Religion IS crazy!

[SirRumpole]

However you do make a positive claim that "A god exists", I know you said your an agnostic deist, but you seem to be leaning much closer to a gnostic deist.

How could I make such a claim without evidence ? I'm saying I BELIEVE a God exists based on the reasons I've already stated, and I've said a number of times that it is a belief , not a fact , just as your view is belief not a fact. So I'm afraid you jumped to an invalid conclusion.

 

[SirRumpole]

So when you say we should not discount the god hypothesis, you have to realise that the god claim is far less likely to be true than big foot, and its not even been proven its possible for a god to exist, Its not a 50 / 50 shot, It might be impossible for a god to exist.

You have no basis for any determination on the likelihood of a God. What is your evidence ?

 

[Value Collector]

You have no basis for any determination on the likelihood of a God. What is your evidence ?

I am saying it is more likely that the Bigfoot myth is true than the god myths.

Why you ask, what's my evidence?

I already stated it,

1, We know animals exist, and we have existing species of primates already proven in other parts of the world.

2, We Know various species of hominid have existed in the past, due to the fossil record. there are many other species of human/ape like creatures that have existed,

So finding a previously unknown species or a previously proclaimed extinct species, is not impossible, infact it happens regularly, Many new species are found every year, and some times "Living Fossils" are found eg animals thought long extinct.

Why is it I am saying its less likely a god exists

1, We have never had any proof any gods exist.

2, We have no proof that its even possible for a god to exist.

 

[cynic]

....
No one is banning religion, as I said I defend your right to have a religion, to have churchs, and sunday schools, you just can't force it on others or try to influence legislation based on it.
...

You certainly could've fooled me!!!

....
I Have lots of gratitude, Australia is a great country, It's secular based systems is one of the things that make it great. People don't need religion to be good.
...

I quite agree, however, people do seem to be reliant upon a belief system (i.e. religion!) of some description. History has demonstrated this right through to the current day.

If some one wants the idea of intelligent design to be accepted by main stream science, They have to be able to prove it. We can not simply accept an idea because we don't know something.
...

Says whom? Has the big bang theory been proven yet?

....Here is a big thing to think about, In the past, thousands of unexplained phenomena were given supernatural explanations, So far, all of the phenomena that have since been explained all have natural causes, so it would seem we should refrain from making up supernatural causes just because things are presently unexplained.

Captain obvious strikes again!!! I suggest you give due consideration to the meaning of the word supernatural before using it in your posts!!!

You haven't provided any evidence of an alternative. I'm saying that a creator is the simplest explanation.
...

Whilst I'm of a similar opinion, in fairness to the discussion I wouldn't go so far as to use such an extreme phrase as "simplest explanation". Although I must admit that I cannot presently envisage a simpler one, I do not feel entitled to preclude its existence!

...
As for young earth creationists, their claims obviously can't be taken seriously but they don't invalidate the entire concept of creationism.

Apart from wanting to respect the right of others to peacefully investigate their chosen philosophy, I am very much in agreement.

Your switching the burden of proof. It's not up to me to disprove your claim, it's up to you to prove it.
...

That argument definitely cuts both ways.

...
Your not understanding how science works, We don't just accept any idea just because we can't prove something else, you have to be able to prove your claim before it can be accepted science.

Well that's certainly news to me!!! When exactly did this change occur? Exactly how much of our science still remains? Does one plus one still equal two? Has this ever truly been proven to always be the case and all alternative possibilities conclusively eliminated from consideration?

... I have never made a positive claim that "No god exists", I am just unconvinced any do.
...

Good for you. I respect your right to hold that opinion. I do hope you'll reciprocate by respecting the rights of others to hold their own...

...
However you do make a positive claim that "A god exists", I know you said your an agnostic deist, but you seem to be leaning much closer to a gnostic deist.

Saying "I don't know", is more intellectually honest, than saying "I don't know, therefore god", that's the basic difference in our points of view.

...it would seem that was wishful thinking on my part.

 

[SirRumpole]

I am saying it is more likely that the Bigfoot myth is true than the god myths.

That is an invalid comparison, I doubt if a bigfoot primate could have created the Universe.

The valid comparison for the creation of the universe is between a God and some other process which you have not stated and which we don't even know is possible to occur. As I keep saying , name the other process and provide evidence for its existence, otherwise concede that your belief is no more valid than mine.

 

[cynic]

That is an invalid comparison, I doubt if a bigfoot primate could have created the Universe...

Whilst I share your doubts, in the absence of conclusive proof one way or the other I'll be maintaining a position of "openminded skepticism" on this one.

...
The valid comparison for the creation of the universe is between a God and some other process which you have not stated and which we don't even know is possible to occur. As I keep saying , name the other process and provide evidence for its existence, otherwise concede that your belief is no more valid than mine.

+1

This seems to be the crux of the matter.

Note the abundance of accusations of deceit arising within this thread whenever requests are made for a devotee's logical substantiation of key aspects of their chosen philosophy.

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

Thanks for your input Sir O.

Are you really that certain that you understand me?

Understand you? Perish the thought. What fun would there be in you making it easy to be understood. Luckily for me, recognising an obvious attempt to force someone to answer a loaded question, is relatively simple to understand.

Funnily enough, this isn't even about you, shocking I know. It's more about showing a bit of support to VC, who has with far more patience than I would have had, debated with you, and other posters who have constantly used debating tactics that are the verbal equivalent of mustard gas.

Have you so soon forgotten the outcome of our last dialogue? (Or perhaps you didn't recognise it for what it was?)

We had an outcome? Honestly I don't remember. I probably just abandoned our conversation from a lack of energy, enthusiasm or time, which is what happens when you throw up strawman arguments, move the goalposts, make ridiculous requests, make broad generalisations...I lose interest pretty quickly. Wait is this where you direct me to spend hours searching for the posts in a thread with over 3000 replies for our previous conversation?

Yeah. I think I'll pass on that.

Sometimes people are fortunate enough to have messages from divinity delivered as gentle whispers (or perhaps even a friendly shot across the bows). Those failing to hear that which is whispered risk having the message repeated at greater and greater volumes until it becomes an overpowering SHOUT!!!

*Looks at the pulpit thumping above* - Do you think the above is helping or hindering your debating in this thread?

Cheers

Sir O

 

[cynic]

Understand you? Perish the thought. What fun would there be in you making it easy to be understood. Luckily for me, recognising an obvious attempt to force someone to answer a loaded question, is relatively simple to understand.

Funnily enough, this isn't even about you, shocking I know. It's more about showing a bit of support to VC, who has with far more patience than I would have had, debated with you, and other posters who have constantly used debating tactics that are the verbal equivalent of mustard gas.
...

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I must say that I'm disappointed in seeing someone whose intelligence I admire adding further accusations to this debate.
I respect your right to hold your own views on theology and like to believe that you are able to respect my right to mine.
However, our opinions clearly differ in respect to the qualities of the offerings of myself and a certain poster whom you seem to be offering support. If you truly believe that phodophobic accusations can only be applicable to myself in this debate then I am genuinely surprised and deeply disappointed.

...
We had an outcome? Honestly I don't remember. I probably just abandoned our conversation from a lack of energy, enthusiasm or time, which is what happens when you throw up strawman arguments, move the goalposts, make ridiculous requests, make broad generalisations...I lose interest pretty quickly. Wait is this where you direct me to spend hours searching for the posts in a thread with over 3000 replies for our previous conversation?

Yeah. I think I'll pass on that.
...

No I wasn't asking you to read through pages of old posts although if you do happen to examine the posts (both yours and mine) around the time we last spoke you might just notice the event/s to which I have alluded.

...

*Looks at the pulpit thumping above* - Do you think the above is helping or hindering your debating in this thread?

Cheers

Sir O

It was actually a slightly less friendly warning than the first one issued!

My reason for this statement is threefold.

One of those reasons is my vanity!

The other is that despite my reservations regarding your opinion of me,I happen to like you Sir O.

The third of my reasons I choose not to disclose at this time.

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I must say that I'm disappointed in seeing someone whose intelligence I admire adding further accusations to this debate.

I am not accusing you. I am outright stating that your debating methodology when engaging with VC recently is offensive to me and what I consider to be a dishonest misuse of your intelligence. You may hold whatever opinion you like and I will take up arms to protect that right of yours. I am disappointed in your displayed behaviours.

I respect your right to hold your own views on theology and like to believe that you are able to respect my right to mine.
However, our opinions clearly differ in respect to the qualities of the offerings of myself and a certain poster whom you seem to be offering support. If you truly believe that phodophobic accusations can only be applicable to myself in this debate then I am genuinely surprised and deeply disappointed.

Note the highlighted word as an example of your behaviour. Whilst language is at the heart of any meaningful conversation and expression of concepts, overcomplexity can needlessly complicate and act to obfuscate the issues being discussed. I also fail to see what "foot phobia" has to do with the issues at hand. Perhaps you meant something else.

No I wasn't asking you to read through pages of old posts although if you do happen to examine the posts (both yours and mine) around the time we last spoke you might just notice the event/s to which I have alluded.

1) You asked VC to do it. He politely asked for directions multiple times.
2) How very passive/aggressive of you to coach the same request with slightly different emphasis. Let's assume the Internet ate those posts and focus on the now. I respect your rights to hold your belief structure, I do not respect; non-respectful behaviour.

It was actually a slightly less friendly warning than the first one issued!

My reason for this statement is threefold.

One of those reasons is my vanity!

The other is that despite my reservations regarding your opinion of me,I happen to like you Sir O.

The third of my reasons I choose not to disclose at this time.

Cynic, as I tell my kids, I can dislike your behaviours without having to dislike you.

Cheers

Sir O

 

[Tink]

Sir O, you can have your discussions with Cynic, but I, for one, was thankful that Cynic was in this thread.

Well done and thanks, Cynic

 

[cynic]

I am not accusing you. I am outright stating that your debating methodology when engaging with VC recently is offensive to me and what I consider to be a dishonest misuse of your intelligence. You may hold whatever opinion you like and I will take up arms to protect that right of yours. I am disappointed in your displayed behaviours.

Thankyou for clarifying your position on this.

My active participation in this thread is largely fuelled by my assertion of the right to make my own decisions regarding what may or may not be, free from the ridicule and denigration of those choosing to view their life differently.

I'm genuinely sorry that you've experienced my defence of my beliefs as offensive, however, I also find the repetitious stoning of theistic belief systems (that I've been witness to on this thread) extremely offensive.

..Note the highlighted word as an example of your behaviour. Whilst language is at the heart of any meaningful conversation and expression of concepts, overcomplexity can needlessly complicate and act to obfuscate the issues being discussed. I also fail to see what "foot phobia" has to do with the issues at hand. Perhaps you meant something else.

Yes! I believe you know perfectly well that there was a typographical error ("d" typed instead of "b").
However, I thankyou for bringing this to my attention.

I recall a certain poster using the word "complement" when from the context of the post it seemed clear that "compliment" was what was actually intended. I chose not to comment at the time, (however,since you brought it up, you shouldn't have cause for complaint).

1) You asked VC to do it. He politely asked for directions multiple times.
2) How very passive/aggressive of you to coach the same request with slightly different emphasis. Let's assume the Internet ate those posts and focus on the now. I respect your rights to hold your belief structure, I do not respect; non-respectful behaviour.

I've experienced a theme of disrespect from a few posters on this forum, hence the curtness of my reply.

Cynic, as I tell my kids, I can dislike your behaviours without having to dislike you.

Cheers

Sir O

Although I do not have children, on this point, we are very much in agreement.

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

Sir O, you can have your discussions with Cynic, but I, for one, was thankful that Cynic was in this thread.

Well done and thanks, Cynic

I am thankful that cynic is part of this thread and other threads as well. He is generally an articulate poster who conveys concepts well, which is what irks me about the current discussion. Not his beliefs, nor his desire to discuss those beliefs. If he (and others) genuinely wish to put forth their views and the reasons behind them, I am genuinely interested in reading it.

Thankyou for clarifying your position on this.

My active participation in this thread is largely fuelled by my assertion of the right to make my own decisions regarding what may or may not be, free from the ridicule and denigration of those choosing to view their life differently.

I'm genuinely sorry that you've experienced my defence of my beliefs as offensive, however, I also find the repetitious stoning of theistic belief systems (that I've been witness to on this thread) extremely offensive.

I guess that is my point, VC isn't stoning others beliefs, he's stated multiple times what his own belief structure is and the reasons behind those belief structures. He's stated he will question the beliefs of others and burst the bubbles of those that debate with logical fallacies. He's been far more polite than I would have been.

Yes! I believe you know perfectly well that there was a typographical error ("d" typed instead of "b").
However, I thankyou for bringing this to my attention.

I recall a certain poster using the word "complement" when from the context of the post it seemed clear that "compliment" was what was actually intended. I chose not to comment at the time, (however,since you brought it up, you shouldn't have cause for complaint).

phobophobia The fear of fear. Still think that could have been expressed better. Your previous post I briefly wondered if you thought their accusations were pedestrian. An issue of context as you rightly point out.

I've experienced a theme of disrespect from a few posters on this forum, hence the curtness of my reply.

Strive to be the bigger person. I'll freely admit the one thing that will really grate my cheese is dishonesty, because honesty is such an integral part of my life. I cannot see VC debating from a dishonest perspective.

Although I do not have children, on this point, we are very much in agreement.

 

[cynic]

I am thankful that cynic is part of this thread and other threads as well. He is generally an articulate poster who conveys concepts well, which is what irks me about the current discussion. Not his beliefs, nor his desire to discuss those beliefs. If he (and others) genuinely wish to put forth their views and the reasons behind them, I am genuinely interested in reading it.

Thanks for that Sir O. Your sentiments in this regard are very greatly appreciated

...
I guess that is my point, VC isn't stoning others beliefs, he's stated multiple times what his own belief structure is and the reasons behind those belief structures. He's stated he will question the beliefs of others and burst the bubbles of those that debate with logical fallacies. He's been far more polite than I would have been.
...

We certainly seem to have quite different views on some matters! I've always experienced you as someone that always speaks the truth as you understand it. On this occasion our understanding happens to be very different.

...
Strive to be the bigger person. I'll freely admit the one thing that will really grate my cheese is dishonesty, because honesty is such an integral part of my life. I cannot see VC debating from a dishonest perspective.

Sage advice.

Perhaps I should just step out of this thread, allow the anti-theists herein free reign to drive out the remaining theists. Then what's left can become a mutual appreciation society free from fear of any logical challenge to their non theistic ideals.

 

[Value Collector]

That is an invalid comparison, I doubt if a bigfoot primate could have created the Universe.

The valid comparison for the creation of the universe is between a God and some other process which you have not stated and which we don't even know is possible to occur. As I keep saying , name the other process and provide evidence for its existence, otherwise concede that your belief is no more valid than mine.

Earlier in the thread you said big foot and fairies are absurd, i was making an example of big foot to show its way more possible for big foot to exist than a god.

In regards to a creator of the universe, I have said I don't know, there is probably countless possibilities, eg eternal universe, or many other natural processes, I don't have to name one, because I am happy to say I dont know, Its you that is making the positive claim by picking one.

 

[FxTrader]

Perhaps I should just step out of this thread, allow the anti-theists herein free reign to drive out the remaining theists. Then what's left can become a mutual appreciation society free from fear of any logical challenge to their non theistic ideals.

By all means, keep posting here Cynic. I would like to encourage you to post more about your whispers with divinity, conversations with apparitions and other imagined encounters with the spirit world you declare you are in contact with. No doubt you have an audience here with those who are enamored with superstitious and mystical waffle. For those with more rational inclinations, your attempt to use such statements in support of personal religious beliefs exposes you as a self-deluded fool, unable or unwilling to discern fact from fiction or reality from unreality. Such an observation though is not meant to discourage you from posting more about your encounters or whispers with divinity or any other imagined supernatural encounters.

SirO's stern rebuke of your straw-man and dishonest debating methods, used to attack non-believers in your religious snake oil, just washed right over you but many others would have taken note. I believe respect needs to be earned and your sophistry and obfuscating style of argument deserves no such respect and neither do your extraordinary religious claims that are boldly proclaimed here without a shred of supporting evidence.

 

[noco]

WAKE UP AUSTRALIA BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.


I also suggest you read post #428 20/12/2011

Go Dutch . . . But Why Wait Until 2015?

The Netherlands , where six per cent of the population is now Muslim, is scrapping multiculturalism.

The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands .

A new integration bill, which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads:
"The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people".

In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role.

With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society.

The letter continues: "A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens."

It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands ..
The new integration policy will place more demands on immigrants.
For example, immigrants will be required to learn the Dutch language, and the government will take a tougher approach to immigrants who ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law.

The government will also stop offering special subsidies for Muslim immigrants because, according to Donner;
"It is not the government's job to integrate immigrants." (How bloody true).

The government will introduce new legislation that outlaws forced marriages and will also impose tougher measures against Muslim immigrants who lower their chances of employment by the way they dress.

More specifically, the government imposed a ban on face-covering, Islamic burqas as of January 1, 2014..

Holland has done that whole liberal thing, and realized - maybe too late - that creating a nation of tribes, will kill the nation itself.

The future of Australia , the UK , USA , Canada and New Zealand may well be read here..

READERS NOTE: Muslim immigrants leave their countries of birth because of civil and political unrest . .."CREATED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THEIR CULTURE."

Countries like Holland , Canada , USA , UK , Australia and New Zealand have an established way of life that actually works, so why embrace the unworkable?
If Muslims do not wish to accept another culture, the answer is simple;
"STAY WHERE YOU ARE!!"

This gives a whole new meaning to the term, 'Dutch Courage' .... Unfortunately Australian, UK , USA , Canadian, and New Zealand politicians don't have the ... guts to do the same. There's a whole lot of truth here!!!!
ELECTIONS are COMING!!!!!
A Nation of Sheep, Breeds a Government of Wolves!
I'M 100% for PASSING THIS ON!!!
Let's Take a Stand!!!

Borders: Closed!

Language: English!

Culture: The Constitution, is the Bill of Rights!

NO freebies to: Non-Citizens! We the people are coming!!!

 

[Value Collector]

WAKE UP AUSTRALIA BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.


I also suggest you read post #428 20/12/2011

Go Dutch . . . But Why Wait Until 2015?

The Netherlands , where six per cent of the population is now Muslim, is scrapping multiculturalism.

The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands .

A new integration bill, which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads:
"The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people".

In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role.

With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society.

The letter continues: "A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens."

It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands ..
The new integration policy will place more demands on immigrants.
For example, immigrants will be required to learn the Dutch language, and the government will take a tougher approach to immigrants who ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law.

The government will also stop offering special subsidies for Muslim immigrants because, according to Donner;
"It is not the government's job to integrate immigrants." (How bloody true).

The government will introduce new legislation that outlaws forced marriages and will also impose tougher measures against Muslim immigrants who lower their chances of employment by the way they dress.

More specifically, the government imposed a ban on face-covering, Islamic burqas as of January 1, 2014..

Holland has done that whole liberal thing, and realized - maybe too late - that creating a nation of tribes, will kill the nation itself.

The future of Australia , the UK , USA , Canada and New Zealand may well be read here..

READERS NOTE: Muslim immigrants leave their countries of birth because of civil and political unrest . .."CREATED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THEIR CULTURE."

Countries like Holland , Canada , USA , UK , Australia and New Zealand have an established way of life that actually works, so why embrace the unworkable?
If Muslims do not wish to accept another culture, the answer is simple;
"STAY WHERE YOU ARE!!"

This gives a whole new meaning to the term, 'Dutch Courage' .... Unfortunately Australian, UK , USA , Canadian, and New Zealand politicians don't have the ... guts to do the same. There's a whole lot of truth here!!!!
ELECTIONS are COMING!!!!!
A Nation of Sheep, Breeds a Government of Wolves!
I'M 100% for PASSING THIS ON!!!
Let's Take a Stand!!!

Borders: Closed!

Language: English!

Culture: The Constitution, is the Bill of Rights!

NO freebies to: Non-Citizens! We the people are coming!!!

i can't see a problem with multiculturalism, I think people should be able to live however they want, provided they are not causing harm. I think the net effect of multiculturalism is positive.

 

[burglar]

i can't see a problem with multiculturalism, I think people should be able to live however they want, provided they are not causing harm. I think the net effect of multiculturalism is positive.

Whenever a recession comes along these people lose their jobs at a greater rate than the general populace.
With the higher unemployment comes homelessness, crimes and other social ills.

In a post-GFC Europe, I can understand the thinking!

 

[Value Collector]

Whenever a recession comes along these people lose their jobs at a greater rate than the general populace.
With the higher unemployment comes homelessness, crimes and other social ills.

In a post-GFC Europe, I can understand the thinking!

"These people"

Who are you talking about

 

[DB008]

i can't see a problem with multiculturalism, I think people should be able to live however they want, provided they are not causing harm. I think the net effect of multiculturalism is positive.

I don't have a problem with multiculturalism at all.

I do have a problem with a certain religion forcing their BS onto the rest of the population.