I can't wait to hear your argument for the existence of god zapruder, because I'm going to shout "logical fallacy" quicker than a kempoist can sew zebra stripes on his gi.

"No one can define my god and he isnt what you think so there"

Why do people want to bash other peoples Gods. What your theory? You so fucking smart you got it all figured out, huh? Come on and enlighten me.

Not too hard actually. It is contingent upon the definition of god, and since there is no universal agreed upon definition you do not fall into the humpty dumpty fallacy.

Are you a moron? Oh wait, yes you are. It's pretty obvious the definition of "god" being used here is a sentient deity with superpowers. Also, the causal relationship has been shown. Religion provides the breakdown of reasoning that it takes for people to do absurd things. It does this by providing a stupid story, a promise of some sort of reward (usually after death), the delusion of immortality (souls), the encouragement of faith over doubt and more. Yet you sit there and say a causal relationship hasn't been shown. **** you.

"No one can define my god and he isnt what you think so there"

Why do people want to bash other peoples Gods.

For the same reason we make fun of idiots who think they can throw fireballs.



What your theory?

Theory for what?

YOUR fucking theory. Also if energy cannot be created or destroyed then how is immortality a delusion?

YOUR fucking theory. Also if energy cannot be created or destroyed then how is immortality a delusion?

Because immortallity requires that a single sentience survives inevitable decay. So far no model (as far as I am aware) has been able to account for such a thing to exist.

What if the entire biosphere is a single sentience, as the cells of my body are individuals. They die, I go on. When I die, my energy will be recycled, in the main continuing as living matter. Perhaps the entire universe is a single sentince in this respect.

I.e. God

What if the entire biosphere is a single sentience, as the cells of my body are individuals. They die, I go on. When I die, my energy will be recycled, in the main continuing as living matter. Perhaps the entire universe is a single sentince in this respect.

I.e. God

How would this count as immortality? Unless the sentience survives intact, i.e. the "person", how do you determine it is immortal?

You are either arguing now for a deistic god or grasping for straws re: the immortality hang-up
of most religions.

YOUR fucking theory.

For what fucking phenomena?

Also, immortality is a delusion because all humans die, you stupid ****. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but we aren't energy, idiot. We are a product of the make-up of energy and matter. When we die, that energy dissipates and the matter is destroyed or rots.

What if the entire biosphere is a single sentience, as the cells of my body are individuals. They die, I go on. When I die, my energy will be recycled, in the main continuing as living matter. Perhaps the entire universe is a single sentince in this respect.

I.e. God

What if leprechauns actually do hide gold at the end of rainbows? You're talking nonsense and bullshit, fuckhead.

The problem with leprechauns and rainbows is that the concept became corrupted by power and greed. Now I don't think of leprechauns as "little men in green suits", this isn't the 12th century anymore. Rather I see leprechauns as synonymous with the scientific concept of "energy" or the "universe". Quantum mechanics allows an electron to exist not in a fixed position and space but in a probability field. This is very much like a leprechaun. The "pot of gold" isn't something to be taken literally. It's an idea that teaches us how to be good here and now. It just sucks that a lot of fundamentalist fuckwits got carried away what leprechauns are really about and started using it to get money, power and prestige for themselves. That isn't what the real leprechauns are about.

Besides, there are some thing science doesn't fully understand. And once a scientist committed fraud. So therefore leprechauns shouldn't be considered any more crackpot than the theory of gravity.

Have had discussions about God and Godlessness for many years now at various stages of my life...

And I have a serious question for all of you:
If we accept that Go(o)d and (D)evil really exist, they are both real factions of a war that has been going on since the dawn of time....

IF Evil wanted to give the human race one thing that would gurantee war, violence, mistrust of others, seperatisim arguments over who is right and who is wrong, the ability for others to use a tool to fufill their own somewhat unpleasant objectives...

What would evil create?

The one thing that could be the weapon that would continue to sow the seeds of evil without the Devil having to make anything else...

War...? well no - this is a symptom, not a direct result of... like using the toilet hard in the morning is a symptom of having overly rich and spicy food late the night before.

Hate..? well - not strictly true, somethimes hating something bad can help people to get motivated in trying to rid the world of it....

Fear...? Well, again this is just a symptom of seeing evil in the world... like wanting to laugh every time someone falls over on one of those stupid 'dumb-home' video shows...

No - their can only be one perfect tool for evil to gain all of it's desired objectives is so ironic, and yet so effective.....

the one tool would have to be....











religion.


If you're unsure about this - have a look though history and see how many times a war has been caused by a difference of opinion over religion....

The existence of this thread - having skimmed though some of the responses seems to underline this theory... just a thought y'know.

:new_cussi

YOUR fucking theory. Also if energy cannot be created or destroyed then how is immortality a delusion?


Ooh....damn.

Originally Posted by Madgrenade
YOUR fucking theory. Also if energy cannot be created or destroyed then how is immortality a delusion?


energy cannot be created or destroyed - but can be transformed from one form to another.


Therefore - the Buddists are right, with regards to reincarnation?

Are you a moron? Oh wait, yes you are. It's pretty obvious the definition of "god" being used here is a sentient deity with superpowers. Also, the causal relationship has been shown. Religion provides the breakdown of reasoning that it takes for people to do absurd things. It does this by providing a stupid story, a promise of some sort of reward (usually after death), the delusion of immortality (souls), the encouragement of faith over doubt and more. Yet you sit there and say a causal relationship hasn't been shown. **** you.

Well then by your definition god does not exist. But now that you have defined god, you have omitted many religions of the world. Do these religions fall under your premise that all religion is bad? I ask because the example I will use for you is contingent upon, like I said earlier the definition of god.

. Religion provides the breakdown of reasoning that it takes for people to do absurd things. It does this by providing a stupid story, a promise of some sort of reward (usually after death), the delusion of immortality (souls), the encouragement of faith over doubt and more. Yet you sit there and say a causal relationship hasn't been shown. **** you.

OK I see that you might be a little special so I will just quote myself again and show you why you have no cause...

Causes are often distinguished into two types: Necessary and sufficient. [8]

Necessary causes:

If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the presence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur.

Quakers...so not necessary cause...oh yeah x is religion and y is evil.

Sufficient causes:

If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. However, another cause z may alternatively cause y. Thus the presence of y does not imply the presence of x.

Quakers...so not sufficient cause.

J. L. Mackie argues that usual talk of "cause", in fact, refers to INUS conditions (insufficient and non-redundant parts of unnecessary but sufficient causes). For example; consider the short circuit as a cause of the house burning down. Consider the collection of events, the short circuit, the proximity of flammable material, and the absence of firefighters. Considered together these are unnecessary but sufficient to the house's destruction (since many other collection of events certainly could have destroyed the house). Within this collection; the short circuit is an insufficient but non-redundant part (since the short circuit by itself would not cause the fire, but the fire will not happen without it with everything else being equal). So the short circuit is an INUS cause of the house burning down.

In keeping with the example if you replace greed with the "short circuit" causing the "fire"/evil you get a truthful statement. While religion/dogma might fuel the flames it is not a cause(see above examples and definition of cause)