, wash out!

What happened, the truth aboot your boxing cough... You suck.... Cough... Skill hurts?




olylifter420 said:


> LOL!!!!!!!!!! Fucking loser ass boxer, well not boxer, a uuuuuhhh..... A Has been slacker no good two shoes wannabe athlete quitter!
> 
> Dont you get it, no one finds you amuzing anymore... I fucking hate you and others dislike you


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Nov 13, 2011)

Alright oly and sativa, chill out guys, .

Sativa- to you there is no god right? So what does it matter who is right or what is the purpose of even calling oly an indoctrinated fool? I mean going by your beliefs, both you and oly will continue the circle of life when you die. Neither of you guys are superior to each other.

Oly- if you truly believe in god, you will understand that he will have to speak to god about all the things he said.

I guess I'm trying to say that y'all's argument is worthless, .

No offense to either of you. 

Let's get along.... 

What has y'all's argument come down to? It seems that it no longer has much to do with religion.

Again, no offense to either of you.


----------



## Beansly (Nov 13, 2011)

[video=youtube;MyJA7J7LTao]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyJA7J7LTao&list=FLHdqnHaWE3b8fR67zohqyQQ&index=3&feature=plpp_video[/video]


----------



## 420God (Nov 13, 2011)

[video=youtube;WhMS70_EYw0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhMS70_EYw0&feature=related[/video]


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 13, 2011)

Here's some of my favs. I'm sure I've posted them before, but they rock, so here they are again 

[video=youtube;I4R4VMMTyGc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4R4VMMTyGc[/video]

All of the Mr. Deity episodes are great whether you believe or not:

[video=youtube;6gnQz32c5EA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gnQz32c5EA[/video]

[video=youtube;UaZDcS-rMf4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaZDcS-rMf4[/video]

I love this guy's sites, there's many good videos on them. This one's great:

[video=youtube;HVuw1wEuaAQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVuw1wEuaAQ[/video]


----------



## The Chemist Brothers (Nov 14, 2011)

i think this one SHOULD be seen by atheists and the anti-religious movement, i think i hold this view along with *Hepheastus420. but im not putting words in his mouth.*

[video=youtube;1tKw-WWfpZo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tKw-WWfpZo[/video]


----------



## MurshDawg (Nov 14, 2011)

LOL I love Ezekiel 25:17 even though it doesn't exist. Here's my religion. I am a humanist; of humanity and for humanity[video=youtube;WibmcsEGLKo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo[/video]


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Nov 14, 2011)

The Chemist Brothers said:


> i think this one SHOULD be seen by atheists and the anti-religious movement, i think i hold this view along with *Hepheastus420. but im not putting words in his mouth.*
> 
> [video=youtube;1tKw-WWfpZo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tKw-WWfpZo[/video]


I wish I could see the video dude, but my iPod won't let me.

Can I find it on YouTube?


----------



## The Chemist Brothers (Nov 14, 2011)

Humanism is NOT a religion, as a humanist i find that degrading. there is no dogma in humanism, or any of the ludicrous brainwashing material you find in religions. I await the day people realise the mental disorder that IS religion. its a mental disorder, plain and simple. it makes individuals circumvent so much of their logic and reasoning for a false idea or false sense of reality, and just witnessing the cognitive dissonance makes in otherwise reasonable healthy minded individuals is painful.


----------



## The Chemist Brothers (Nov 14, 2011)

yea it's on this link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tKw-WWfpZo&list=FLZbSOYBRLY_lY9riNub9AWg&feature=mh_lolz

this 1 is hilarious too > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8&feature=fvwrel <
[video=youtube;qO9IPoAdct8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8&feature=fvwrel[/video]


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Nov 15, 2011)

LMFAO ^^^^ that vid is hilarious


----------



## VILEPLUME (Nov 17, 2011)

[youtube]M3bcexyj8Bg[/youtube]

Dont watch if Dexter fan has Spoilers!!!


----------



## MurshDawg (Nov 17, 2011)

The Chemist Brothers said:


> Humanism is NOT a religion, as a humanist i find that degrading. there is no dogma in humanism, or any of the ludicrous brainwashing material you find in religions. I await the day people realise the mental disorder that IS religion. its a mental disorder, plain and simple. it makes individuals circumvent so much of their logic and reasoning for a false idea or false sense of reality, and just witnessing the cognitive dissonance makes in otherwise reasonable healthy minded individuals is painful.


So what is a humanist? Are you saying that it can only exist as a secular belief? I await for the day the folks aren't deluded. Athiests and non secular folk alike. Especially, these athiests; who remind me more of the Spanish Inquisition rather than the Italian Renaissance. I am pretty sure there is a mental disorder in thinking that others crazy and not yourself. I should correct my statement I do not follow a religion; though I am very spiritual. Humanism is more of a philosophy than a religion. However, it has secular and non secular tenets. One of which is respect for fellow human's belief. I assume that once you hear anything about god you stick your fingers in your ear and "sing la la la la I can't hear you". Well that is fine, friend. You should look up Pascal's Wager before you so definitively claim there is no god and all who are religious are.... Though I must admit You never said you never belived in a god you just said religion is a disease. On that fact I can partially agree with you. Religion is diseased it isn't the disease. I find religion existing somewhere between history and legend. There are a lot of facts that are trying to be conveyed in religious texts; however, it does get shouted down by the emotional aspects of pursuing spiritual truth.[video=youtube;zKIKKXm6Mlk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKIKKXm6Mlk[/video]


----------



## dbkick (Nov 17, 2011)

[video=youtube;xZJCfl0i9Eo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZJCfl0i9Eo[/video]Fave xmas carol vid.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 17, 2011)

dbkick said:


> [video=youtube;xZJCfl0i9Eo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZJCfl0i9Eo[/video]Fave xmas carol vid.


Love APC!....


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 20, 2011)

MurshDawg said:


> . You should look up Pascal's Wager before you so definitively claim there is no god and all who are religious are.... [video=youtube;zKIKKXm6Mlk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKIKKXm6Mlk[/video]


Pascal's wager is a false dichotomy, it assumes a zero sum loss for believing in god if it turns out god doesn't exist, which isn't so. There's a huge loss associated with believing in god when god doesn't exist.


----------



## MurshDawg (Nov 20, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Pascal's wager is a false dichotomy, it assumes a zero sum loss for believing in god if it turns out god doesn't exist, which isn't so. There's a huge loss associated with believing in god when god doesn't exist.


By that logic everyone SHOULD be an athiest. Please explain what you would lose if you were to believe in god and god turns out to not exist? If anything, the belief in a higher source or deity serves as magnetic north for our moral compass. Though I know you will undoubtedly point out all the violence caused by religion; so allow me to retort preemptively. Religion is evil! God (or whatever the fuck you call it), faith, hope, and spirituality are the positive manifestations in our collective consciousness. In order to fully understand consciousness one must at least entertain the existence of a higher power or source dimension. This is why in order to join the masons you have to believe in a god. Their theosophical ideas are lost upon minds whom believe in the huge loss associated with faith in a god. So, again, please explain to me the "huge loss associated with believing in god when god does not exist".


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Nov 20, 2011)

there is no loss in not believing in god,Only the loss of delusion,Believing in god and trying to please god is more burdensome than imaginable to the believer,the worst part is they happily go on with their burden......


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 20, 2011)

MurshDawg, the only way for faith in a God to direct a moral compass is if the believer assigns a moral preference to God. That cannot be done without religion - the act of setting boundaries on God. Whether or not the religion is organized in any way is less relevant imo. cn


----------



## MurshDawg (Nov 20, 2011)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> there is no loss in not believing in god,Only the loss of delusion,Believing in god and trying to please god is more burdensome than imaginable to the believer,the worst part is they happily go on with their burden......


 Wow! I don't know what god YOU were believing in or what your concept of god is; but I feel no burden nor do I live to please anyone. I simply seek to exist in harmony with my surroundings. I always enjoy folk like you throwing up the word "delusion". I think there are a lot of deluded religious folk (I follow no religion) there are probably an equal amount of deluded atheists. You might enjoy your life without believing in a higher power. That really doesn't give you privilege to call people delusional just because they won't side with your beliefs. I will never call any atheist deluded but I will say that asserting god's non existence is just as delusional as expecting the son of a Jewish carpenter to make you immortal. Translations: Atheists are apparently as fanatical in their beliefs as non-secular or religious folk.

Oh I do enjoy these conversations. 

@cannabineer Again it all really depends on one's definition of "God" I am starting to think that all atheist believe that "believers" have some weird personification of this higher source. I was raised secularly without any knowledge of religion. I will never go to any church because I believe them to be nothing more then a den of wolves. I refuse to personify something I can barely comprehend. I also refuse to flat out deny the existence of any higher source. Just because I cannot see it does not mean it doesn't exist. I believe alien's exist... does that make me delusional?


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 20, 2011)

MurshDawg, the way I see it, humans cannot help but personify the God-concept. Even something as unbounded as cosmic consciousness or oversoul is, if you remove enough layers, anthropomorphic. We're incapable of imagining a truly nonhuman awareness.
The concept of the divine can be divided into two basic categories.
1) Engaged. (Judeo-etc. traditions are a prime example). God cares about what we do and has a nonzero influence on this world.
All religion derives from this basic idea ... how we behave in the sight/presence of the divine matters to a slight or great extent.
2) Not engaged. Imo this has deep philosophical difficulties, like requesting the weight of a shadow. 

I cannot see how an option-2 God can affect one's moral compass ... disengagement carries with it a loss of all consequence.

If I'm missing something basic, let me know ... cn


----------



## MurshDawg (Nov 20, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> MurshDawg, the way I see it, humans cannot help but personify the God-concept. Even something as unbounded as cosmic consciousness or oversoul is, if you remove enough layers, anthropomorphic. We're incapable of imagining a truly nonhuman awareness.
> The concept of the divine can be divided into two basic categories.
> 1) Engaged. (Judeo-etc. traditions are a prime example). God cares about what we do and has a nonzero influence on this world.
> All religion derives from this basic idea ... how we behave in the sight/presence of the divine matters to a slight or great extent.
> ...


I really appreciate your oberservations, Not all religions have the "engaged diety" viewpoint. I would like to point out that the stark majority of religions that share that concept are all western religions. I would like to preface your statement that humans cannot help but personify god. I agree and disagree with that statement. A lot of eastern "philosophical" religions have a rather detached concept of God. In Buddhism for example; the main purpose is to understand about the nature of life, death, and the roles of suffering, relief, happiness, sadness, etc. Through these understandings, Buddhists believe they can free themselves from the cycle of life death and rebirth. Daoism is similar with more happier undertones. I really don't think any concept of god can carry with it loss of consequence. I think you might mistake that for a humans natural ability to eliminating the feeling of responsibility and moral duty by using religious dogma to justify their decisions in life.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 20, 2011)

From what I understand of Buddhism's philosophical core, it isn't really a religion. Enlightenment is the removal of a carnal delusion, the loss of the concept of self. Very refreshing in a way because it puts paid to the otherwise so prevalent acceptance of 'soul" as something real. Buddhism as practiced does become a religion, because souls are back in, along with a recycling scheme, saint-equivalents and a vague notion of heaven and hell. cn

<edit> I see I didn't express "loss of consequence' clearly. I did not mean "God's got me covered regardless", which I find to be an abdication of moral adulthood. i meant something more like "If God doesn't have a tangible effect in the mundane ... and moral consequences of following/denying God are necessarily tangible ... it makes no difference if God is there or not". cn


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 20, 2011)

MurshDawg said:


> By that logic everyone SHOULD be an athiest. Please explain what you would lose if you were to believe in god and god turns out to not exist? If anything, the belief in a higher source or deity serves as magnetic north for our moral compass. Though I know you will undoubtedly point out all the violence caused by religion; so allow me to retort preemptively. Religion is evil! God (or whatever the fuck you call it), faith, hope, and spirituality are the positive manifestations in our collective consciousness. In order to fully understand consciousness one must at least entertain the existence of a higher power or source dimension. This is why in order to join the masons you have to believe in a god. Their theosophical ideas are lost upon minds whom believe in the huge loss associated with faith in a god. So, again, please explain to me the "huge loss associated with believing in god when god does not exist".


How about the propagation of false beliefs? Wasted time, money and resources? Murder in the name of god? Condemnation of science, and systematic attacks on scientific theory? Just to name a few.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 20, 2011)

No, you re wrong. If this is addressing the previous question posed by mursh. I have not wasted money, murdered, condemned science, or systemic attacks on science. Propagation of false beliefs is retarded to say because everyone is bound to have some sort of false beliwf, believing you have no false beliefs, is a false belief.




Beefbisquit said:


> How about the propagation of false beliefs? Wasted time, money and resources? Murder in the name of god? Condemnation of science, and systematic attacks on scientific theory? Just to name a few.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 21, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> No, you re wrong. If this is addressing the previous question posed by mursh. I have not wasted money, murdered, condemned science, or systemic attacks on science. Propagation of false beliefs is retarded to say because everyone is bound to have some sort of false beliwf, believing you have no false beliefs, is a false belief.


I was responding to Mursh...

No one said anything about claiming to hold no false beliefs. I said the propagation of a false belief is to be avoided, lies are counter productive to society. An honest person should want to hold as many true beliefs as possible, and as few false beliefs as possible, and should care about whether or not what he/she tells people is true or not. For example, getting someone to convert to Christianity when there is no god wastes a ton of their time. They probably donate to the church (wasted money), they could fight for creationism to be taught in schools (condemnation of science/attacks on science), or even bomb abortion clinics or kill doctors ( murder). All of those things would be done for nothing, because there would be no god above watching. Even if you're some new age, mystic, chakra-reading type; if none of that bullshit is true (and it's not) you're effectively wasting your time doing it. You're also making some idiot guru richer by buying his books and "chakra crystals", so he can spread his message to even more people, spreading the lies deeper and deepaker....*cough*

So, don't tell me pascal wager is a zero loss situation if god doesn't exist and people continue to act as if he does.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 21, 2011)

Yea,i know who you were responding to, i saw an exception to your theory about believers.

You say wasted time, hmm, how bout intruding peoples personal beliefs and bashing them. Tell me, how productive is that? 

For example, the atheist on here that goes by "the sativa douche". All he does is bash and disrespect peoples beliefs(wasted time) what does he win or gain out of that? he believes in free will yet does not consider others right to think freely.

You have strong beliefs towards believers, but tell me,.what is it to you that bothers you so much that i believe in God? 

I have done nothing to you, i have not attacked anyone, i have not murdered anyone in the name of God and i do not condemn science?

I accept the same theories and laws science has brought about as you do, yet you think we are some dumb breed for believing in God.


----------



## VILEPLUME (Nov 21, 2011)

Lol, I just came from another forum where black people still blame whites for all the problems caused and continue to cause. Why cant people just live their lives?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 21, 2011)

VILEPLUME said:


> Lol, I just came from another forum where black people still blame whites for all the problems caused and continue to cause. Why cant people just live their lives?


That's what a secular society promotes. People with religious affiliations are fine, just keep it private; that's all. People's religious belief (necessarily) spills over into public life where it's not welcomed by all. Then the people who are made to feel uncomfortable by being forcefully exposed to unwanted religious dogma feel the need to speak out about having the right to belong to a non-denominational public society. In turn, religious people feel discriminated against because they can't pollute public space with their personal beliefs which in many cases is an actual requirement of their religion. 

We can all live our lives once people keep their religion/spirituality to themselves. I guarantee once public policy stops being influenced by religion, atheists will stop attacking the religious and their ideals.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 21, 2011)

Who came first, an atheist or religious type?


----------



## VILEPLUME (Nov 21, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> That's what a secular society promotes. People with religious affiliations are fine, just keep it private; that's all. People's religious belief (necessarily) spills over into public life where it's not welcomed by all. Then the people who are made to feel uncomfortable by being forcefully exposed to unwanted religious dogma feel the need to speak out about having the right to belong to a non-denominational public society. In turn, religious people feel discriminated against because they can't pollute public space with their personal beliefs which in many cases is an actual requirement of their religion.
> 
> We can all live our lives once people keep their religion/spirituality to themselves. I guarantee once public policy stops being influenced by religion, atheists will stop attacking the religious and their ideals.


I know what you mean. As a Christian I can tell you the same thing happens to me each day too, just in a different way. I could complain about all the forcefully uncomfortable stuff that I have to put up with, at work, or the media or whatever, but to be honest, I think life will just always be uncomfortable. I mean, I am a Christian and I smoke weed. Most weed smokers dislike Christians and most Christians dislike weed smokers, how is that for uncomfortable lol?

But dont worry about the preachy stuff from me, I learned a long time ago that you cant preach to deaf ears. I try to treat others like how I want to be treated and if someone asks me about Christianity I wont be ashamed. What do you think Beef?


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Nov 21, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Yea,i know who you were responding to, i saw an exception to your theory about believers.
> 
> You say wasted time, hmm, how bout intruding peoples personal beliefs and bashing them. Tell me, how productive is that?
> 
> ...


i just feel pity for you olly thats all , and by bashing your beliefs it might one day sink in and you will realise how dumb and stupid you have been ........................http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R6aFsxalM8&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLC79D6BB43C4CD174


----------



## VILEPLUME (Nov 21, 2011)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> i just feel pity for you olly thats all , and by bashing your beliefs it might one day sink in and you will realise how dumb and stupid you have been ........................http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R6aFsxalM8&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLC79D6BB43C4CD174


No need to feel sorry man, its all good. I think everyone being different is a good thing. Could you imagine a world where everyone likes "Jersey Shore"? lol.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 21, 2011)

Pity? From you? Lol! Just so you know, bashing someones beliefs only reinforces them idiot.

And your opinion stinks like the uk, lol






ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> i just feel pity for you olly thats all , and by bashing your beliefs it might one day sink in and you will realise how dumb and stupid you have been ........................http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R6aFsxalM8&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLC79D6BB43C4CD174


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 21, 2011)

Bb dont like believers, just like all other atheists on here. I feel the same way you do and believe what you say about treating others the way you wish to be treated, that is why i hate tsh 





VILEPLUME said:


> I know what you mean. As a Christian I can tell you the same thing happens to me each day too, just in a different way. I could complain about all the forcefully uncomfortable stuff that I have to put up with, at work, or the media or whatever, but to be honest, I think life will just always be uncomfortable. I mean, I am a Christian and I smoke weed. Most weed smokers dislike Christians and most Christians dislike weed smokers, how is that for uncomfortable lol?
> 
> But dont worry about the preachy stuff from me, I learned a long time ago that you cant preach to deaf ears. I try to treat others like how I want to be treated and if someone asks me about Christianity I wont be ashamed. What do you think Beef?


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Nov 21, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Bb dont like believers, just like all other atheists on here. I feel the same way you do and believe what you say about treating others the way you wish to be treated, that is why i hate tsh


you only hate me olly coz truth is,(and i know your to proud to admit it on here ) but ive made you totaly rethink your veiws and thoughts on religion , ive destroyed your faith you once held so dearly , i know you will deny it , but i know , you know your faith is utter nonsense and based on lies and deception .


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 21, 2011)

oh yeah dude, you are so the one... that made me change everything... you are the best bro...

the only thing you have done is made me accept my position in all this and i am proud to stick to it...

i am not a mirror image of your so called boxi career.

and seriously, i really never think about my religion, i only think about asking for forgiveness come d day and thats it... what the religion i connect with does else where is not my problem and something you should accept..

why dont you kill all believers? that would solve your problem




ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> you only hate me olly coz truth is,(and i know your to proud to admit it on here ) but ive made you totaly rethink your veiws and thoughts on religion , ive destroyed your faith you once held so dearly , i know you will deny it , but i know , you know your faith is utter nonsense and based on lies and deception .


----------



## MurshDawg (Nov 21, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> I was responding to Mursh...
> 
> No one said anything about claiming to hold no false beliefs. I said the propagation of a false belief is to be avoided, lies are counter productive to society. An honest person should want to hold as many true beliefs as possible, and as few false beliefs as possible, and should care about whether or not what he/she tells people is true or not. For example, getting someone to convert to Christianity when there is no god wastes a ton of their time. They probably donate to the church (wasted money), they could fight for creationism to be taught in schools (condemnation of science/attacks on science), or even bomb abortion clinics or kill doctors ( murder). All of those things would be done for nothing, because there would be no god above watching. Even if you're some new age, mystic, chakra-reading type; if none of that bullshit is true (and it's not) you're effectively wasting your time doing it. You're also making some idiot guru richer by buying his books and "chakra crystals", so he can spread his message to even more people, spreading the lies deeper and deepaker....*cough*
> 
> So, don't tell me pascal wager is a zero loss situation if god doesn't exist and people continue to act as if he does.


First off, I don't buy anyone's book but I'll read anyone's. Secondly, you have failed to explain the loss in believing in a god if god doesn't exist. You site violence committed in the name of religion/god but fail to recognize the greatest benefit from believing in new age, mystic, chakra-reading, etc... what you keep insisting is a delusion. Belief in god gives HOPE to men's hearts. HOPE is our most redeeming trait and our greatest bane. My spiritual beliefs, as esoteric as they may be, are what has lead me to being a productive member of society. My fear is that you are making some nay-saying professor or doctor of "science" guru richer by buying into his books and his new vaccine that was rubber stamped through USA inc. Come on, bro! If you hold yourself to science than you know you cannot make ANY definitive claims with out supporting evidence. I have the span of human history for circumstantial (maybe even empirical depending on how you view quantum physics). What do you have outside the childish assertions of people who cannot stand not being god themselves. I believe in aliens does that make me deluded too?


----------



## MurshDawg (Nov 21, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> That's what a secular society promotes. People with religious affiliations are fine, just keep it private; that's all. People's religious belief (necessarily) spills over into public life where it's not welcomed by all. Then the people who are made to feel uncomfortable by being forcefully exposed to unwanted religious dogma feel the need to speak out about having the right to belong to a non-denominational public society. In turn, religious people feel discriminated against because they can't pollute public space with their personal beliefs which in many cases is an actual requirement of their religion.
> 
> We can all live our lives once people keep their religion/spirituality to themselves. I guarantee once public policy stops being influenced by religion, atheists will stop attacking the religious and their ideals.


funny because i would think the best way would be to allow people to have their beliefs. you can choose to worship a fucking golden calf for all i care but don't tell me I am deluded for my beliefs that is counterproductive to your supposed cause


----------



## MurshDawg (Nov 21, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> How about the propagation of false beliefs? Wasted time, money and resources? Murder in the name of god? Condemnation of science, and systematic attacks on scientific theory? Just to name a few.


dude if you think the scientific community isn't guilty of the same crimes at least to their own kind, I got some beach front property I wanna sell you in Yuma. The scientific community is more religious than the religious community. If you even entertain a idea that falls outside mainstream scientific dogmatic practice then you are shouted down and ostracized; despite any evidence introduced to support any controversial theory. The dumb ass atheists would have us believe we evolved from pond scum and the stupid ass religious nuts want us to believe that god made it all in 6 days. I'm just saying that if you really want to be scientific about it you must rule things out using the scientific method. otherwise this form of science will go the way of ancient alchemy. To a true scientist everything is possible; only to the blind and ignorant deal in absolutes. At the current time we do not possess the tools to make such assertions.


----------



## MurshDawg (Nov 21, 2011)

My apologies for thread jacking. I have nothing but respect for everyone here regardless of their beliefs.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 21, 2011)

Awesome posts mursh. I have to say that everything you mention is very well said and i agree with what you have said. It is cool to know there are others out there with similar views and beliefs.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 21, 2011)

MurshDawg said:


> dude if you think the scientific community isn't guilty of the same crimes at least to their own kind, I got some beach front property I wanna sell you in Yuma. The scientific community is more religious than the religious community. *If you even entertain a idea that falls outside mainstream scientific dogmatic practice then you are shouted down and ostracized*; despite any evidence introduced to support any controversial theory. The dumb ass atheists would have us believe we evolved from pond scum and the stupid ass religious nuts want us to believe that god made it all in 6 days. I'm just saying that if you really want to be scientific about it you must rule things out using the scientific method. otherwise this form of science will go the way of ancient alchemy. To a true scientist everything is possible; only to the blind and ignorant deal in absolutes. At the current time we do not possess the tools to make such assertions.


Mursh ... do you have any examples of the bolded statement? I have been active in science for a long time and when someone arrives with a non-mainstream claim, the response I heard in every case I can remember is "convince me". The only time i have seen ostracism is for obviously pathological science or pseudoscience, usually with an agenda ... ancient aliens or ESP or Velikovsky's "electric universe" ... that sort of obvious unscience. You have me curious. cn


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 22, 2011)

MurshDawg said:


> First off, I don't buy anyone's book but I'll read anyone's. Secondly, you have failed to explain the loss in believing in a god if god doesn't exist. You site violence committed in the name of religion/god but fail to recognize the greatest benefit from believing in new age, mystic, chakra-reading, etc...


What the hell are you talking about?

If god doesn't exist, anyone who believes in god is wasting their time, energy, and probably money. They're also willfully convincing other people to believe in a lie, and waste their time, money, and effort as well. How in the name of fuck, is that not detrimental? If you need a lie to give you hope, you *ARE *delusional. Believing in something just for the sake of believing in, or because it makes you feel a certain way is ludicrous and completely polarized to the pursuit of truth, something much more important than false hope. 




> what you keep insisting is a delusion. Belief in god gives HOPE to men's hearts. HOPE is our most redeeming trait and our greatest bane. My spiritual beliefs, as esoteric as they may be, are what has lead me to being a productive member of society.


Your belief in god doesn't define your productivity in society, you can be just as productive and hold no belief in god. You *need* belief in a god to feel a certain way, I don't. I have hope, and love in my heart without the need for a magical daddy in the sky.



> My fear is that you are making some nay-saying professor or doctor of "science" guru richer by buying into his books and his new vaccine that was rubber stamped through USA inc. Come on, bro! If you hold yourself to science than you know you cannot make ANY definitive claims with out supporting evidence. I have the span of human history for circumstantial (maybe even empirical depending on how you view quantum physics). What do you have outside the childish assertions of people who cannot stand not being god themselves. I believe in aliens does that make me deluded too?


Nay-saying? More like not convinced by the flimsy arguments people who believe in god make. 

What do vaccines have to do with belief in god? Straw-man?

"Come on, bro!", what? What definitive claims did I make without evidence? I'm not saying "god doesn't exist with 100% certainty" if that's what you're referring to. 

You have a span, of *part* of *some* societies history to fall back on. There are atheist cultures around the world that have no creation stories, and no belief in an invisible puppet master in the sky. Not sure what quantum physics have to do with anything, other than it being the "go-to" source for New Age bullshit. Just put the term* Quantum, Meta, Omni, or Vibration* with any other word and you've just completed the first step to becoming a New Age practitioner.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 22, 2011)

No one can prove the existence/non-existence of god. It's just that theologians or (religious people) often cannot control their fear of this unknown part of reality. So they try to put truth behind their beliefs...so they can feel as if there is some purpose to their lives. 

You do not know, and to claim that you do is one of the most arrogant thoughts any human could ever think.

Here's a lesson on faith, which is the only so called "argument" these scared theologians can retort with.

What value is a faith one can hold on to or let go as one wishes? It is just a blind mental concept which clearly has no worth at all. That is blind faith and the less blindness you have in life the better. I do not ask you to believe, I ask you to know. Only a state of mind that one has reached by knowledge, by realization, has any value. You can term it right-belief if you wish, but it is not belief, it is knowledge. Don&#8217;t believe in some vague truism. Search for truth. Seek it out. But don&#8217;t hold on to any belief or concept. This is a sign of weakness of the mind. It is lethargy; it is a lack of caring. It is an injurious way to save yourself from the work of seeing your self. Blind faith is an escape from sadhan, from the effort for self-realization. In a sense it is nothing short of suicide because once one falls into this culvert one becomes incapable of climbing the peak of truth. These paths lead you in two opposite directions. One is the ditch you fall into; the other, the lofty summit you have to climb. Faith is an easy thing because a man is not required to do anything. In that sense, knowledge is not so easy. Knowledge is the complete transformation of life. Faith is the outer apparel; knowledge, the inner revolution. Rather than allowing you to reach the peak of atonement towards which your spirit is striving, a simple faith can easily throw you back into the slumber of blind belief. Religion is not faith but unfortunately, religions are. What is religion to me does not coincide with what the concepts of the world&#8217;s religions appear to be. On that score Karl Marx was right to brand religions as opiates but profoundly wrong to say so about real religion! You have been told to have faith in the shastras, faith in the words of God, faith in the teachers. I do not say so at all. I say: have faith in yourself. It is only by knowing your self that you will be able to know what the shastras have said, what god has said. For one who has no faith in himself, following any other faith will be in vain. Can you stand on someone else&#8217;s feet? Buddha said, &#8221;Be your own lamp. Be your own refuge. There is no proper refuge but the refuge of one&#8217;s own self.&#8221; And I say the same thing.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 22, 2011)

> They're also willfully convincing other people to believe in a lie, and waste their time, money, and effort as well.


that is a lie bro. In all my life, i dont recall trying to convert others to a religion. You keep making these claims that all believers are delusional... please man, people who contributed to the literature you used to graduate with your degree are believers. Are they dumb or delusional? that would make you hypocrite and delusional for contradicting yourself all throughout college.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> that is a lie bro. In all my life, i dont recall trying to convert others to a religion. You keep making these claims that all believers are delusional... please man, people who contributed to the literature you used to graduate with your degree are believers. Are they dumb or delusional? that would make you hypocrite and delusional for contradicting yourself all throughout college.


I'm saying it happens, and it happens a lot. You think it should be ignored that a large percentage of religious people either have it ingrained into their religion that they must convert people just because you personally don't? 

I'm not saying believers are stupid or unable to function properly. I'm saying when it comes specifically to believers justifying their belief in god, they can't do it and when they try they appear delusional.

Also, no it wouldn't make me a hypocrite. I can discredit someone's views on god, while holding their views on other subjects in the highest regard.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 22, 2011)

> or it's a personal choice to try to convert people?


deaf ears will never listen. I believe everyone has a choice whether they try or dont try to convert and the people on the other end as well. A mutual agreement between them if you will.



> I'm not saying believers are stupid or unable to function properly.


being delusional is a result of a pathological illness mostly related to the brain. NO, would that not impair their ability to function properly throughout their activities of daily living? 



> when it comes specifically to believers justifying their belief in god,


We do have the right to believe in what we want or what interests us, but that does not mean we have to "justify" our beliefs to no one. Beliefs are personal and should be kept that way.



> I can discredit someone's views on god,


But are they not delusional? Why would you hold someone's views with high regard if they are delusional?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> deaf ears will never listen. I believe everyone has a choice whether they try or dont try to convert and the people on the other end as well. A mutual agreement between them if you will.


I agree that people have a choice to try to convert. What about children? Parents more often than not demand that their kids take up their religion at an age where the children are unfit to make a decision about something of that scale. I consider the indoctrination of children child abuse.



> being delusional is a result of a pathological illness mostly related to the brain. NO, would that not impair their ability to function properly throughout their activities of daily living?


I'm not referring to the clinical definition of delusion...

de·lude&#8194; &#8194;[dih-lood] 
verb (used with object), -lud·ed, -lud·ing.
1. to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive: His conceit deluded him into believing he was important.
2. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.



> We do have the right to believe in what we want or what interests us, but that does not mean we have to "justify" our beliefs to no one. Beliefs are personal and should be kept that way.


I agree, you don't have to justify them to anyone, as long as you don't want to discuss them in any public manner or have them affect any type of public forum. If you *do* want to discuss them etc., people are going to have questions, and if you don't have reasonable answers, you're going to end up looking silly.





> But are they not delusional? Why would you hold someone's views with high regard if they are delusional?


They are deluded when it comes to believing in the existence of a supernatural entity without evidence. They could be a brilliant pianist, or star athlete; I don't think their belief in god would affect those specific fields, per say.


----------



## VILEPLUME (Nov 23, 2011)

MurshDawg said:


> My apologies for thread jacking. I have nothing but respect for everyone here regardless of their beliefs.


Thank you.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 23, 2011)

> What about children?


I too feel sorry for those children, I have seen it plenty and do not think it is right. I believe it is choice left for late adolescent early adulthood where one can make a proper decision on what beliefs to follow.




> I'm not referring to the clinical definition of delusion...


Sorry, then can you provide a proper definition for what you mean by "delusional"?




> as long as you don't want to discuss them in any public manner or have them affect any type of public forum.


I too agree with what you have said, but many atheists on here make the stupid assumption that everyone who is a believer that wonders around here are all part of this big massive agenda driven religious indoctrinated cohort ready to be martyrs in the name of God!!! That is beyond stupid!!



> They are deluded when it comes to believing in the existence of a supernatural entity without evidence.


yes, but it has been said on here before by some intelligent atheists that anyone who believes in God has skewed vision of the world thus leading to skewed decisions when it comes to their work, disqualifying them immediately as fools


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 23, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Sorry, then can you provide a proper definition for what you mean by "delusional"?


I actually already did, lol.



> I too agree with what you have said, but many atheists on here make the stupid assumption that everyone who is a believer that wonders around here are all part of this big massive agenda driven religious indoctrinated cohort ready to be martyrs in the name of God!!! That is beyond stupid!!


Yes, that is stupid. It's very clear that some believers just want to believe, and be left alone without being attacked by atheists. Totally cool with that.
Here's where it gets murky; moderates attitudes following the "just leave me alone" standpoint are fine when dealing with people like you, Oly. But fundamentalists expect the same treatment, and they all fall under this giant protection net called religion. Up until recently, you couldn't even criticize religion at all without being ostracized and suffering incredible losses (you still do in some areas of North America) and you certainly couldn't openly be an atheist. As a retaliation, atheists and freethinkers seem to be doing a "shotgun" approach to all believers, "religious" or not and it's really not fair. 

We can't use the "a few bad apples" analogy with things that involve peoples rights. 



> yes, but it has been said on here before by some intelligent atheists that anyone who believes in God has skewed vision of the world thus leading to skewed decisions when it comes to their work, disqualifying them immediately as fools


And for some things it actually does; like a young earth creationist becoming an evolutionary biologist or geologist is pretty much impossible. When you have the mind set that god created things, or that god can be an active variable in determining scientific outcome, it inhibits your ability to seek answers beyond a certain point. In other words, you have the ability to just say "god did it", whereas an atheist doesn't have that option and must continue to research, and investigate.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 23, 2011)

> an evolutionary biologist or geologist is pretty much impossible.


why cant they contribute properly? and why is it limited to only those fields?


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 23, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> why cant they contribute properly? and why is it limited to only those fields?


I doubt it's limited to those fields, oly. (I'll add astrophysics to the list.) However the two fields mentioned have, at their very foundation, learned knowledge that is not possible for a creationist to reconcile with his beliefs and subsequent worldview. Imo Beefbisquit wasn't talking about any&all believers in that sentence; just the ones who think the literal scripture takes precedence over what we see when we observe without that bias. They are a minority among self-described believers ... but a vocal and influential one. cn


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 23, 2011)

> However the two fields mentioned have, at their very foundation, learned knowledge that is not possible for a creationist to reconcile with his beliefs and subsequent worldview


although you have been a chemist forever, your opinion does not hold merit as you cannot speak for the entire population within those fields. Unless you mean that our brain cannot comprehend something so complex, then i would have to disagree with you on that too...


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 23, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> although you have been a chemist forever, your opinion does not hold merit as you cannot speak for the entire population within those fields. Unless you mean that our brain cannot comprehend something so complex, then i would have to disagree with you on that too...


I can't speak for everyone, and quite independent of my profession, i have been a more-or-less serious amateur of/in all the natural scinces.
My point was this: 
Creation doctrine requires that a young earth, the Noachic flood, and the idea of the fossil record as a divine prank be swallowed whole; debate is dismissed as unbelief. 
The sciences of evolutionary biology, paleontology, geology and astrophysics can only made to work on a timescale of hundreds of millions to multiple billions of years. the two cannot be reconciled. cn


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 23, 2011)

> The sciences of evolutionary biology, paleontology, geology and astrophysics can only made to work on a timescale of hundreds of millions to multiple billions of years. the two cannot be reconciled.


again, i would say otherwise, you see, i posed this question to my anthropology professor and his response was that the world is open and as such their are plenty of people that have contributed to the field... i tried looking up that old discussion on my blackboard page but i dont have access to it anymore... he has been in the field for over 40 years, so i think he knows what he is talking about...

I believe the atheistic view that believers are simpletons who cannot do anything more complex then addition has no merit either. it is a biased opinion based on what they have experienced with religious nut jobs and extremists, therefore making their view skewed. the failure to consider that believers are just as intelligent as atheists is perplexing to say the least..


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 23, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> again, i would say otherwise, you see, i posed this question to my anthropology professor and his response was that the world is open and as such their are plenty of people that have contributed to the field... i tried looking up that old discussion on my blackboard page but i dont have access to it anymore... he has been in the field for over 40 years, so i think he knows what he is talking about...
> 
> I believe the atheistic view that believers are simpletons who cannot do anything more complex then addition has no merit either. it is a biased opinion based on what they have experienced with religious nut jobs and extremists, therefore making their view skewed. the failure to consider that believers are just as intelligent as atheists is perplexing to say the least..


Two things, oly ...
1) I am not taking a random swipe at believers in general. Beefy limited his statement to the all-out young-earthers, and I am doing the same. My arguments don't and shouldn't apply to the more thoughtful categories of believer.
2) Anthropology comes in two flavors ... physical and archeological anthropology on the one side, and sociocultural anthropology on the other. I accept the first as deserving the term "science". The second is famous for being a refuge for ideologues. Let's face it ... sociocultural anthropologusts are at the very heart of the postmodern, relativist intellectual morass whose extreme practitioners view everything as "social text" and will say amazing things like ... Einstein's theories are to be rejected as phallocentric. (facepalm smilie here) I don't have much respect for pols hiding in labcoats. cn


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 23, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> although you have been a chemist forever, your opinion does not hold merit as you cannot speak for the entire population within those fields. Unless you mean that our brain cannot comprehend something so complex, then i would have to disagree with you on that too...


Oly it's not like that. The two are just fundamentally opposed by their very descriptions.

*Young* earth creationists believe the world is 6000 years old, and reject all forms of radiometric dating one of the absolute fundamental tools of Geology and Archaeology. Likewise, _YEC's_ also dismiss evolution which is the entire basis for our understanding of Biology today. What this means is you literally cannot have one without the other.


----------



## MurshDawg (Nov 23, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Mursh ... do you have any examples of the bolded statement? I have been active in science for a long time and when someone arrives with a non-mainstream claim, the response I heard in every case I can remember is "convince me". The only time i have seen ostracism is for obviously pathological science or pseudoscience, usually with an agenda ... ancient aliens or ESP or Velikovsky's "electric universe" ... that sort of obvious unscience. You have me curious. cn


The latest thing I can site would be the findings of FTL neutrino's and the immediately rebuff by the community. *Here* I am not some quack who sits around and beats off to history channel, I am actually a student who enjoys learning. The practice of science that I see is to rebuff any unpopular idea or opinion despite empirical evidence to support the ideas. Until, that is, way too much popularity in society than all of a sudden proof will appear. In the early 1900s it was thought that a person who traveled more than 600 mph would die. We also couldn't break the sound barrier, split an atom, or send a man to the moon. @biscuit guy Your apparent knowledge has done nothing than to make you cynical and unkind. You really don't understand how much you are like religious radical such as the Inquisition; that is what makes you a dangerous person. Not like unlike someone who believes a jew turned water into wine with magic, you are hellbent on everyone thinking as you do. I guess that's what freedom is all about. Nothing is true, buscuitguy Not your hate speech, nor my crystal munching hippie speak. Dude the theory of evolution has as much proof as creationism and the ancient astronaut theory put together but really in the end it doesn't matter... never said said NOT believing in god makes one UNPRODUCTIVE. I said it made ME more productive. I have the span of all of Human History to fall back on. All of these societies that we have record of had religion in some measure. Well if I put Dr. Dick Dawkins to any phrase I'd be on my first step to being a pretentious cynical prick. Hmmmmmm, which one do you think a married man with children to raise would opt for?


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 23, 2011)

Mursh, the FTL neutrino finding is a single data point ... it is certainly not established fact, nor is it proven nonsense at this time. Current theories in physics state that superluminal travel is in violation of basic nature of the universe ... at a rather more serious level than the human speed limit that armchair philosophers liked to bandy about. When presented with the FTL neutrino story a few weeks ago were "that is extraordinary" and "I'm not convinced". An experimental finding that upsets the theoretical applecart needs to be something that can be repeated on demand ... and precisely measured. Since, if true, the neutrino result would be revolutionary, I will say "convince me". Mind you, that is not the same as peremptorily saying "BS". 

When cold fusion made the news back in '89, I was still with a university, and that news made quite a sensation. The general response was "let's see if this is real", combined with a lot of hope. It turned out to not be real. If you ask me, skepticism is a proper response to a controversial finding. Skepticism as a word gets some rough treatment ... champions of a given theory or doctrine or belief do their best to make "skeptic' mean "unprincipled naysayer". That is too bad imo and stifles honest productive debate, because it polarizes everything "Are you with us or against us?" is no way to learn new things in my personal but firmly-held opinion. cn

About human speed limits ... in the early 19th century, when steam trains became the fastest new mode of transport since the invention of the saddle, eminent doctors (the nearest thing to medical scientists of the day) claimed with complete confidence that mankind wasn't meant to travel faster than a horse could carry a person ... and predicted that people would horribly die from sheer speed on these newfangled unnatural vehicles. 
When airplanes were invented ... same story, and of course the sound barrier was given the same treatment. I believe a group of doctors petitioned the President before the first Western space flight, claiming again the lethality of sheer speed. 
Humans, even very well-educated humans, have this talent for believing weirdness. cn


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 23, 2011)

physical anthropology is his thing neer.





cannabineer said:


> Two things, oly ...
> 1) I am not taking a random swipe at believers in general. Beefy limited his statement to the all-out young-earthers, and I am doing the same. My arguments don't and shouldn't apply to the more thoughtful categories of believer.
> 2) Anthropology comes in two flavors ... physical and archeological anthropology on the one side, and sociocultural anthropology on the other. I accept the first as deserving the term "science". The second is famous for being a refuge for ideologues. Let's face it ... sociocultural anthropologusts are at the very heart of the postmodern, relativist intellectual morass whose extreme practitioners view everything as "social text" and will say amazing things like ... Einstein's theories are to be rejected as phallocentric. (facepalm smilie here) I don't have much respect for pols hiding in labcoats. cn


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 23, 2011)

MurshDawg said:


> @biscuit guy Your apparent knowledge has done nothing than to make you cynical and unkind. You really don't understand how much you are like religious radical such as the Inquisition; that is what makes you a dangerous person.


That's just silly... are you going to bring up Nazi's next? Is that where this is headed? The Inquisition forced Catholicism on people, but it had nothing to do with science and reasoned thinking. It was dogmatic, superstitious thinking that caused it, not an excess of critical thinking. I don't want anyone to adopt my views, I want people to examine the evidence and make informed decisions that best *conform to reality*. If they don't want to, that's fine as long as it doesn't affect public life. Pretend your frickin' Napolean for all I care, just don't try to get an army and take over France.

Absolutely nothing about how I behave is anything even similar to the crusades.



> Not like unlike someone who believes a jew turned water into wine with magic, you are hellbent on everyone thinking as you do. I guess that's what freedom is all about. Nothing is true, buscuitguy Not your hate speech, nor my crystal munching hippie speak.


Hate speech? I don't even know how to respond to something so irrational.



> Dude the theory of evolution has as much proof as creationism and the ancient astronaut theory put together


Complete bullshit. Sorry, not bullshit, unsubstantiated, unintelligent, bullshit. Biology, and it's branches, are pretty much completely based off of evolution and they work at what they do *extremely *well. What other theory can explain how life evolved on earth *and* explain all the other branches of biology e.g. microbiology, marine biology, molecular biology, etc. etc.? 

Good day, sir.



> I have the span of all of Human History to fall back on. All of these societies that we have record of had religion in some measure.


Again, not true. There are records of atheistic societies that have zero creation myths and ideas about invisible beings in the sky, but what does this have to do with anything? Just a random point?


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Nov 26, 2011)

lets keep the thread for vids please .


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 26, 2011)

Man shut up, you stupid bitch! This is thundertyping!




ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> lets keep the thread for vids please .


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Nov 26, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Man shut up, you stupid bitch! This is thundertyping!


 i made the thread for videos not banter , theres plenty of other threads you can have your faith ridiculed .


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 26, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Man shut up, you stupid bitch! This is *thundertyping*!


That's like stereotyping, only ... much louder ... cn


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 26, 2011)

It was in reference to thunderdome..

And shut tsh, you stupid bitch... How many threads have you jacked and ruined whiny little bitch...

Seems your stupid mum didnt teach you squat.. Sorry ass excuse for a box!





cannabineer said:


> That's like stereotyping, only ... much louder ... cn


----------



## Sure Shot (Nov 26, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Who came first, an atheist or religious type?


First recorded history at this time, is Ancient Sumeria. (Until we finish unearthing the site know as Göbekli Tepe)
 Their text reads like a historical archive and is where modern religion gets the bulk of their beliefs! 
Sumerian history says that the creators made slaves in their image named *Adamu* in the land of* Edin*. (Adam of Eden)
Also there is a story of a great flood. This culture knew more about Math, Geometry, and Astrology then any other culture know to Man.
It wasn't until the 1960's that we were able to confirm what this culture new 4000+ years ago!

[youtube]ObjiTKIPDjU#t=4232s[/youtube]
*Skip forward to 1:10:32 for reference*


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 26, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Who came first, an atheist or religious type?


That's an extremely easy question to answer.

Atheists came first, but they weren't called atheists until theism was invented. Before theism, atheists were called..... people.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 26, 2011)

I'm not a theologian, nor an atheist. I just admit the truth within myself. 

I believe the truth, that *i do not know*. 
-That is true inner strength, to admit your ignorance.

People just want to know so badly they will do anything, even lie to themselves..within themselves. 
-That is true inner weakness, to advocate your arrogance.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 27, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> That's an extremely easy question to answer.
> 
> Atheists came first, but they weren't called atheists until theism was invented. Before theism, atheists were called..... people.


I suspect that religion is as old as sapience, and perhaps even older. I would not be surprised if it constitutes a psychic fossil from our presapient phase ... an insight into how the most intelligent animals cognize. That is, of course, blue-sky green-stash thinking on my part. cn


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Nov 27, 2011)

*




Originally Posted by olylifter420  
Who came first, an atheist or religious type?

lol thats one dumb ass question there and shows olly hasnt listend to anything ever wrote in this entire sub section of the forum, as he would know athiesm is just a response to a claim . lol lol lol lol lol .............my avatar fits perfectly in this example .

*


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 27, 2011)

I don't think the idea of god can exist without the upper, later developed areas of the brain. Until quite recently (in terms of the lifespan of the earth) these areas of the brain didn't exist. So, until those areas of the brain existed the idea of religion, or even the ability to conceptualize a god didn't exist. The lack of a belief in god is atheism; it's not necessarily a choice! If you don't even know about god, you're still an atheist! Atheist just means without belief in god, *why* you have no belief is irrelevant.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 27, 2011)

It is possable, to just not know. It isnt a matter of not believing, or believing, it is accepting that you do not know.

You may label the people in this category, the "_seekers_"

Their are very few of us...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 27, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> It is possable, to just not know. It isnt a matter of not believing, or believing, it is accepting that you do not know.
> 
> You may label the people in this category, the "_seekers_"
> 
> Their are very few of us...


If your answer to the question "do you believe in god?" is anything but "yes", you're an atheist. That includes "I don't know".


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 27, 2011)

no no no, see, i want to believe...trust me. i want to more than most people. but im just not sure my man. because_ as much as i hunger for what i want to believe to be true, to be true... i still do not know for sure if it is or not_. so i state again, its not that i dont believe, its not that i do believe... i more so want to, but understand that i dont know. maybe there is a god, maybe there isnt... i am still seeking an answer. "seeker"

*to believe something you do not know, is arrogance*. maybe some day i will, maybe ill be visited by god, or ill become enlightened through meditation, or ill experience what this "god" is, or ill just "wake up". but i havent yet, i am still seeking. 

"seeker"

it is hard for you to understand, because you have made a decision already... you think you know the answer. you either think you know that god exists, or you think you know that god doesnt exist. either way, your arrogence will never give you knowledge, it will only feed your ignorance.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 27, 2011)

Wanting to believe and believing are two very different things. Atheism and theism's definitions don't depend on wants, they depend on what is.

Just the fact that you _*want*_ to believe means you don't hold a belief. Atheism and theism have never been, and will never be about knowing for certain that god exists, it's about having a belief or not having a belief.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 27, 2011)

[FONT=&quot]*BELIEF: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
BELIEVE: To accept as true or real.


Atheism: The belief that god does not exist.
Theism: The belief in the existence of god.

*I am a "seeker" ...we are very few

Or agnostic if you prefer. 
[/FONT]


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 27, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> [FONT=&quot]*BELIEF: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
> BELIEVE: To accept as true or real.
> 
> 
> ...


No. Again, theism is a belief that a god exists. Anyone that is NOT a theist is an A-theist. There is no word that distinguishes those people that don't believe in a god because they have never been exposed to the idea from those people that don't believe in a god for any other reason or if they actively disbelieve. 

How do you answer the question, "do you believe that a god or gods exist?" Any answer that isn't "yes" makes you an atheist.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 27, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> [FONT=&quot]*BELIEF: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
> BELIEVE: To accept as true or real.
> 
> 
> ...


That is incorrect.

Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. If you had never heard of god how could you *believe *he doesn't exist? It doesn't make sense.

Someone would have to tell you about god for you to have a belief, before then you're an atheist with no belief in god whatsoever.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 27, 2011)

Agnosticism

*Agnosticism* is the view that the truth value of certain claims&#8212;especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims&#8212;is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense,  an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, whereas an atheist disbelieves there is a God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify knowledge whether God exists or does not. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that).

Did we all learn a new word today or what? Hehehe, sorry, couldn't help it. =D


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 27, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Agnosticism
> 
> *Agnosticism* is the view that the truth value of certain claims&#8212;especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims&#8212;is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense,  an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, whereas an atheist disbelieves there is a God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify knowledge whether God exists or does not. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that).
> 
> Did we all learn a new word today or what? Hehehe, sorry, couldn't help it. =D


That's incorrect. You do not have to deny the existence of god to be an atheist. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Agnostic atheism - You don't have a belief in a god, but don't claim to know for sure that god does or doesn't exist.
Gnostic atheism - You don't have a belief in god, and claim to know for sure that god(s) doesn't(don't) exist(s).

Agnostic theism - You have a belief in at least one god, but don't claim to know for sure that god does or doesn't exist.
Gnostic theism - You have a belief in at least one god, and claim to know for sure that god(s) exist(s).


Did you learn something today?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 27, 2011)

*"That's incorrect. You do not have to deny the existence of god to be an atheist. Sorry to burst your bubble."

* re-read my posts, i never said that my friend 

The true agnostic, is not atheist, nor is he theist; he is the emanation of true wisdom. The realization of self. The admittance of ignorance. To have true control over the fear of the unknown. That which is the only truth... we do not know, and their search is never-ending. They give themselves no more excuses for their behaviors. Their search is a complete transformation of self, in which this transformation is a never-ending cycle of changing, to become better parts of themselves within each and every moment of existence.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 27, 2011)

Get a room you two


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 28, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> *"That's incorrect. You do not have to deny the existence of god to be an atheist. Sorry to burst your bubble."
> 
> * re-read my posts, i never said that my friend
> 
> The true agnostic, is not atheist, nor is he theist; he is the emanation of true wisdom. The realization of self. The admittance of ignorance. To have true control over the fear of the unknown. That which is the only truth... we do not know, and their search is never-ending. They give themselves no more excuses for their behaviors. Their search is a complete transformation of self, in which this transformation is a never-ending cycle of changing, to become better parts of themselves within each and every moment of existence.


That's just a bunch of flowery language; who are you to define "true agnostic"?

Admittance of ignorance is fine, but you don't have to give up all objectivity.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 28, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Agnosticism
> 
> *Agnosticism* is the view that the truth value of certain claims&#8212;especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims&#8212;is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense,  an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, whereas an atheist disbelieves there is a God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify knowledge whether God exists or does not. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that).
> 
> Did we all learn a new word today or what? Hehehe, sorry, couldn't help it. =D



...unknowable - pretty much means 'exists'. (imfo)

*being able to touch my nose with my elbow is an unknowable feeling - but my nose and my elbow exist


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 28, 2011)

your beliefs give you the excuse to keep living life like you always have, instead of making changes within your self that you know needs to be done. 

For example, when you are younger you play with dolls or action figures ect. And then you get older, you stop playing with them. And its not because you don't like them anymore... its that you've reached a higher level of consciousness. With higher levels of consciousness our behavior changes. A part of being conscious is to observe yourself in everything you think, say and do. Beliefs revoke that responsibility with the idea that (there is a god - god is responsible) (there is not a god - i don't have to be responsible) either way, you wont change much based on either of those aspects. True conscienceless is the essence of true change of self, the responsibility of becoming a better part of you in every situation. 

True consciousness will never be attained within the realms of faith or belief, unless you have faith or belief in the only thing you can be sure exists in this time or realm... YOU


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 28, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...unknowable - pretty much means 'exists'. (imfo)
> 
> *being able to touch my nose with my elbow is an unknowable feeling - but my nose and my elbow exist


Not true. I actually know someone who can do it, I have a picture of it in my yearbook as a matter of fact!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 28, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Not true. I actually know someone who can do it, I have a picture of it in my yearbook as a matter of fact!


...ah, ya bastard!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 28, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> your beliefs give you the excuse to keep living life like you always have, instead of making changes within your self that you know needs to be done.
> 
> For example, when you are younger you play with dolls or action figures ect. And then you get older, you stop playing with them. And its not because you don't like them anymore... its that you've reached a higher level of consciousness. With higher levels of consciousness our behavior changes. A part of being conscious is to observe yourself in everything you think, say and do. Beliefs revoke that responsibility with the idea that (there is a god - god is responsible) (there is not a god - i don't have to be responsible) either way, you wont change much based on either of those aspects. True conscienceless is the essence of true change of self, the responsibility of becoming a better part of you in every situation.
> 
> True consciousness will never be attained within the realms of faith or belief, unless you have faith or belief in the only thing you can be sure exists in this time or realm... YOU


...you seem 'sure', for an agnostic


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 28, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> your beliefs give you the excuse to keep living life like you always have, instead of making changes within your self that you know needs to be done.
> 
> For example, when you are younger you play with dolls or action figures ect. And then you get older, you stop playing with them. And its not because you don't like them anymore... its that you've reached a higher level of consciousness. With higher levels of consciousness our behavior changes. A part of being conscious is to observe yourself in everything you think, say and do. Beliefs revoke that responsibility with the idea that (there is a god - god is responsible) (there is not a god - i don't have to be responsible) either way, you wont change much based on either of those aspects. True conscienceless is the essence of true change of self, the responsibility of becoming a better part of you in every situation.
> 
> True consciousness will never be attained within the realms of faith or belief, unless you have faith or belief in the only thing you can be sure exists in this time or realm... YOU


You sound like Deepak Chopra.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 28, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> *"That's incorrect. You do not have to deny the existence of god to be an atheist. Sorry to burst your bubble."
> 
> * re-read my posts, i never said that my friend
> 
> The true agnostic, is not atheist, nor is he theist; he is the emanation of true wisdom. The realization of self. The admittance of ignorance. To have true control over the fear of the unknown. That which is the only truth... we do not know, and their search is never-ending. They give themselves no more excuses for their behaviors. Their search is a complete transformation of self, in which this transformation is a never-ending cycle of changing, to become better parts of themselves within each and every moment of existence.


You are using the term agnostic, as your link says, in the 'popular' sense. Unfortunately, it is widely misused and misunderstood. Huxley coined the term so I go with his definition which means that some things are unknowable or unknown. Theism and atheism ask a different ontological question than gnosticism/agnosticism. There is a true dichotomy, you are either a theist or you are not and therefore an atheist. You are either gnostic in your assessment or agnostic. Trying to make agnosticism as some middle ground between theism and atheism is a popular tactic but linguistically and philosophically incorrect. 

The easiest way to explain is to answer the following questions
1. Do you _believe_ that a god or gods exist? A straightforward, yes or no question about your personal belief.
2. Is there a god? This is the only question that legitimately can be answered "I don't know." If you answer 'yes' or 'no' that makes you a gnostic theist or atheist respectively. 

I can believe there is a god but honestly answer "I don't know" to the straight up question about actual knowledge. 




> The definition of agnosticism is one of the more contentious issues - even many agnostics continue to hold to the idea that agnosticism represents some sort of "third way" between atheism and theism. Not only evidence from standard dictionaries but also a careful comparison between agnosticism and other ideas like theism and atheism reveal that calling oneself an agnostic by no mean excludes being either an atheist or a theist.
> 
> Limiting oneself to discussing agnosticism as an isolated position fails to do it justice. It was originally conceived by Thomas Henry Huxley as a methodology for approaching religious questions, particularly the existence of God. Even before he coined the term, however, basic agnostic principles had existed for a long time and they have always posed serious challenges to basic premises in theology and religious philosophy. Agnosticism is a skeptical challenge to the notion that any religious conclusion can really be "known" in the first place.
> http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blag_index.htm


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 29, 2011)

*"1. Do you believe that a god or gods exist? A straightforward, yes or no question about your personal belief."

*I do not know, for i refuse to lie to myself and tell myself an absolute where there is none*.

*Maybe we have yet to make a word for intellectuals who "believe" in the strict sense we are talking metaphysically, that we do not know. I shall call it... Theisagneista. There you have it.

For example, someone tells you a story, and your not sure if what they say is true or not. You do not "know" what to "believe" -Theisagneista, the no-mans land between atheism and theism. Because theists are always trying to make you choose one, which would make me assume you are a theist, but i could be wrong.

Dont try to tell me Theisagneista isnt a word either, because BAM! Just made it up lol. As words are just utterances, vibrations used to describe something.

Theists- you are either with us, or against us! and if you're not sure if you're with us, we condemn you! lol!


----------



## snowmanexpress (Nov 29, 2011)

How many threads does it take to sew a B.S. blanket?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 29, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> *"1. Do you believe that a god or gods exist? A straightforward, yes or no question about your personal belief."
> 
> *I do not know, for i refuse to lie to myself and tell myself an absolute where there is none*.
> 
> ...




UGH - You're making a 3rd option for a question with two answers.

The question; "Do you believe in god" is a yes or no question. There is no other option, you know whether or not you believe, you can lie to us, and try to lie to yourself, but a belief exists or it does not exist. There is no "I don't know" when it comes to your beliefs.

When someone asks you "Does god exist", it's a question about knowledge, *not *about a belief and "I don't know" is a valid answer to a question of knowledge. Your belief is not knowledge, it's intrinsic to any statement that anyone makes. 

Picture this; You are asked to listen to two stories from two different people; the two people cannot see you, have no idea who you are, and will never get the opportunity to see you or know anything about you.

After you hear the two stories you may not *know* what story is true, but you know what *you *believe or are at least leaning towards. You may be squeamish about making a decision because you're not 100% sure, but you do have a belief one way or another.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 29, 2011)

BELIEF: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
BELIEVE: To accept as true or real
DISBELIEF: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
[FONT=&quot] 
If you do not know, you do not have a belief... If you are not certain if your beliefs are true or real, their is no belief. There is a confusion, uncertainty, unknowing, ignorance. 

To say that it is a requirement for a human to have a belief or disbelief in the metaphysical is the utmost of arrogant thoughts.


It seems to me like your point is, that you must either believe or disbelieve in the metaphysical, that there is no in-between. I say that is wrong, that there is a possibility in thought without belief. If we could only come to the realization that our beliefs in the metaphysical, were derived FROM thought. 

[/FONT]Thought: An idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind
Our metaphysical beliefs are but thoughts, nothing more. Neither true, nor false... some people just like to claim they are.
[FONT=&quot]*
This my friend, is where we must agree to disagree.
*[/FONT]


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 29, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> BELIEF: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
> BELIEVE: To accept as true or real
> DISBELIEF: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
> If you do not know, you do not have a belief...


If you do not *know *if god exists or not, you are agnostic. You can still hold a BELIEF that god exists or does not exist alongside you're admittance of ignorance about KNOWING whether god exists or not. 



> If you are not certain if your beliefs are true or real, their is no belief. There is a confusion, uncertainty, unknowing, ignorance.


That's not true at all. Are you certain 100% that OJ Simpson was guilty? Or that MJ was guilty? I'm not 100% but I believe that both of them were guilty. You don't have to be certain to have a belief.



> To say that it is a requirement for a human to have a belief or disbelief in the metaphysical is the utmost of arrogant thoughts.


It's not arrogant, it's just a byproduct of being able to articulate thoughts to one another. You say something, I either believe it or I don't. It's how language works my good man. You react to what people say based on your belief that what they say is true, or not true. It's intrinsic to the way we communicate. 




> It seems to me like your point is, that you must either believe or disbelieve in the metaphysical, that there is no in-between. I say that is wrong, that there is a possibility in thought without belief. If we could only come to the realization that our beliefs in the metaphysical, were derived FROM thought.


I think that's almost an axiom; that beliefs come from thought. I still feel like you're blurring two very distinct things, the difference between a belief, and knowledge. As soon, as you hear something, anything really, you have to make a judgement based on whether you believe it to be true or not. So, when someone says "I think god exists" to you, your brain automatically goes through this process of either accepting or rejecting the idea. It's not making a claim of knowledge, or knowing, but a claim about belief based on what you know about the claim so far.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 29, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> BELIEF: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
> BELIEVE: To accept as true or real
> DISBELIEF: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
> [FONT=&quot]
> If you do not know, *you do not have a belief.*.. If you are not certain if your beliefs are true or real, *their is no belief.* There is a confusion, uncertainty, unknowing, ignorance.


:Clap: Yay! You got it. You do not have a belief. 


> To say that it is a requirement for a human to have a belief or disbelief in the metaphysical is the utmost of arrogant thoughts.


NO! You cannot associate disbelief with lack of belief. That has been the whole point! Disbelief is a different category than non-belief. Disbelief requires that you have been convinced that something is not true. It is a belief itself. 

If you are on a jury, your job is to come out with a guilty or not guilty verdict. If you are unconvinced by the evidence the prosecution presents, you must vote not-guilty. You might think the person is innocent or guilty, but that isn't the question asked. The question asked is whether the evidence is enough to accept a guilty verdict. 

This is the same as the claim that a god exists. You can say you believe the evidence or you can say you are unconvinced. If you are unconvinced, then you don't believe. You can accept that there may be a god, but you don't believe because no one has given you sufficient reason to believe. As you point out, belief is the psychological state where you accept something as true. If that doesn't apply to you, then you fall into the don't believe category but not necessarily the disbelief one. 



> Thought: An idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind
> Our metaphysical beliefs are but thoughts, nothing more. Neither true, nor false... some people just like to claim they are.


To claim to have put any amount of thought into the subject and not be able to formulate a belief one way or another sounds disingenuous. Being unwilling to commit to a belief is understandable, but to say you can't say whether you believe or not, well, that just makes me think you don't give the subject any thought.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 29, 2011)

you can't have any sort of belief if no thought is present. so i stick by my opinion, that beliefs must be derived from thought. thoughts are ideas, belief is the attempt at putting truth behind your thoughts. (STRICTLY METAPHYSICALLY SPEAKING) yet again were just gonna have to agree to disagree.

In my opinion, thinking about beliefs is the same thing as thinking about thoughts... i think about thoughts all day long, but at least i understand that is just what they are, thoughts. i do not try to turn my own thoughts of the metaphysical into truth or beliefs, for i understand that they are thoughts... nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 29, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> you can't have any sort of belief if no thought is present. so i stick by my opinion, that beliefs must be derived from thought. thoughts are ideas, belief is the attempt at putting truth behind your thoughts. (STRICTLY METAPHYSICALLY SPEAKING) yet again were just gonna have to agree to disagree.


And as I pointed out, if you don' have any sort of belief, then you are a non-believer, hence an atheist.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 29, 2011)

lol!!! to understand that your metaphsycal beliefs are just thoughts, just ideas that you create... that only you can put truth or false behind them if you need to, if you must. or you can be wise, and understand that to put false or truth behind your metaphysical ideas...is pure arrogance, for how can you know if your thoughts about the metaphysical are true or false? you cannot, you just tell yourself that you do, so you can feel better whilst inside of your ignorance.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 29, 2011)

to not put true or false behind your beliefs which derive from thoughts/ideas takes courage, courage in the face of the unknown. to accept your ignorance in the face of the unknown is something i would like to call... *Theisagneista! LOL!
*


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 29, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> to not put true or false behind your beliefs which derive from thoughts/ideas takes courage, courage in the face of the unknown. to accept your ignorance in the face of the unknown is something i would like to call... *Theisagneista! LOL!
> *


You can't have a belief and fail to assign it as true, or at least reasonably true, that's why we hold beliefs *because *we think they're true. You have to believe that your belief is true, or it's not a belief; it's disbelief. Which is actually still a belief, just the negative form of a belief.

You're asking to see a 'married bachelor' in essence.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 29, 2011)

"Some scientists when canvassing these issues of philosophical theology may prefer to call themselves &#8216;agnostics&#8217; rather than &#8216;atheists&#8217; because they have been over impressed by a generalised philosophical scepticism or by a too simple understanding of Popper's dictum that we can never verify a theory but only refute it. Such a view would preclude us from saying quite reasonably that we know that the Sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium. When we say &#8216;I know&#8217; we are saying something defeasible. If later we discover that though what we said was at the time justified, it nevertheless turned out to be false, we would say &#8216;I thought I knew but I now see that I didn't know&#8217;. Never or hardly ever to say &#8216;I know&#8217; would be to deprive these words of their usefulness, just as the fact that some promises have to be broken does not deprive the institution of promising of its legitimacy."


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 29, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> You can't have a belief and fail to assign it as true. You have to believe that your belief is true, or it's not a belief; it's disbelief. Which is actually still a belief, just the negative form of a belief.
> 
> You're asking to see a 'married bachelor' in essence.



Not if you understand that beliefs are thoughts.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 29, 2011)

just because you can't admit within yourselves that you do not know, does not mean that i can't. Theisagneista


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 29, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Not if you understand that beliefs are thoughts.


...so what are convictions?


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 29, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> ... *Theisagneista! LOL!
> *


 Gesundheit! cn


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 29, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> just because you can't admit within yourselves that you do not know, does not mean that i can't. Theisagneista


It has nothing to do with admitting you "don't know", I know I don't know lots of things, but my beliefs are based upon what is most likely, because I care the beliefs I hold are true, or as close to true as could reasonably be expected. 



> Not if you understand that beliefs are thoughts.


Beliefs are not thoughts, beliefs are derived *from *thoughts. A thought is the means to having a belief, a requirement of having a belief is "thinking" about a proposition or statement, but a belief isn't a thought itself anymore than an emotion is a thought. Emotions are the product of thoughts, you think about something and then you feel an emotion based upon that thought, but emotions are not thoughts themselves. They are distinct, just like beliefs are distinct from thoughts.

Thought is to hypothesis and experimentation, as belief is to conclusions.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 29, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> just because you can't admit within yourselves that you do not know, does not mean that i can't. Theisagneista


Not knowing is a different questions. We are saying do you have a good reason to believe in a deity? If you don't have good reason, then you THINK that you are unconvinced. You sill seem to be confusing the lack of a belief with disbelief. If you don't believe, i.e. hold as a truth in your thoughts, that a god exists, then by definition, you are a non-believer. Non-believer is also called atheistic because they are not a theist. You should be able to answer yes or no to the question, "are you a theist?" "I don't know" would be a non-sequitur and means you don't even know your own thoughts.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 29, 2011)

The thing is, we are all seekers of truth. You attempt to separate yourself making your POV somehow special. It is not. It is the most widely held view amongst most atheists. They are agnostic to the question about whether there is or is not a god. Among those agnostics, there is a continuum of beliefs between, never really thought about it, to active disbelief.


----------



## snowmanexpress (Nov 29, 2011)

I like these vid's from this Rabbi. I know it's kinda hard to understand between the hebrew and english but, he does give translations into what he's saying most times. 

http://youtu.be/GUu1LnFgQfk


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 29, 2011)

i don't know if i disbelieve, i don't know if i believe either... i just plain don't know. undecided. 

-Theisagneista Thee-iss-agh-knee-eesta

*just because you do not have the ability admit within yourselves that you do not know, does not mean that i can't. *


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 29, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> i don't know if i disbelieve, i don't know if i believe either... i just plain don't know. undecided.
> 
> -Theisagneista Thee-iss-agh-knee-eesta
> 
> *just because you do not have the ability admit within yourselves that you do not know, does not mean that i can't. *


 You're really not paying attention to anything we are saying. Even your own definition of belief says that it is a psychological state where you believe something to be true. If you say you are not sure, than you cannot be holding a belief. Having a belief is an active position, one must make an active conscious decision to believe a claim. It is ridiculous to say you don't know whether you believe something. You either believe something or you don't. The problem seems to be that you think not believing means you must disbelieve it when in fact it only means you haven't reached a conclusion which is what you keep saying is the case and why I keep saying you don't yet believe. 

Is there anything else in life that you are so unsure of your position?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 29, 2011)

"science can tell us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance in the universe. 

theology on the other hand induces the dogmatic belief that we have knowledge, where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe.
*
Uncertainty in the presents of vivid hopes and fears is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales&#8230;&#8230;..*"

there is much i am uncertain about


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 30, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> "science can tell us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance in the universe.
> 
> theology on the other hand induces the dogmatic belief that we have knowledge, where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe.
> *
> ...


You're just avoiding making comments on anything we say. You completely ignore our responses and keep babbling on about being uncertain. 

We get it, you're not sure if god exists. You do know what you believe, one way or another however. 
You're not fooling anyone, and your comments aren't clever or thought provoking.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 30, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> "science can tell us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance in the universe.
> 
> theology on the other hand induces the dogmatic belief that we have knowledge, where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe.
> *
> ...


Stop conflating belief and knowledge. This is the whole point. You may not know Santa Claus is a myth but I bet you believe it to be. You cannot be sure that atoms are made of electrons, protons and neutrons, but if you have examined the subject and the evidence, I'm sure you can formulate a belief. 

I didn't ask if you were uncertain about things, I asked if you were uncertain about what you thought. IOW, if I ask you if black holes exist, you certainly could be uncertain about them. However, if you have studied the subject at all, you may formulate a belief that they do indeed exist. You are essentially saying you are unsure of what you believe. Tabula rasa, initially everything you are presented with, your position is one of non-belief. That is until you learn more. At some point for some things, you accept that they are true but until then, your undecided position means you DO NOT accept the propositions as true, therefore have not formed any belief yet. There is no third option, a partial way between belief and unbelief. You are confusing knowledge with belief and disbelief with unbelief. Read these words carefully, please, do not respond automatically because you are merely repeating yourself. Try to sit with this idea for a bit and see if you can at least understand what we are saying because the first rule of discourse is that you should not discount the opposition's position unless you can understand it fully first.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 30, 2011)

The same things would be said if I were debating with atheists rather than theists. I am asking you, how do you know 100% for sure that there is a god. Just as I would ask the atheists the same, how do you know 100% for sure that there is not a god? 

To claim knowledge where there is none is just flimflammery, foolishness, senseless, arrogant. 

There is a problem with the human psyche. Humans have this weakness, and it could be a result of the culture we were brought up in. That ignorance is bad, to not know something makes you feel weak, vulnerable and scared. It is the human condition to always want certainty when we don&#8217;t know. Most of us give in to this weakness, which results in us lying to ourselves within ourselves. We tell ourselves that we know for sure, when we really don&#8217;t. When you come to a higher level of consciousness you can observe your own thought process, and accept the reality of the situation. As much as we want to know, as much as we just &#8220;feel&#8221; we know, as much as we tell ourselves that we know&#8230; we cannot. 

We just, don&#8217;t, know. And that is a very scary thing to admit to ourselves, by far one of the hardest things any human can do&#8230; to admit to themselves within themselves their own ignorance. Not many are wise enough to be able to do this, not many at all. That is why I&#8217;ve made up this new word to try to explain this sense of wisdom in the face of our ignorance. 

To explain the truth, WE DO NOT KNOW. 

Theisagneista- the belief that we do not know.

At this my friends, i know, that we must agree to disagree. For when you try to explain to someone even a logical and rational thing... when they have made up their minds you cannot get through. And you have already made up your minds. For you have this special ability to know things humans cannot know. 

I agree, to disagree.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 30, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> To claim knowledge where there is none is just flimflammery, foolishness, senseless, arrogant.



*Ishpan*

"Faith, a firm, unwavering place in consciousness, but tending to a belief in wearing out and dissipation of strength, through activity"

Leading eventually to equilibrium, poise.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 30, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> The same things would be said if I were debating with atheists rather than theists. I am asking you, how do you know 100% for sure that there is a god. Just as I would ask the atheists the same, how do you know 100% for sure that there is not a god?


Most atheists and theists alike do not make that claim. A claim about knowledge is different than a claim about belief. That you cannot understand this very basic distinction is laughable. 


> To claim knowledge where there is none is just flimflammery, foolishness, senseless, arrogant.


Who is claiming knowledge except for your straw men? 



> There is a problem with the human psyche. Humans have this weakness, and it could be a result of the culture we were brought up in. That ignorance is bad, to not know something makes you feel weak, vulnerable and scared. It is the human condition to always want certainty when we don&#8217;t know. Most of us give in to this weakness, which results in us lying to ourselves within ourselves. We tell ourselves that we know for sure, when we really don&#8217;t. When you come to a higher level of consciousness you can observe your own thought process, and accept the reality of the situation. As much as we want to know, as much as we just &#8220;feel&#8221; we know, as much as we tell ourselves that we know&#8230; we cannot.


This might be true for some people, but not the people that are TRYING to have a discussion with you. As a scientist, I am fully aware of the many things we do not know. This is why I have mentioned that theories never prove anything. We can only disprove things in science. Everything about life begins with some assumptions, which leads to the conclusion that nothing can be known absolutely. 

However this is not the point of the discussion that you seem to be ignoring. No one is claiming knowledge. If you believe germs cause disease, is that an absolute claim about knowledge or a belief based on the best available evidence? Do you have ANY beliefs? 


> We just, don&#8217;t, know. And that is a very scary thing to admit to ourselves, by far one of the hardest things any human can do&#8230; to admit to themselves within themselves their own ignorance. Not many are wise enough to be able to do this, not many at all. That is why I&#8217;ve made up this new word to try to explain this sense of wisdom in the face of our ignorance.


It is not hard or scary. We do not know a great deal of things. No new word is necessary because you are misunderstanding the discussion.



> At this my friends, i know, that we must agree to disagree. For when you try to explain to someone even a logical and rational thing... when they have made up their minds you cannot get through. And you have already made up your minds. For you have this special ability to know things humans cannot know.


Straw man. You have made up your mind and it is closed to new ideas. No one is claiming any special knowledge, this is your mistake and an apparent lack of reading comprehension.  


> I agree, to disagree.


 You aren't even disagreeing with us, you are disagreeing with a caricature of your own design.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 30, 2011)

Dude, stop acting like some radical thinker, you're not; and the line of thinking your describing has existed for thousands of years. Read the Death of Socrates, you fucking space cadet.

*Statement about knowlege*
I do not know if god exists.

This statement means, I'm not sure if god does, or does not exist. It's not provable either way, I know this, MP knows this, everyone you are arguing against knows this. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT.


*Statement about belief*
I do not believe god exists.

This is about the decision you make in your own mind about whether the evidence you have seen is reasonable to believe or not. 





Here's an example; maybe, just maybe, you might understand this time.



If you're standing on the street and a random person turns to you and says;
*
"I'm Jesus."*

It's impossible to know if he is Jesus with 100% certainty, and it's also impossible to know that he isn't Jesus with 100% certainty. Should you treat both options, that he *IS* and *IS NOT*, Jesus with equal merit? No, one is more likely to be true, and thus one deserves more belief. 

Your mind is forced to make a stance on the spot as to whether or not you are taking what he says as truth or not. There is only two possibilities with truth, true or false. 

You don't *know* he isn't Jesus, but someone *saying* they're Jesus without showing sufficient evidence results in the rejection of a belief (if you're not a fucking idiot). If believing "random guy" is Jesus is the equivalent of being a Theist, rejecting "random guy" is the equivalent of atheism. 

You'd also be an Atheist if "random guy" never told you he was Jesus... and you'd never had the choice to believe or not.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Nov 30, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> *Ishpan*
> 
> "Faith, a firm, unwavering place in consciousness, but tending to a belief in wearing out and dissipation of strength, through activity"
> 
> Leading eventually to equilibrium, poise.


 What value is a faith one can hold on to or let go as one wishes? It is just a blind mental concept which clearly has no worth at all. That is blind faith and the less blindness you have in life the better. I do not ask you to believe, I ask you to know. Only a state of mind that one has reached by knowledge, by realization, has any value. You can term it right-belief if you wish, but it is not belief, it is knowledge. Dont believe in some vague truism. Search for truth. Seek it out. But dont hold on to any belief or concept. This is a sign of weakness of the mind. It is lethargy; it is a lack of caring. It is an injurious way to save yourself from the work of seeing your self. Blind faith is an escape from the effort for self-realization. In a sense it is nothing short of suicide because once one falls into this culvert one becomes incapable of climbing the peak of truth. These paths lead you in two opposite directions. One is the ditch you fall into; the other, the lofty summit you have to climb. Faith is an easy thing because a man is not required to do anything. In that sense, knowledge is not so easy. Knowledge is the complete transformation of life. Faith is the outer apparel; knowledge, the inner revolution. Rather than allowing you to reach the peak of atonement towards which your spirit is striving, a simple faith can easily throw you back into the slumber of blind belief. Religion is not faith but unfortunately, religions are. What is religion to me does not coincide with what the concepts of the worlds religions appear to be. On that score Karl Marx was right to brand religions as opiates but profoundly wrong to say so about real religion! You have been told to have faith in the shastras, faith in the words of God, faith in the teachers. I do not say so at all. I say: have faith in yourself. It is only by knowing your self that you will be able to know what the shastras have said, what god has said. For one who has no faith in himself, following any other faith will be in vain. Can you stand on someone elses feet? Buddha said, Be your own lamp. Be your own refuge. There is no proper refuge but the refuge of ones own self. And I say the same thing.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 1, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> What value is a faith one can hold on to or let go as one wishes? It is just a blind mental concept which clearly has no worth at all.


Christ, Buddha, Vishnu, Zarathustra, Horus... are all the same energy. They all say / said what Buddha said. What good is anything if you can let it go as you wish. (non-material, that is)

You wrote about not being able to process other people's energies then write this? I'm not trying to be a dck - to be clear.


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 1, 2011)

this is a good video series called discovering religion. theres like over 20 episodes i think. i recommend watching them all in order, especially if you are christian

[video=youtube;P9Vx_KLRUpE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9Vx_KLRUpE[/video]

[video=youtube;5Dsz9erURvo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dsz9erURvo[/video]


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 1, 2011)

...dude, read. The Vatican openly supports evolution. 

...I hear a lot of people say 'why believe in some supposedly inspired people' and go and quote some other 'supposedly inspired people' to make a point.


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 1, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...dude, read. The Vatican openly supports evolution.
> 
> ...I hear a lot of people say 'why believe in some supposedly inspired people' and go and quote some other 'supposedly inspired people' to make a point.


are you talking to me?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 1, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> are you talking to me?


...yeah, just the first part though. The rest was open.


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 1, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...yeah, just the first part though. The rest was open.


just because the vatican accepts evolution doesnt mean the people understand or accept it. a ton of christians in this country still dont accept evolution. most of it is due to ignorance. when is the last time you heard a christian person properly explaining evolution?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 1, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> just because the vatican accepts evolution doesnt mean the people understand or accept it. a ton of christians in this country still dont accept evolution. most of it is due to ignorance. when is the last time you heard a christian person properly explaining evolution?


...I know what you mean. It's not the most widely spread idea. But it is the truth, that's what I was expressing. I think most of the, say, 'generic christians' are well with the idea of spiritual evolution. I could see how it would be hard to make a 'flip'.


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 2, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I know what you mean. It's not the most widely spread idea. But it is the truth, that's what I was expressing. I think most of the, say, 'generic christians' are well with the idea of spiritual evolution. I could see how it would be hard to make a 'flip'.


spiritual evolution?? they dont get to make up their own religious version of evolution. they either believe the facts or they dont.
its hard for them to make the flip because their whole religion depends on god creating the earth and universe for humans. once humans have been shown to take up such a tiny amount of time compared to the entire earths history, their god will be unimportant and ludicrous in the scale of things. they will realize its not true. its an unwinnable position. all they can do is stick to their guns and claim they know they are correct.

heres a few questions not necessarily at you exaggerate. feel free to respond though

why is it so taboo to talk negatively about religion? what makes those beliefs so much better than every other belief? if they know they are correct, wouldnt religious people want their religion tested(legitimately) to be verified correct? how many christians out of 100 would say their religion should be tested to prove its correct? do you think those that say it shouldnt really believe in it?
also, why do people believe that prayers get answered by god? that is such a laughable concept to me


----------



## snowmanexpress (Dec 2, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> I believe God will always be talked about, and more evidence to support either, for or against will crop up thru time endless. I wonder what may be considered actual or ultimate proof of a creator. Athiest or not, it would be nice to actually live thru an evidenced miracle of our time.
> 
> Why is it so taboo to talk negatively about religion? I'd say simply due to the inconsistency of hate or negativity myself, meaning, theyre not concrete in one area, more like EVERY area that potentially stretches to other areas outside of god that makes negative views so hard to comprehend to me anyway.
> 
> ...


Prayer. 

One pouring raining day, I was with my friend, and alot of other people's money meeting this dude. It was about 2pm. My car, after deal was done, wouldnt start. I'd start it, it would run 10 feet, and die again. My car never showed this type of hiccup either before of after...... So Pissed and freaked out. Tried everything. Pop hood, check battery, hold foot to floor, beat alternator with a small piece of wood like an idiot, crank crank crank. I said out loud "I don't know what to do....." you get the idea. My friend says, "Let's pray to God." And I prayed that pouring raining ass day like I've never prayed. No joke, I swear, to God, next time I cranked......we made it to the house. prayers are answered man. That's my 'lil story and, me and my homie who was with me that day, will die with it in our hearts as an honest but simply unproveable instance of prayer being answered. I'm Jewish, he's Christian, we talk sometimes about God, but really never scratch the surface of anything because we get super heated about BS everytime. 

I tried to answer some q's, about how I view your questions in my quote of yours sorry.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Dec 2, 2011)

snowmanexpress said:


> Prayer.
> 
> One pouring raining day, I was with my friend, and alot of other people's money meeting this dude. It was about 2pm. My car, after deal was done, wouldnt start. I'd start it, it would run 10 feet, and die again. My car never showed this type of hiccup either before of after...... So Pissed and freaked out. Tried everything. Pop hood, check battery, hold foot to floor, beat alternator with a small piece of wood like an idiot, crank crank crank. I said out loud "I don't know what to do....." you get the idea. My friend says, "Let's pray to God." And I prayed that pouring raining ass day like I've never prayed. No joke, I swear, to God, next time I cranked......we made it to the house. prayers are answered man. That's my 'lil story and, me and my homie who was with me that day, will die with it in our hearts as an honest but simply unproveable instance of prayer being answered. I'm Jewish, he's Christian, we talk sometimes about God, but really never scratch the surface of anything because we get super heated about BS everytime.
> 
> I tried to answer some q's, about how I view your questions in my quote of yours sorry.


LOL so what do you call it when prayers are not answerd ? 

if i read a horoscope in the newspaper that said ,' today you will fall in love with a brown eyed girl ' and on the way to the shops i meet a brown eyed girl fall in love and marry her , would you say that randomly generated horoscope , the paper printed was somehow able to predict the future or would you put it down to coin sedence? , how many times would you read that horoscope and nothing came true ?


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Dec 2, 2011)

*




Originally Posted by Luger187  
I believe God will always be talked about, and more evidence to support either, for or against will crop up thru time endless. I wonder what may be considered actual or ultimate proof of a creator. Athiest or not, it would be nice to actually live thru an evidenced miracle of our time. 

Why is it so taboo to talk negatively about religion? I'd say simply due to the inconsistency of hate or negativity myself, meaning, theyre not concrete in one area, more like EVERY area that potentially stretches to other areas outside of god that makes negative views so hard to comprehend to me anyway. 

What makes those beliefs so much better than every other belief? I'd contend they are simply different. And it's hard, for me, to follow or like things that are different. Only when I get the aspiration and motivation to understand it, is when I'd get involved to make a decision if I'd go fer it. But for a hard headed person like me, it's hard to shake pre-suppositions already instilled in me by my youth and my own heritage.

If they know they are correct, wouldn't religious people want their religion tested (legitimately) to be verified correct? Well, what is correct in the world of religion lol? 
How many christians out of 100 would say their religion should be tested to prove its correct? Hey, let's go sign up for some kind of DNA test and see how different we are lol. It's already in our blood brother, we already are correct right? Im jk. 

Do you think those that say it shouldn't really believe in it? See this twist me like an athiest....see an athiest to me can still be on this side of the fence, but in a flash can jump over and say something completely different, Id say because they have nothing to reference, so they can just about say anything!
also, why do people believe that prayers get answered by god? that is such a laughable concept to me

wow there is so much wrong with this , where do i start , lets say the first sentance ,....................where is the evidence to support a god exists , ive never ever come across one scap of evidence for the existance of a god , please enlighten me ? 

*


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 2, 2011)

man, seriously? you have done this more then once, are you too STUPID to come up with these great arguments on your own?

thats a dumb question, lol, lol...lol...loll




ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 2, 2011)

snowmanexpress said:


> Prayer.
> 
> One pouring raining day, I was with my friend, and alot of other people's money meeting this dude. It was about 2pm. My car, after deal was done, wouldnt start. I'd start it, it would run 10 feet, and die again. My car never showed this type of hiccup either before of after...... So Pissed and freaked out. Tried everything. Pop hood, check battery, hold foot to floor, beat alternator with a small piece of wood like an idiot, crank crank crank. I said out loud "I don't know what to do....." you get the idea. My friend says, "Let's pray to God." And I prayed that pouring raining ass day like I've never prayed. No joke, I swear, to God, next time I cranked......we made it to the house. prayers are answered man. That's my 'lil story and, me and my homie who was with me that day, will die with it in our hearts as an honest but simply unproveable instance of prayer being answered. I'm Jewish, he's Christian, we talk sometimes about God, but really never scratch the surface of anything because we get super heated about BS everytime.
> 
> I tried to answer some q's, about how I view your questions in my quote of yours sorry.


one time my grandpas car wouldnt start. after trying for a while, he told the car, "if you dont start, im taking you to the junkyard". it started right up after that. true story.
now... do we have any reason to believe the car heard him, then acted out of fear of being junked? no, its just a coincidence. so why would you believe that some almighty being used some unknown force to magically fix your car? just because you put your hands together and asked for it? ill bet you if i take the battery cable off the terminal, the car will never start no matter how much you pray. unless a human intervenes and fixes it of course.

the human brain is a machine that seeks patterns, like when you see shapes in clouds. also it likes to connect events or things together, whether they are connected in reality or not. like when a friend calls you immediately after you think about him/her, or when your car starts right after you pray. we like to think those kinds of coincidences are related. "The Believing Brain" by Michael Shermer is a pretty informational book about the subject.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Dec 2, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> man, seriously? You have done this more then once, are you too stupid to come up with these great arguments on your own?
> 
> Thats a dumb question, lol, lol...lol...loll


stop ignoring the question then idiot


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 2, 2011)

It was rhetorical, meaning


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Dec 2, 2011)

ner ner ner ner


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 2, 2011)

Like i said, children do as children are


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 2, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Dude, stop acting like some radical thinker, you're not; and the line of thinking your describing has existed for thousands of years. Read the Death of Socrates, you fucking space cadet.
> 
> *Statement about knowlege*
> I do not know if god exists.
> ...


I don't know if i believe or not- Theisagneista


----------



## tyler.durden (Dec 3, 2011)

Getting back to videos, here's a great one. I fucking love Christopher Hitchens, here's a great short clip about being close to death:


[video=youtube;2-AwgHcgYR4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-AwgHcgYR4&feature=fvwp&NR=1[/video]


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 3, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> I don't know if i believe or not- Theisagneista



How do you know you don't know if you don't know your own beliefs?

It's funny the only way you can defend your position is by completely ignoring the counter-argument. You certainly have no rebuttle or ability to form a coherent explanation, so I'll just take this as a win and let you get back to constructing tinfoil hats and trying to bite your ear.


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 3, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> I don't know if i believe or not- Theisagneista


are you convinced there is a god? if not, by definition you are an atheist. the prefix "a" means not, so atheist means "not a theist". there is no middleman between atheist and theist. you are either one or the other.


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 3, 2011)

[video=youtube;laGB4etAosE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laGB4etAosE[/video]

these ones are pretty funny
[video=youtube;j_BzWUuZN5w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_BzWUuZN5w&feature=plcp&context=C291cfUDOEgsToPDskKwES1xACWxbK5EFl-ctaWF[/video]
[video=youtube;XLr5vl-n0Bo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLr5vl-n0Bo[/video]


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 3, 2011)

[video=youtube;Txp8LhL56rU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txp8LhL56rU[/video]


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 3, 2011)

[video=youtube;r6w2M50_Xdk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk[/video]


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 3, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> I don't know if i believe or not- Theisagneista


watch this please
[video=youtube;sNDZb0KtJDk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&feature=channel_video_title[/video]


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 3, 2011)

im just going to link this one because i dont want to have too many vids on one screen for ppl with slow computers.
this ones about pascals wager and why it doesnt work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 3, 2011)

You can believe you can fix a car without the knowledge to do so, and you can believe you can't fix a car while having the knowledge.


You are still not making a distinction between the two.


----------



## BA142 (Dec 3, 2011)

lol so true

[video=youtube;6p5jnqEyUs4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p5jnqEyUs4[/video]


----------



## BA142 (Dec 3, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> It was in reference to thunderdome..
> 
> And shut tsh, you stupid bitch... How many threads have you jacked and ruined whiny little bitch...
> 
> Seems your stupid mum didnt teach you squat.. Sorry ass excuse for a box!


Ya know for being a Christian you sure don't act like one 

....you stupid bitch


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 4, 2011)

You are the stupid bitch for thinking christians will just let people talk shit to them without doing anything.

Loser! Lol


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Dec 4, 2011)

BA142 said:


> Ya know for being a Christian you sure don't act like one
> 
> ....you stupid bitch


ha ha ha that gave me the giggles , plus rep


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> You are the stupid bitch for thinking christians will just let people talk shit to them without doing anything.
> 
> Loser! Lol


*WWJD?*


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 4, 2011)

i miss carlin's humor

[video=youtube;hcy40pvGIGQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcy40pvGIGQ&feature=fvsr[/video]


----------



## BA142 (Dec 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> You are the stupid bitch for thinking christians will just let people talk shit to them without doing anything.
> 
> Loser! Lol


I think Christian's will let people talk shit to them? How do you know that?

I've just noticed that you nearly shit your pants every time anybody says anything even remotely negative about Religion, so I just wanted to poke some fun at u


----------



## The Chemist Brothers (Dec 4, 2011)

have a happy holidays


----------



## The Chemist Brothers (Dec 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> You are the stupid bitch for thinking christians will just let people talk shit to them without doing anything.
> 
> Loser! Lol



why cuss so much?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> You are the stupid bitch for thinking christians will just let people talk shit to them without doing anything.
> 
> Loser! Lol



Science can tell us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance in the universe. 

Theology on the other hand induces the dogmatic belief that we have knowledge, where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe.
*
Uncertainty in the presents of vivid hopes and fears is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales&#8230;&#8230;..*

you scared ignorant little fool (dont worry, i accuse myself of this very notion too...save that i have enough courage, wisdom and power to accept it, and get over it. =D)


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 5, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Science can tell us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance in the universe.
> 
> Theology on the other hand induces the dogmatic belief that we have knowledge, where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe.
> *
> ...


Science doesn't tell us what we can know. It tells us what we haven't falsified yet, and believe to be true based upon the best available evidence and observation.


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 5, 2011)

[so you think you are special or something? I think we know what we know about science because we wish to learn it, not cause of theology...





QUOTE=Zaehet Strife;6730565]Science can tell us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance in the universe. 

Theology on the other hand induces the dogmatic belief that we have knowledge, where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe.
*
Uncertainty in the presents of vivid hopes and fears is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales&#8230;&#8230;..*

you scared ignorant little fool (dont worry, i accuse myself of this very notion too...save that i have enough courage, wisdom and power to accept it, and get over it. =D)[/QUOTE]


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 5, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> [so you think you are special or something? I think we know what we know about science because *we wish to learn it*, not cause of theology...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


...agreed. I've yet to meet a religious person who's said "oh, science? Yeah, sorry, god said no".


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Science doesn't tell us what we can know. It tells us what we haven't falsified yet, and believe to be true based upon the best available evidence and observation.


*know/n&#333;/*

Verb:

Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
Have knowledge or information concerning.
Science tells us what we can know, what we can be aware of through observation, inquiry or information.

*Theology on the other hand induces the dogmatic belief that we have knowledge, where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe.

Uncertainty in the presents of vivid hopes and fears is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales&#8230;&#8230;..*


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 5, 2011)

know/n&#333;/

Verb:
Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
Have knowledge or information concerning.
Science tells us what we can know, what we can be aware of through observation, inquiry or information.






Zaehet Strife said:


> *know/n&#333;/*
> 
> Verb:
> 
> ...


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> [so you think you are special or something? I think we know what we know about science because we wish to learn it, not cause of theology...


that makes no sense at all what-so-ever. not being mean, if you could please rewrite that sentence in a way we could all understand it would be sweet. 

 No im not any more special than anyone or anything in existance, I am just one of the very few humans in this society that has enough courage, wisdom and power to accept my ignorance, and get over it. It is scary, im not saying it isn't. It is hard, im not saying it isn't. Its easier to live in a fairy tale than to live in reality.

For this main reason;
 *[FONT=&quot]"To lay your troubles at the feet of one greater than yourself and to trust your fate to that power would be a relief. But in doing so it allows you to feel as if you no longer have to be directly responsible for whatever you do..." [/FONT]*

 Theology induces the dogmatic belief that we have knowledge, where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe, and towards oneself.
*
Uncertainty in the presents of vivid hopes and fears is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales&#8230;&#8230;..*


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 5, 2011)

> I am just one of the very few humans in this society that has enough courage, wisdom and power to accept my ignorance, and get over it.


dude, are you serious? Do you think you are the only human that thinks of those things? What makes you think that everyone else other then yourself does not or has not pondered that thought? You think you are some higher thinker when you are just as normal as everybody else dude. Unless you got some new cell or chromosome that sets you apart, please get off of this high horse you are riding.



> It is scary, im not saying it isn't.


what is so scary about knowing things about yourself and accepting things you cannot change? It is part of life to grow and understand these things as we get older, it isn't some special don that just happens all of a sudden and bualah! you have understood something all of mankind has not been able to accept since the inception of the first biped species... 




> It is hard, im not saying it isn't. Its easier to live in a fairy tale than to live in reality.



that makes no sense at all what-so-ever. not being mean, if you could please rewrite that sentence in a way we could all understand it would be sweet. 


thats your own words by the way...



> "To lay your troubles at the feet of one greater than yourself and to trust your fate to that power would be a relief. But in doing so it allows you to feel as if you no longer have to be directly responsible for whatever you do..."


again, you make the assumption that we believers actually take everything in the bible to be literal... on the contrary, it you who takes everything about God and the bible very literal and expect things to happen that way... you are just like my stupid atheist cousin, who thinks God does not exist cause my aunt died of cancer... what a fucking douche bag... come back to reality brother and make some sense 



> Theology induces the dogmatic belief that we have knowledge, where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe.
> 
> Uncertainty in the presents of vivid hopes and fears is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales&#8230;&#8230;..



[so you think you are special or something? I think we know what we know about science because we wish to learn it, not cause of theology...


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

i think it would be sweet if it was a rule, that you had to say "maybe" after everything that isn't 100% true, or proven.

god exists -maybe
there is a collective consciousness -maybe
we have souls -maybe
existence is just a computer generated hologram -maybe
are just a few examples.

to understand that everything metaphysical is just a maybe, that is what im trying to explain.
everyone just loves to pick one and stick with it, why not accept that anything is possible instead of just one way? its so much better that way.

but it cant be that way, because the fear of the unknown creeps up.. makes you want to pick one, that way you can tell yourself you know whats going on in the universe, how things are happening, how things are going to happen, and even to the extent of knowing what happens when you die.

you cannot control fear, but you can decide what to do with it, you can decide to deal with it and try to understand it. or you can hide behind your self created reality, and give yourself false truths... give yourself the comforts of knowing where in fact there is a lack of knowledge, it is replaced with ignorance.

and ignorance is truly bliss, but when you wake up... you can never go back to sleep.

(this is all strictly pertaining to philosophy, metaphysics, and theology etc.)

*Uncertainty in the presents of vivid hopes and fears is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales&#8230;&#8230;..

im done argueing with you, its hard to argue with someone who does not think rationally*


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 5, 2011)

> you cannot control fear,


fear is most certainly controllable... are you not some higher thinker? 

phobias are something that need a lot of work but can be mastered...


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

for example, your in darken woods... there are monsters about, scary ones that will capture you and torture you before they eat you. your walking along a path, when your best friend jumps out and says RAAAAA!!! you jump, because at first impression in your thought process you automatically assumed it was a monster that was going to eat you. you couldnt control the jumping, you couldnt control that fear... but once you understood it, it gave you the ability to decide what to do with it. you could either turn around and stab your friend (what you thought was the monster) in the chest with your sword, or you can decide to turn... assess the situation, realize it was your friend and not a monster, and refrain from killing your friend.

you cannot control fear, but you can think rationally, and decide what to do with it.

hope you liked the story, i thought it was pretty cool =D


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 5, 2011)

Sorry, i grew up on a ranch and know a lot about fear, trust... Your statement is completely false... Unless you some type of pansy





Zaehet Strife said:


> for example, your in darken woods... there are monsters about, scary ones that will capture you and torture you before they eat you. your walking along a path, when your best friend jumps out and says RAAAAA!!! you jump, because at first impression in your thought process you automatically assumed it was a monster that was going to eat you. you couldnt control the jumping, you couldnt control that fear... but once you understood it, it gave you the ability to decide what to do with it. you could either turn around and stab your friend (what you thought was the monster) in the chest with your sword, or you can decide to turn... assess the situation, realize it was your friend and not a monster, and refrain from killing your friend.
> 
> you cannot control fear, but you can think rationally, and decide what to do with it.
> 
> hope you liked the story, i thought it was pretty cool =D


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

dude, monsters that will torture you and eat you is way scarier than a cow or bull. plus darken woods is way scarier than a ranch.

you said you know a lot about fear, once you know it and understand it... you can decide what to do with it. the fear is always there, you just decide to not be afraid. 

you can either pretend the fear isnt there (very easy, like an emu sticking its head in the ground pretending the lion cant eat him) or accept the fear is there, and _decide_ to face it head on (accept the lion is there and turn to face it, real courage)


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 5, 2011)

Yea man, there is nothing scary on a ranch of 3000 acres! And i firgot, you are a higher level thinker that knows everything

You learn what to do with fear by not being afraid and confronting it... If you are walking down the street and a ravage dog attacks you and you are scared of dogs, your natural reaction will be to run, not stay there and understand what you are going to do. Unless you do not FEAR dogs then you can stay there and stand your ground


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

bro, you are terrified of those dogs... but in spite of that fear you face them, that is what courage is. to face your fear.
my uncle was in veitnam, he was in the middle of a fire fight, he was scared shitless... bullets raining everywhere, there was nothing he could do about that fear, but in spite of that fear... he stood his ground and kept shooting, all the while knowing he could be shot at any moment.

*cour·age/&#712;k&#601;rij/*

Noun:

The ability to do something that frightens one.
Strength in the face of pain or grief.
the fear was always with him, but he was courageous and fought even though he was afraid. that person fought those dogs even though they were afraid.

but its scary to change the way you think, so i assume you will continue to deny this.


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 5, 2011)

[video=youtube;5wV_REEdvxo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo[/video]


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 5, 2011)

Bass-Ackwards.

Hard to put faith in its place if one doesn't know what it is.


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 5, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> Bass-Ackwards.
> 
> Hard to put faith in its place if one doesn't know what it is.


i agree with that.

thought id post this too
[video=youtube;-h9XntsSEro]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro[/video]


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 5, 2011)

I doubt your uncle was in Vietnam cause if he was you would have known how to spell it.

It is called adaptation to your environment... If you dont know what that is, well you just dont know.





Zaehet Strife said:


> bro, you are terrified of those dogs... but in spite of that fear you face them, that is what courage is. to face your fear.
> my uncle was in veitnam, he was in the middle of a fire fight, he was scared shitless... bullets raining everywhere, there was nothing he could do about that fear, but in spite of that fear... he stood his ground and kept shooting, all the while knowing he could be shot at any moment.
> 
> *cour·age/&#712;k&#601;rij/*
> ...


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I doubt your uncle was in Vietnam cause if he was you would have known how to spell it.
> 
> It is called adaptation to your environment... If you dont know what that is, well you just dont know.


there is no reasoning with someone who thinks without reason. all that you have done is ridicule the statements i make that you do not understand, or better yet, refuse to understand. it is a sign of immaturity, and also the will to be ignorant despite the facts. i am done arguing with you.

watch this video.

[video=youtube;SlaCq3dKvvI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlaCq3dKvvI&feature=related[/video]


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 5, 2011)

...Luger, I get that. But if 97% means all, then I guess science will always 'win'. (no, that's not my view of science.)

...do you see what I mean? Doesn't science put a ton of 'faith' into 3%? As long as 97% are on board, we have a theory.

...inverted christianity


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 5, 2011)

heres another good one...
[video=youtube;Zn4DT5sHNWs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn4DT5sHNWs[/video]


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 5, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...Luger, I get that. But if 97% means all, then I guess science will always 'win'. (no, that's not my view of science.)
> 
> ...do you see what I mean? Doesn't science put a ton of 'faith' into 3%? As long as 97% are on board, we have a theory.
> 
> ...inverted christianity


are you talking about percentages of people that believe a theory to be true? sorry im confused


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 5, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> are you talking about percentages of people that believe a theory to be true? sorry im confused


...sorry 'bout that. I've seen Heis say many times that majority rules in science. I take that as 97% 'can't be wrong', while the other 3% of speculation 'waits' for a supporting role, as it were. Correct me if I am wrong, no worries there.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 5, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> *know/n&#333;/*
> 
> Verb:
> 
> ...


I know what know means, and you can post inane definitions all day and it doesn't change what the scientific method is about.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun
scientific methods, plural

A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.


No where does it say science shows us what we can know for sure with 100% certainty. That's what _knowing_ is, *with certainty.* There is no 100% certainty in science, and you need to acknowledge that before we move on. No amount of copy/pasting definitions, or listing your opinions will change that. 

You want talk about knowing, sure; here's something we *know*; science doesn't deal with certainty. _*Knowing*_ is explicitly certain. Therefore, science doesn't make claims about _knowing_.


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 5, 2011)

[video=youtube;XaL7CkQaQpU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaL7CkQaQpU[/video]


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 5, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...sorry 'bout that. I've seen Heis say many times that majority rules in science. I take that as 97% 'can't be wrong', while the other 3% of speculation 'waits' for a supporting role, as it were. Correct me if I am wrong, no worries there.


well its not that the theory of gravity CANT be wrong. we just have a huge pile of supporting evidence for it, and we can reasonably say that its (probably) true, based on our observations. however, there is still the possibility of new information coming in tomorrow that is verifiable and testable that completely rewrites our theory of gravity. its not very likely, but science always allows for the possibility.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> I know what know means, and you can post inane definitions all day and it doesn't change what the scientific method is about.
> 
> sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
> noun
> ...


i NEVER once said science deals with certainty.

i said EXACTLY this:
*Science tells us what we can be AWARE of through observation, inquiry or information.

Theology on the other hand induces the dogmatic belief that we have knowledge, where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe. -*i would like to see you argue this.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 5, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> i think it would be sweet if it was a rule, that you had to say "maybe" after everything that isn't 100% true, or proven.


That would begin to get ridiculous. I don't think there is anything that can be 100% proven. 

Germs cause disease - maybe
The universe began with a Big Bang - maybe
The speed of light is a universal barrier - maybe
I am not a brain in a jar - maybe


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 5, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> i NEVER once said science deals with certainty.
> 
> i said EXACTLY this:
> *Science tells us what we can be AWARE of through observation, inquiry or information.
> ...


No, you said Science tells us what we can KNOW, and I said it doesn't. Then you said it did, then I said it didn't. Then you said you didn't say science was about knowing.

So.... your move?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> No, you said Science tells us what we can KNOW, and I said it doesn't. Then you said it did, then I said it didn't. Then you said you didn't say science was about knowing.
> 
> So.... your move?


how old are you, cant you understand? or are you seriously THAT stupid.

*know/n&#333;/*

Verb:

_*Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.*_
Have knowledge or information concerning.

i dont think theres any way i can break it down for you any simpler

*shaking my head in utter disappointment, this is hopeless


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 5, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> how old are you, cant you understand? or are you seriously THAT stupid.
> 
> *know/n&#333;/*
> 
> ...




I have to chuckle at you calling me stupid, that's pretty rich! lol


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

*theists will never admit that they do not have knowledge about a deity or metaphysics. where as scientists can admit they do not know. the only basis of argument you can ever get out of a theist is FAITH. which is nothing but a thought/idea you believe because you want to, where there is no basis of knowledge present at all.

 theology induces the dogmatic belief that we have knowledge([FONT=&quot]Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject)[/FONT], where in fact we have ignorance(Lack of knowledge or information) 
*


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> *No, you said Science tells us what we can KNOW, and I said it doesn't.* Then you said it did, then I said it didn't. Then you said you didn't say science was about knowing.
> 
> So.... your move?


*know/n&#333;/*

Verb:

Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
Have knowledge or information concerning.
tell me how what you said is not stupid.

science tells us what we can know (be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.)

you said it doesn't... that seems stupid to me.



*
 theology induces the dogmatic belief that we have knowledge(*[FONT=&quot]Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject)[/FONT]*, where in fact we have ignorance(*Lack of knowledge or information*)


*_changing the subject only admits to me your defeat_*
*


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 5, 2011)

My reasoning has nothing to do with anything you have said. Your reasoning comes to question because of the insane things you have said, like making statements or claims that you are one of the few who can control fear or accept your own ignorance. Please man, you are coming across as if you are challenged mentally.

Arguing as you said you were doing is unproductive so why do you argue? I was simply calling you on your flawed statements that make no sense.

There was no ridicule cause i dont recall using an "lol" or saying something funny...





Zaehet Strife said:


> there is no reasoning with someone who thinks without reason. all that you have done is ridicule the statements i make that you do not understand, or better yet, refuse to understand. it is a sign of immaturity, and also the will to be ignorant despite the facts. i am done arguing with you.
> 
> watch this video.
> 
> [video=youtube;SlaCq3dKvvI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlaCq3dKvvI&feature=related[/video]


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 5, 2011)

Ok, i finally get what you mean when you say abit more clear so you can understand.

You mean to use definitions at the end of words of emphasis so you can get it... Aight 





Zaehet Strife said:


> *know/n&#333;/*
> 
> Verb:
> 
> ...


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

yet again i state:

_theists will never admit that they do not have knowledge about a deity or metaphysics. where as scientists can admit they do not know. the only basis of argument you can ever get out of a theist is FAITH. which is nothing but a thought/idea you believe because you want to, where there is no basis of knowledge present at all.

_thats a great video by the way, you should watch it._
_


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 5, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> *know/n&#333;/*
> 
> Verb:
> 
> ...


Remove the word "can" and maybe it will make more sense. What we _can_ know implies a limit. Science certainly tells us what we believe to be true. It doesn't however tell us the limit to which our knowledge can go. Science is limited by describing only the natural world and things in it. What you seem to be describing is a form of positivism yet our knowledge extends beyond that which is limited by science.


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 5, 2011)

Your debate skills suck man! Thats it


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 5, 2011)

I was going to post, but you put it better than I, MP...


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

no use trying to argue with theists, they will never admit they do not know. the only argument against this they can use is faith... which is anything but knowledge.*
*


----------



## BA142 (Dec 5, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...agreed. I've yet to meet a religious person who's said "oh, science? Yeah, sorry, god said no".


I met Kirk Cameron and those were pretty much his exact words

For good measure (and it's true)


----------



## LeeGullEyes (Dec 5, 2011)

[video=youtube;RhjfyEcwUcw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhjfyEcwUcw[/video]


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 5, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...sorry 'bout that. I've seen Heis say many times that majority rules in science. I take that as 97% 'can't be wrong', while the other 3% of speculation 'waits' for a supporting role, as it were. Correct me if I am wrong, no worries there.


Perhaps I should clarify myself. When I acknowledge a scientific consensus, it is not the same thing as saying majority rules. Science is not a democracy, therefore no voting occurs. It's not simply a matter of popularity. Scientific consensus happens when scientists stop arguing. When all ideas about cause and effect are explored, tested, retested and reviewed, certain avenues continue to make sense while others fall aside. The focus of investigation then becomes narrowed to these views not out of peer pressure, not out of lionization, but because it is the responsible and reasonable thing to do. Scientific consensus does suggest a majority, but that is not what we take away from it. We take away the idea that this subject has been studied, criticized and sorted through, and the tide of evidence has delivered us to this particular sandbar of knowledge.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

/sigh, thanks BA


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 5, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Perhaps I should clarify myself. When I acknowledge a scientific consensus, it is not the same thing as saying majority rules. Science is not a democracy, therefore no voting occurs. It's not simply a matter of popularity. Scientific consensus happens when scientists stop arguing. When all ideas about cause and effect are explored, tested, retested and reviewed, certain avenues continue to make sense while others fall aside. The focus of investigation then becomes narrowed to these views not out of peer pressure, not out of lionization, but because it is the responsible and reasonable thing to do. Scientific consensus does suggest a majority, but that is not what we take away from it. We take away the idea that this subject has been studied, criticized and sorted through, and the tide of evidence has delivered us to this particular sandbar of knowledge.


I would add that even with a scientific majority and not a complete consensus, the kind of majority held by experts in a given field is entirely more credible than if a majority of non-scientists held a contrary belief. That is to say, 75% of the people in the world, a gigantic number, could hold a particular view about something scientific, but if 99% of scientists a relatively small number, contest that belief than the 75% of the people in the worlds belief on the matter is irrelevant, or at least drastically less credible.


----------



## tyler.durden (Dec 5, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...agreed. I've yet to meet a religious person who's said "oh, science? Yeah, sorry, god said no".


Really? You are lucky. It seems that you're a sociable guy, so I'm surprised you haven't spoken to any fundies that haven't made that very statement, at least regarding certain facts. I've spoken seriously to at least ten people (some in my own family) in my life regarding established facts like the age of the Earth, the age of our universe, evolution, geology, QT, GR & SR, etc.. They actively denied scientific fact in favor of scriptural dogma, coupled with inane statements like, 'science gets stuff wrong all the time' or 'those are facts from anti-christs with their own agenda'...  When people give this type of answer, I don't ever have that discussion with them again. I mean, what is the point...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 5, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Really? You are lucky. It seems that you're a sociable guy, so I'm surprised you haven't spoken to any fundies that haven't made that very statement, at least regarding certain facts. I've spoken seriously to at least ten people (some in my own family) in my life regarding established facts like the age of the Earth, the age of our universe, evolution, geology, QT, GR & SR, etc.. They actively denied scientific fact in favor of scriptural dogma, coupled with inane statements like, 'science gets stuff wrong all the time' or 'those are facts from anti-christs with their own agenda'...  When people give this type of answer, I don't ever have that discussion with them again. I mean, what is the point...


...no-no, I've worked for them. Hooooly, they aren't 

They were a wall for me to smash my face upon over and over and over... I always hated the fckn little southern giggle some of the women had, you know, as if to say they were more 'badass' then they appeared. Always when no one was looking. Trust me, I understand the frustration.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 5, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Perhaps I should clarify myself. When I acknowledge a scientific consensus, it is not the same thing as saying majority rules. Science is not a democracy, therefore no voting occurs. It's not simply a matter of popularity. Scientific consensus happens when scientists stop arguing. When all ideas about cause and effect are explored, tested, retested and reviewed, certain avenues continue to make sense while others fall aside. The focus of investigation then becomes narrowed to these views not out of peer pressure, not out of lionization, but because it is the responsible and reasonable thing to do. Scientific consensus does suggest a majority, but that is not what we take away from it. We take away the idea that this subject has been studied, criticized and sorted through, and the tide of evidence has delivered us to this particular sandbar of knowledge.


Thanks Heis.

The completely arbitrary number of 3% is exactly where this believer lives. I'm comfortable not knowing, or, able to silence the chaos of unknowing - most of the time  Knowledge is a gift, to be sure, but there's a slight benefit (imo) of being in that 3% - what I'd consider as the very same 3% that is the 'unproven' in science.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

should watch them all... but im sure the theists wont have it, its blasphemy! or, are there theists out there who are willing to have an open mind, eager for new information and "tests" of their faith. do you have the courage?

[video=youtube;YkExxkrMyU4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkExxkrMyU4&feature=relmfu[/video]


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 5, 2011)

heres a link to a badass site thats good for learnin stuff. they have many subjects, each with a bunch of videos. if you have kids it would be good for them to watch some

http://www.khanacademy.org/#biology

looks like some informational stuff under the biology section for people that dont know much about it. i havent watched any of them yet

edit: this one about DNA is awesome. it shows how the DNA codes and makes proteins.
[video=youtube;_-vZ_g7K6P0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-vZ_g7K6P0&feature=player_embedded[/video]

heres another about variation in species
[video=youtube;DuArVnT1i-E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuArVnT1i-E&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 5, 2011)

[video=youtube;A0WwZc-Vz7Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0WwZc-Vz7Y&feature=relmfu[/video]


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 6, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> should watch them all... but im sure the theists wont have it, its blasphemy! or, are there theists out there who are willing to have an open mind, eager for new information and "tests" of their faith. do you have the courage?
> 
> [video=youtube;YkExxkrMyU4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkExxkrMyU4&feature=relmfu[/video]


 TheraminTrees hits it out of the park again.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 6, 2011)

...all 6-8 year old psychos truly understand metaphor and allegory. Sheeesh  There's a huge glove out there, that encompasses the park. And, it has more balls then we do.


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 6, 2011)

dude, there is no point DISCUSSING my beliefs with you cause you are insane... I dont think the way you are writing is helping you any with any theists, lol! And i do not wish to argue... why do you always wish to argue? THere is no point in arguing man, your point will never get across.

If you would have asked that question as simple as you did and not waste countless pages trying to "explain" your higher thinking capabilities to us normal thinkers, then i would have given you a simple answer as well...

No, i dont know and never have i claimed to know or never have i said we "theists" know everything there is about God... I do not know where you got that from since no one shared that with you here. You will never admit that you take everything in the bible to be literal and exactly to the "T" so to speak. 





Zaehet Strife said:


> no use trying to argue with theists, they will never admit they do not know. the only argument against this they can use is faith... which is anything but knowledge.*
> *


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 6, 2011)

nah man, no need for these dumbass videos bro... mindphuk does a really good job at get the point across in our discussions and i do take what he says over whatever blibberish you have said on here so far...

The thing i see with you is that you are trying to do something you are incapable of doing, which is trying to fill doubt in a believer's brain. YOur attempts suck dude. Mindphuk and several others that i have the pleasure of discussing with really know how to get to the point man... you are just a watered down version of sativahigh...thus the lack of credibility. oh no, but you think using statements such as "i am only one of a few who can admit their own ignorance" and "you cannot control fear, but i can" bullshit is just not working for you man. 


I just hate it when atheists that have no skill use videos to get their point across... 









Zaehet Strife said:


> should watch them all... but im sure the theists wont have it, its blasphemy! or, are there theists out there who are willing to have an open mind, eager for new information and "tests" of their faith. do you have the courage?
> 
> [video=youtube;YkExxkrMyU4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkExxkrMyU4&feature=relmfu[/video]


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 6, 2011)

dude, thats all bio 1





Luger187 said:


> heres a link to a badass site thats good for learnin stuff. they have many subjects, each with a bunch of videos. if you have kids it would be good for them to watch some
> 
> http://www.khanacademy.org/#biology
> 
> ...


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 6, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> dude, thats all bio 1


and.....? does everyone on earth know this information?


----------



## dtp5150 (Dec 6, 2011)

[youtube]_ASzDDOaLyk[/youtube]

hopefully not posted already


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 6, 2011)

No need to get your panties in a bunch bro! 

im just saying





Luger187 said:


> and.....? does everyone on earth know this information?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 6, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> No need to get your panties in a bunch bro!
> 
> im just saying


...I think he's being civil with you. *nods*


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 6, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> dude, there is no point DISCUSSING my beliefs with you cause you are insane... I dont think the way you are writing is helping you any with any theists, lol! And i do not wish to argue... why do you always wish to argue? THere is no point in arguing man, your point will never get across.
> 
> If you would have asked that question as simple as you did and not waste countless pages trying to "explain" your higher thinking capabilities to us normal thinkers, then i would have given you a simple answer as well...
> 
> No, i dont know and never have i claimed to know or never have i said we "theists" know everything there is about God... I do not know where you got that from since no one shared that with you here. You will never admit that you take everything in the bible to be literal and exactly to the "T" so to speak.


more ridiculing comments i see, that is all you can come up with to defend your theism. im not calling you names, i am just getting you to open your mind to different intelligent concepts that you may have never thought of before, or have been purposefully avoiding so you dont have to ask yourself certain questions that might shake up your faith. all im asking you to do is watch a video, but because of your will to be so ignorant, you wont even give a video a watch. the more you information you gather the better off you are, the less blindness in life you have the better. gather information from all sources, research many different religions and cults, along with different things like philosophy and metaphysics etc. the more knowledge you have the better my friend, you shouldn't disregard it so easily... for it only represents how you are as an individual. _unwilling to even think about new information or new ideas._ 

if anything, your ranting makes you sound a lot more insane than i. yet i refuse to call you names. remember, what would jesus do? how would he react to the situation? with anger, or with patience and resolve?

[video=youtube;8Eam-z1bwrk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eam-z1bwrk[/video]


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 6, 2011)

i have nothing against theists, it just amuses me that they can come up with this dogmatic belief that they know god exists, when that isn't even possible. you can think god exists, you can want god to exist, you can have an idea that god exists, but none of that actually makes it exists... it is all within your minds. the only argument you can come up with if at all, is faith... which isn't even an argument at all to begin with. faith is only saying that you believe in something only because you want to, regardless of rational thought.


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 6, 2011)

Nice ad hominem and where is the name calling?

Intelligent concepts? Have you ever been to college?

Wwjd? I dont know, im not Jesus and as such what makes you think we are the same?





Zaehet Strife said:


> more ridiculing comments i see, that is all you can come up with to defend your theism. im not calling you names, i am just getting you to open your mind to different intelligent concepts that you may have never thought of before, or have been purposefully avoiding so you dont have to ask yourself certain questions that might shake up your faith. all im asking you to do is watch a video, but because of your will to be so ignorant, you wont even give a video a watch. the more you information you gather the better off you are, the less blindness in life you have the better. gather information from all sources, research many different religions and cults, along with different things like philosophy and metaphysics etc. the more knowledge you have the better my friend, you shouldn't disregard it so easily... for it only represents how you are as an individual. _unwilling to even think about new information or new ideas._
> 
> if anything, your ranting makes you sound a lot more insane than i. yet i refuse to call you names. remember, what would jesus do? how would he react to the situation? with anger, or with patience and resolve?
> 
> [video=youtube;8Eam-z1bwrk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eam-z1bwrk[/video]


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 6, 2011)

Show the quote where anyone has said that...

Or where i said that.

So you dont have faith in your wife, girlfriend or boyfriend if you swing that way? You just have rational thoughts about them. So what happens when your rationale fades or fails you? 





Zaehet Strife said:


> i have nothing against theists, it just amuses me that they can come up with this dogmatic belief that they know god exists, when that isn't even possible. you can think god exists, you can want god to exist, you can have an idea that god exists, but none of that actually makes it exists... it is all within your minds. the only argument you can come up with if at all, is faith... which isn't even an argument at all to begin with. faith is only saying that you believe in something only because you want to, regardless of rational thought.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 6, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Nice ad hominem and where is the name calling?
> 
> Intelligent concepts? Have you ever been to college? *-ridiculing comment*
> 
> Wwjd? I dont know, im not Jesus and as such what makes you think we are the same?


you arent the same, but arent you supposed to lead by his example, to try to be like him in all ways... not just ways that you prefer? as you probably know, he is the emanation of all that is good in the world, arent you supposed to be taking his examples and encompassing him?


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 6, 2011)

Who said i dont do good? You dont know me and what i do.

Are we suppose to follow him to the t on the internet when we constantly get hassled about our beliefs? Lol





Zaehet Strife said:


> you arent the same, but arent you supposed to lead by his example, to try to be like him in all ways... not just ways that you prefer? as you probably know, he is the emanation of all that is good in the world, arent you supposed to be taking his examples and encompassing him?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 6, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Who said i dont do good? You dont know me and what i do.
> 
> Are we suppose to follow him to the t on the internet when we constantly get hassled about our beliefs? Lol


i would just assume, that if you are so set in your beliefs, that you would act as if you really are following the teachings of jesus regardless if you are on the internet, or if we are talking face to face.




olylifter420 said:


> Show the quote where anyone has said that...
> 
> Or where i said that.
> 
> So you dont have faith in your wife, girlfriend or boyfriend if you swing that way? You just have rational thoughts about them. So what happens when your rationale fades or fails you?


i choose to have faith in something i can see, touch, or feel. if they fail me... i can take responsibility in making those decisions, all the while knowing deep within myself that in doing so i am leaving myself open to get hurt. but i will not have faith in something that i have no idea if it even exists or not, *for that would give me the excuse to blame things on god rather than myself*. i know my family is real, i do not know if god exists. 

to take responsibility for all that you do, think, or say is a sign of true maturity/wisdom

(i can have rational thoughts about believing or having faith in them, because i have experiences with them by gaining their trust by things they do, or havent done. or things they've said or havent said)

*so are you claiming you don't know if god exists?*


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 6, 2011)

You sound like my dumbass atheist cousin who blames god for the passing of my aunt and every other mishap on this planet.


No, you made the claim we believers claim God is real... Which is false...

No, i never claimed God was real.

And it appears i have been a mature and highly wise person since i was 10... I am one of the few!




Zaehet Strife said:


> i choose to have faith in something i can see, touch, or feel. if they fail me... i can take responsibility in making those decisions, all the while knowing deep within myself that in doing so i am leaving myself open to get hurt. but i will not have faith in something that i have no idea if it even exists or not, *for that would give me the excuse to blame things on god rather than myself*. i know my family is real, i do not know if god exists.
> 
> to take responsibility for all that you do, think, or say is a sign of true maturity/wisdom
> 
> ...


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 6, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> You sound like my dumbass atheist cousin who blames god for the passing of my aunt and every other mishap on this planet.


 ridiculing me like this will get you nowhere, it will do nothing but allow everyone to see the extent of your immaturity 

-you're rephrasing the question, ill ask again.

do you know if god exists?

a simple yes or no would suffice


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 6, 2011)

dtp5150 said:


> [youtube]_ASzDDOaLyk[/youtube]
> 
> hopefully not posted already


You're not serious are you?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 6, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> So you dont have faith in your wife, girlfriend or boyfriend if you swing that way? You just have rational thoughts about them. So what happens when your rationale fades or fails you?


I think it's legitimate to have faith in ones significant other, Oly. We base that faith on time we spend in direct contact with them, and how we interact with them, physically. We usually have good reason to put faith in them (not always lol).




mindphuk said:


> You're not serious are you?


Mother of god I hope not.


----------



## tyler.durden (Dec 6, 2011)

Now, now. There you guys go with that skeptical tone. Let's let him explain, it's Tuesday and there's nothing good on


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 6, 2011)

heres episode 2 of that carl sagan thing

[video=youtube;p_naQhynOg0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_naQhynOg0&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 7, 2011)

[video=youtube;nXaEFpuK2mQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_79946&feature=iv&src_vid=LDIo_SpFI60&v=nXaEFpuK2mQ[/video]


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 7, 2011)

I know that BB, zs made it seem as if faith is obsolete or something...




Beefbisquit said:


> I think it's legitimate to have faith in ones significant other, Oly. We base that faith on time we spend in direct contact with them, and how we interact with them, physically. We usually have good reason to put faith in them (not always lol).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Dec 7, 2011)

it is when you're talking metaphysics, or in lack for a better use of the term "god" 

but if you can agree to disagree, i won't continue to urge you to answer the uncomfortable question i asked earlier.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 7, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I know that BB, zs made it seem as if faith is obsolete or something...


Faith is certainly not obsolete, what ZS is saying is that faith in the un-provable/un-testable is at best, undesirable...


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 7, 2011)

[video=youtube;xyE8wUteFA4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyE8wUteFA4&feature=g-all[/video]
[video=youtube;A0WwZc-Vz7Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0WwZc-Vz7Y&feature=relmfu[/video]


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Dec 16, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac truly sickening video watch it all i dare you


----------



## Luger187 (Dec 16, 2011)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac truly sickening video watch it all i dare you


that is so sick. poor kids...
whats sad is that if you replaced the word jesus in that vid with allah, those same people would go apeshit.
LOL @ cleansing your spirit with bottled water!


----------



## Beefbisquit (Jan 6, 2012)

lol...


----------



## THZZELJR (Jan 9, 2012)

[video=youtube;Bcz4vGvoxQA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcz4vGvoxQA[/video]

Makes me wonder how this all could be an accident and how come we seem to be alone
how come earth like planets are so rare
how come our galaxy is so perfect to breed carbon based life
we have a moon to protect us we have Jupiter to protect us and we have a asteroid belt to protect us
we are the perfect distance form the sun
water is the only substance to expand when it is froze
all these things are necessary to our existence and yet it seems this is the only place to find it


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 10, 2012)

THZZELJR said:


> [video=youtube;Bcz4vGvoxQA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcz4vGvoxQA[/video]
> 
> Makes me wonder how this all could be an accident and how come we seem to be alone We seem to be alone because everything is so far away.
> how come earth like planets are so rare What is rare to you? There could be millions. Latest estimate is there could be billions, in our own galaxy alone.
> ...


Water is found all over the universe. It is by no means the only place it is found. Even if everything you say is true and the conditions for life is rare, all anyone can say is that earth happens to have the right conditions and probably why we find ourselves on this planet rather than some other one. It's the nature of probability, nothing else can be legitimately concluded from a rare earth hypothesis. 

Since you were asking the questions, do you have some other idea about why and how?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 10, 2012)

[video=youtube;-_q2eNyGdzE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_q2eNyGdzE[/video]

its better to have ideas, not beliefs


----------



## dtp5150 (Jan 10, 2012)

[youtube]-TMXh1bnDlw[/youtube]


----------

