I am just worried that this woman could die because the class she was in charge of gave the name to the bear affectionatly.
Muhhamed is the most common name in the world , there is something distictivly arrogant about laying claim that all things called muhhamed are sacrilage.
( Damion International - now taking orders., Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:55, archived)

Religion arrogant?
No! Unpossible!
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:56, archived)

good point.
Its a shame people STILL die for this same shit excuse.

Most religions are guilty of it in epic proportions , inclucing the religion mine is rooted in. It makes me very sad.
( Damion International - now taking orders., Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:00, archived)

Perfectly easy solution.
Stop pandering to them. Proclaim yourself an atheist. Let them die the slow and whining death that they all deserve.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:03, archived)

I still have faith , I just feel like there is more there

( Damion International - now taking orders., Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:04, archived)

But he believes in God.
You can't lump everyone who has a faith into the same catergory like that.
(Psycho Eyes, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:05, archived)

Of course you fucking can
Delusional, gullible sheep
( Cap'n Tallbeard, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:06, archived)

This is pretty much the viewpoint of a religious fanatic, but pointed in the opposite direction.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:08, archived)

Yep
with, y'know, scientific evidence and that
( Cap'n Tallbeard, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:10, archived)

Ok, I'm not religious
but I know that it can bring comfort and happiness to some people. What the fuck is wrong with that?
The only religious people I get angry at are those who use it as a weapon, as in this case, or those who try to force it on other people.
(Psycho Eyes, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:08, archived)

Bear in mind here that I'm a bit of a twat about religion
What's wrong with religion bringing comfort and happiness to some people is the massive number of evils committed in its name which far outweigh these small comforts. Add in that this comfort and happiness would come just as easily from a close, supportive social circle without the tie of religion, and I really don't see any reason for its continued existence.
( Cap'n Tallbeard, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:15, archived)

It's to stop the little people stepping out of line.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:17, archived)

It's terrible that people
use religion as an excuse for horrific acts of violence and such. But it's those people that I'd blame, not the religion itself.
(Psycho Eyes, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:23, archived)

Why?
If the religion (as they believed it) were true, they'd be doing exactly the right thing.
( Newington, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:43, archived)

I don't find a belief that something doesn't exist
is any different to a belief that something does exist.

If you catch my drift.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:10, archived)

Weight of evidence is on the side of the atheist, though

( Cap'n Tallbeard, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:10, archived)

I don't see that there is any way to replicate experiments about it in a controled environment,
so there's nothing other than conjecture and personal experience on both sides.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:14, archived)

Piffle.
There is a vast weight of experiment to back up the bulk of our current scientific understanding of the universe. Millions and millions of hours of work by the greatest minds in the world. And almost every shred of it points to religions being full of shite.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:16, archived)

You're better at this than I am
I'll leave you to it
( Cap'n Tallbeard, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:20, archived)

Ah yes, I don't disagree that science explains the universe or whatever domain you want to extend it to (e.g. the Bulk) but it doesn't specifically rule out things existing outside of it.
It simply makes no predictions about those things.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:22, archived)

To quote Lee Smolin:
"It makes no sense to talk about things 'outside the Universe'. The Universe is defined as being all that there is."
Although I expect that's what you mean by 'the Bulk'. How can something outside our lightcone affect us?
( Cap'n Tallbeard, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:25, archived)

The bulk is a prediction of some Brane theories.
Those theories though like all scientific things only operate in their specified domain, and make no prediction of what happens outside of that domain.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:28, archived)

Tired sophistry.
You're just pushing out the boundaries until there's a realm where the fantasy might exist. The religions are quite clear (if generally full of internal contradiction) about how the universe works and what role the magic beings play in it. They're all quite clear and all quite wrong. All of that stuff can be easily disproved.

Inventing something else that hasn't been disproved yet is just playing a game. It's the equivalent of saying "yeah? well ... it's my ball so I say that wasn't a goal because I've just invented this new rule ..."

Well I'm not seven years old and I can afford to buy my own ball so I'm not playing.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:26, archived)

Again, you're arguing a subtly different point there, and now trying to justify it with false analogies.
I'm simply saying that all things have a domain in which they operate.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:31, archived)

I'm arguing precisely what I was arguing at the beginning.
There's nothing subtle about it: the supernatural claims of religions are all demonstrably nonsense. End of argument.

If you would like to change the argument to "can we invent a domain in which fluffy woolly definitions of fantasy beings might exist" then you are perfectly welcome.

I won't be joining in though. Because it is meaningless and immensely dull and the last resort of a dying philosophy.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:43, archived)

If you said that they aren't provable, then I might have agreed with you (unless I was just arguing for the sake of it)
but that something that makes predictions within a finite domain, can make predictions outside of it's specified domain (which is the case, unless you add the rider that our hypothetical 'believer' believe that God only operates within the realms of known science), to demonstrate that something is nonsense or not, is not self consistent.

You simply need to change your "demonstrably nonsense" to "can't be proven" so something similar, and you'd be logically consistent.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:53, archived)

You're just going around in circles.
My argument is simple: God does not exist and can be proven not to exist. And I've said several times that I'm not interested in a tedious semantic dick-waving competition. It's dull and utterly irrelevant.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:03, archived)

So you want to discuss philosophy but you're not interested in logic?
Because that's what you're saying.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:05, archived)

agreed.
though the "how, when, where and what" questions science answers still leaves the "why" to religion for the most part.
( evilstevie misses the Orange Place of late, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:25, archived)

But that's just meaningless semantic twaddle.
Atheists don't 'believe' that gods don't exist. Any more than they 'believe' that the ovaltine pixies don't wank dew onto the grass in the morning.

The "don't" bit is the give away.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:13, archived)

I'm pretty sure it's basic logic.

( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:15, archived)

No. It's semantic twaddle.
Not believing in something is not a belief.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:17, archived)

Of course it is.
And I'm pretty sure that formal logic backs me up.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:23, archived)

Really? This could be terribly clever.
I'm not an apple.
What sort of apple does that make me?
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:28, archived)

No, you've selected an analogy that doesn't quite with what we're modeling here.
The case is more akin to having a circuit in which lightbulb lights if the logic level on a line is not 1.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:33, archived)

You're going to have to explain to me how that is in any way relevant.
Take your time. I'm quite clever and I work in electronics so I'll probably be able to follow it if you're patient.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:45, archived)

Statistically, I'll bet that you're not as clever as me.
Over here, we're about 16 standard deviations up from the average IQ, and batting in excess of 175. So there's only about 100-200 people in the UK with a higher IQ.

It's also odd how you seem to work in whatever area it is that you're currently arguing about all the time.

I suggest a basic refresher course in logic.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:02, archived)

Hahaha.
You're honestly going to resort to a gong-waving competition rather than attempt to justify yourself? And not even real gongs ... Mensa gongs? That's weak. You can do better than that.

How about rather than attempting to patronise me, you actually answer my question? I genuinely don't understand and I'd quite like to know what you mean. (and I already have a PhD and a successful career so I probably won't take up your offer of a 'refresher course' ... thanks all the same)
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:05, archived)

hahaha a PhD means shit.
I'm not short of degrees my self, and I'll bet that I had them when I was younger than you too, given that I was the youngest physics grad ever from my university,

Additionally I work in a university too, half of the people here with PhDs couldn't form a logical argument if their life depended on it.

Edit: And if you'd like to discuss your career success I point you towards ownership of my own company, my two board appointments, and my board level consultantships to several multi-million pound turn over corporations.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:10, archived)

GONGS! LOOK AT THOSE GONGS!
Pay no attention to the argument behind the curtain! Look at the gongs!

You've lost, sonny. Give it up.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:19, archived)

You started the gong waving by claiming to be terribly clever,
but you clearly can't compete so I'll let you back out of that one before it gets too embarrassing for you as everyone realises that you're a middle of the road average academic.

Congratulations on moving on to the the next Argument Success(TM) method of trying to make rumour equal truth though. You know you can get a book with about 10 of these in? I think you're only up to about 5 at the moment, so there's considerable scope for improvement.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:25, archived)

No I didn't.
I did not understand your point so I asked you to clarify. You apparently couldn't answer. That was the point where the discussion finished and the floundering started. Up there. The rest of this is just me allowing you to dig yourself into a hole labelled 'loser'.

And I've had your mum. Although granted I wasn't the youngest person ever to have her.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:30, archived)

A new argument method!
Oh no, actually just a rehash of rumour equals fact.

You really are stupid, aren't you?

I couldn't careless what you think of me, as your thoughts have been demonstrated to be inaccurate and even fail to be self consistent.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:35, archived)

I think you're probably a perfectly nice and intelligent person
who has got too involved in an argument on the internet.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:45, archived)

Another argument that isn't even self consistant with the previous ones.
But at least we're on to a new argument method now.

How many more can you think up?
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:52, archived)

I most certainly can. I do it all the time.
Surely you've noticed?

Theism is all based on a simple premise: magic and that. It's all demonstrably nonsense and it is the broad acceptance of the harmless end of the nonsense that forms the platform upon which all the deeply harmful stuff is based.

Remove the platform, the house of cards comes tumbling down and I get to take a big smug shit on all the vicious little cunts at the top.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:08, archived)

Ok, wrong choice of words on my part.
You can but it's wrong to. Not all religious people are harmful. In fact, I know quite a few who are very pleasant people and religion brings them comfort. What's so wrong with that?
(Psycho Eyes, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:11, archived)

What's wrong with it is that it includes the assumption that it's okay to believe false things.
In particular, that you have a personal, secret line of communication with the moral authority of the universe.
If that assumption weren't so vehemently defended by perfectly nice people, there'd be far less defense for more extreme, harmful religion and all sorts of other harmful things.
( Newington, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:20, archived)

I'm pretty sure it is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist.

( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:12, archived)

Utter arse.
The various Gods and their various actions in the Universe are perfectly well documented in the religious texts of the various delusions. It's perfectly possible to invalidate every single one of them. All that's left at the end is an airy fairy hippy definition of some fluffy woolly feeling that 'something' exists out there.

Well ... you're welcome to that. It's entirely without meaning or import and it's not what any of the major religions are based upon.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:15, archived)

Now you're arguing a different point.

( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:25, archived)

No I'm not.
The theists of the world have made it perfectly clear what they mean by 'God'. And that thing can be proved not to exist.

Inventing a new thing called 'God' is just plain cowardly bullshit.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:30, archived)

Now you're just restating your original point, without any actual justification
You really need to learn how to argue more effectively.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:40, archived)

Is that you backing out of the discussion then?

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:46, archived)

No, but I've seen you try to several times,
so you must know that your argument is flawed.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:06, archived)

Bless. I almost miss being a teenager
and wearing that unassailable blanket of delusional self-confidence.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:11, archived)

At least you've not improved your mental capabilities since.

( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:14, archived)

No. They've gone downhill slowly with age.
But I've learned how to carry an argument without resorting to name-calling and gongs. And I've still won this argument in the spare time between doing my real job. I really could almost get an erection with the excitement of it all if I weren't so old and decrepit.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:26, archived)

You clearly haven't won though, as the messages you've posted show.
(But you're still in Rumour Equal Fact mode of argument)

And as for spare time, what you mean is that as well as being so stupid as to try to argue a point that is logically incorrect, you're also so professionally bankrupt as to fail to work the hours for which you are contracted.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:29, archived)

You're terribly aggressive when you're excited.
It isn't that attractive.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:47, archived)

I've not mentioned anything agressive or excited.
You on the other hand, have been using such words and they show how you are feeling.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:50, archived)

An interesting piece of philosophical wanking, but useless and irrelevant.
Invisible pixies, etc. If there's no reason to believe something exists, you don't.

Also quite a recent notion. God as defined in the texts of any of the major religions has been observed not to exist every time anyone's looked.
( Newington, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:27, archived)

Pretty much everything outside of pure mathematics is impossible to prove, in the strictest sense of the word
But weight of evidence is firmly on the side of his nonexistence, as long as you don't let religious people shift the goalposts halfway through
( Cap'n Tallbeard, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:30, archived)

You can't really blame this one on religion.
There are plenty of muslim countrys out there that arn't totaly fucked up.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:10, archived)

You can't blame a theocratic government enforcing blasphemy laws on religion?
Yes you can. If their idea of Islam was correct, it would be the right thing to do. Admit that it isn't correct, and it's wrong.

To be able to see plainly that it's incorrect, you have to make the surprisingly difficult step of admitting that some things are false and there's no reason to believe them. That's a step that all religion wants to stop you taking.
( Newington, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:23, archived)