-
Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.
Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.
Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?
Does a God of ANY KIND exist?
- Thread starter Icalasari
- Start date
Erif
...is magical
No, you suck. If you can't even be FUNNY in your posts, gtfo. There's no reason for you to still be posting.
WOAH, WOAH. What the fuck did you just say. Jimi overrated? No in the slightest, brotha.
Tarvos
helt plötsligt blev det tyst
never got into Hendrix personally, but stop getting the fuck offtopic
Cloaked
New member
It'd be useful if the topic promised to get anywhere in the first place.
Can you prove the existence of God? No.
Can you disprove the existence of God? No.
It doesn't matter how many cunning arguments there are to support or deny a deity, they all come to nothing. On the one side you've got a load of people who put faith into their methodology and decry the other side for being too stupid to realise the truth. And on the other, you have a load of people who worship God.
What I'm saying is, both sides are as bad as each other, and coming to an internet forum for answers is simply asking for an argument. There is no answer to be had, just a load of opinions and no hard evidence.
Can you prove the existence of God? No.
Can you disprove the existence of God? No.
It doesn't matter how many cunning arguments there are to support or deny a deity, they all come to nothing. On the one side you've got a load of people who put faith into their methodology and decry the other side for being too stupid to realise the truth. And on the other, you have a load of people who worship God.
What I'm saying is, both sides are as bad as each other, and coming to an internet forum for answers is simply asking for an argument. There is no answer to be had, just a load of opinions and no hard evidence.
Tarvos
helt plötsligt blev det tyst
Russell's Teapot
The burden of proof rests with the THEISTS.
I do not have "faith" in my methodology. As Eevee said before me, nothing I believe is unquestionably true. If there was a perfectly solid argument for me to believe in God, I would. Unfortunately, no such argument exists. But if you find one, feel free to tell me about it. However don't go spouting the same rhetoric design crap that we've been disproving the past post for being outdated. If you can't convince me you're right, you apparently do not have arguments that are strong enough, thus I can come to the conclusion my opinion is valid and holds.
yes let's stop debating because some people are crybabies. this is a mature discussion so let's keep it the fuck mature and on-topic. Even if there is no definitive answer (I also do not think you can disprove the existence of God), it is not relevant, because the actual theological and epistemological discussion makes it interesting. I'd just rather people bring up a few new viewpoints or said something worthwile other than fellating over the Bible/Koran/Torah/Gospel of the FSM/Iliad/their bf's penises/whatever.
I'd rather we discuss Hume's principle of induction instead, but nobody gets me when I mention that, so.
Cloaked
New member
Yes. Agreed. Though it would be nice to have an excerpt from the link in question so that everyone is on the same page.
But scientists do have faith in their methodology. It is the main reason why science exists as a valid source of conclusions; because the methodology is sound, as far as anyone knows. If there came a time when a scientific method became untrustworthy, then can you honestly say you wouldn't use it anymore?
Take into account Newtons three laws of motion and Einstein's Theory of relativity. Einstein is more accurate, since Newton breaks down in higher gravitational fields, or nearer the speed of light, but we still use Newton's original calculations. Why is that?
I also take mild offence at the suggestion that I give a damn about 'convincing' you into believing anything. Your beliefs are your own concern, sir, and I will not be mistaken for someone who wishes to subvert them with badly thought out rhetorical arguments that are apparently meant to prove anything. A well-read person can make most religious text say whatever he damn well pleases, and excuse the most heinous crimes he commits if he quotes passages from scripture while he does so.
Hmm. And nothing makes you look more mature and grown up than swearing and calling all your friends crybabies. There might even be a hint of disrespect towards the subject matter there.
But I digress.
I've already said elsewhere that there is no point to debating the existence of God, no matter the religion. Everyone goes over the same points all the time, nothing new is added, and I'd be far happier if I hadn't gotten dragged into this entire mess. In fact, the premise that there is nothing new to go over was the basis of the suggestion that we stop debating this subject. It had nothing to do with whether it hurts people's feelings.
So, in light of this apparently mutually-shared conclusion, why does it matter that we're still on topic?
So you know, I might, in fact, love to discuss the finer points of the principles of induction, but if no-one else knows about it then it might turn out to be a little self-indulgent, don't you think?
Last edited:
Music Dragon
Doosic Maggon
- Pronoun
- she
The Black Adder said:
Tarvos
helt plötsligt blev det tyst
has been given/paraphrased. people don't bother to read
Yes, then I would. But I don't see the day when this happens.
Good enough approximation; details are insignificant. We can always correct the generalised law.
TCoD is 80% crybabies 15% weirdo fucks 5% intelligent people. Learn the core demographic of the forum.
I agree, the discussion is a dead end, but that has nothing to do with the existence of God being (dis)provable.
Because this is the debating hall. Not a drunken man's babbling corner. Whether Jimi Hendrix is a good guitarist has absolutely nothing to do with God existing.
great let's pm it out
Cloaked
New member
So true. This is another reason why I try to stay away from religion threads; the type of person who argues for religion, no matter how old they are, tend to pick and choose which part of your argument they read. That is, if they read it at all.
Most of the time, it's like arguing with a wall made of particularly dense, sound-absorbing rock. I prefer not to waste my time arguing with someone who isn't going to read what I type anyway.
Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. One day, Entropy will claim the Empirical method!
But that doesn't stop it from being inaccurate.
This mostly fits with my own observed results, though I'd put the intelligent people at about 3%-2% and increase the crybabies by the remaining amount. Of course, we're missing the few intelligent people who are also weirdo fucks from this example. I've seen at least one running around, but s/he appears pleasant enough.
I think it has everything to do with it. If God could be (dis)proved, it'd stop the pointless bickering. People would stop talking about it.
Or so I assume. Observation has led me to believe that 99% of the people who start a religion debate thread start it through some need that doesn't hinge on their religion. Most of the time, I think it's for attention.
But surely Jimi's God-Given talent proves that God exists.
Did that sound believable to you? Me either. That's like inferring dustbunnies from the existence of a carpeted floor. It just ain't happening.
Cool.
You start. I'm a little out of practice, and may need to brush up on my Philosophy before I can debate you satisfactorily.
Mirry
New member
If you detest debates about the existence of god and find that they end up going nowhere (which seems to be true for most debates, really), why did you bother clicking on this thread? :3 Certainly you must have known what you were in for... if you think discussion of the existence of a god is pointless, why participate in one? If the rest of us like discussing it, even if we just end up going round and round, why barge in and spoil our fun?
Regarding your other point, though -- I would say that science's arguments are more valid than religion's, even if it is probable that neither of them are 100% correct. The difference is that science is willing to admit that it's wrong when it's been disproved -- scientific theories change and develop all the time. Religion, however, clings to the same old doctrine that it has clung to for the past several thousand years, and denies blatant facts for consistency's sake. No scientist I've ever heard of thinks that the theories of ancient Greek and Roman scientists are without flaw. Theologians, on the other hand, think that their Bibles and Qurans are flawless, and have to come up with excuses and call obvious errors in their books "not to be taken literally".
Regarding your other point, though -- I would say that science's arguments are more valid than religion's, even if it is probable that neither of them are 100% correct. The difference is that science is willing to admit that it's wrong when it's been disproved -- scientific theories change and develop all the time. Religion, however, clings to the same old doctrine that it has clung to for the past several thousand years, and denies blatant facts for consistency's sake. No scientist I've ever heard of thinks that the theories of ancient Greek and Roman scientists are without flaw. Theologians, on the other hand, think that their Bibles and Qurans are flawless, and have to come up with excuses and call obvious errors in their books "not to be taken literally".
Cloaked
New member
Truth be told, I was expecting to get away with making only one comment for the entire thread. You'll probably notice that all the 'serious' debating on the subject appears to have been already concluded before I even commented that once. Trust me; there wasn't any 'barging in to spoil fun' involved with the decision.
Since I can't seem to resist a conversation with someone who intrigues me, I am still here. It's a character flaw on my part.