lolol, I made it look like you rub your hands in wee, I am very clever and funny lol
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:20, archived)
Please don't do that. It's irritating the fuck out of me.
Thank you.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:24, archived)
Thank you.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:24, archived)
I love your post history.
www.b3ta.com/users/searchposts.php?id=65670&board=talk
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:24, archived)
www.b3ta.com/users/searchposts.php?id=65670&board=talk
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:24, archived)
I should probably go with the flow and claim no, as its often seen as more 'fashionable'
But i shall say i am more agnostic.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:17, archived)
But i shall say i am more agnostic.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:17, archived)
Always keep an open mind
because how silly would you look if one of the religions was actually right?
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:19, archived)
because how silly would you look if one of the religions was actually right?
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:19, archived)
about as silly as a man who realised the three little pigs was a true story
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:19, archived)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:19, archived)
That probably doesn't matter very much
if one of the religions with a hell is right.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:46, archived)
if one of the religions with a hell is right.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:46, archived)
The Bible says that God dislikes fence-sitters more than outright unbelievers,
so you're fucked either way.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:22, archived)
so you're fucked either way.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:22, archived)
I thought it safe to assume that Bou was talking about the Abrahamic God, though.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:24, archived)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:24, archived)
oh him, he's the biggest cunt of the lot
the fat gay beardy fartbag
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:25, archived)
the fat gay beardy fartbag
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:25, archived)
Pfft, fartbag!
:D I've not heard that one before. It's so deliciously childish. (/OMG paedo lololol)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:26, archived)
:D I've not heard that one before. It's so deliciously childish. (/OMG paedo lololol)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:26, archived)
it's from Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian
chapter 6, God Is A Big Gay Beardy Fartbag
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:28, archived)
chapter 6, God Is A Big Gay Beardy Fartbag
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:28, archived)
OH NOES, I FELL INTO YOUR BRILLIANT LOGICAL TRAP AND NOW I BELIEVE IN JEBUS AND BOG AND ALL HIS HOLY ANGELS
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
oh come on Weatherwax!
papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/cl_intro.htm
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:33, archived)
papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/cl_intro.htm
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:33, archived)
I fucking love this!
I must file it away for later use. Is it yours?
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:27, archived)
I must file it away for later use. Is it yours?
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:27, archived)
Plus, while it's logically impossible to prove the existence of (a) supreme being(s)
it's also logically impossible to disprove its/their existence - making theism and atheism equally irrational standpoints.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:27, archived)
it's also logically impossible to disprove its/their existence - making theism and atheism equally irrational standpoints.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:27, archived)
*follows existentialism*
*decides everything is irrational, so there is no normal*
*Hits a squirrel with an amoeba*
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:28, archived)
*decides everything is irrational, so there is no normal*
*Hits a squirrel with an amoeba*
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:28, archived)
There's no proof in favour of OR against the existence of a supreme being.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
We have enough understanding of the universe to make its existence really really unlikely, though.
True, we can't prove it's not out there, remaining hidden. But then what's the difference, for practical purposes, between no god and a god that never does anything and which we never detect?
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:33, archived)
True, we can't prove it's not out there, remaining hidden. But then what's the difference, for practical purposes, between no god and a god that never does anything and which we never detect?
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:33, archived)
But you've created an unnecessary problem surely?
If there's no proof either way, why even debate the concept?
I JUST DON'T KNOW ANYMORE!
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:35, archived)
If there's no proof either way, why even debate the concept?
I JUST DON'T KNOW ANYMORE!
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:35, archived)
I'm sure last time I said that, most of the board had a go at me
although I don't think you were included in that
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
although I don't think you were included in that
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
Er, how is it impossible to prove its existence?
All they need to do is stump up some evidence. It's impossible with a priori logic, yes, but not with a posteriori. There currently isn't any evidence we've found to prove the existence of a supreme being, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be any.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
All they need to do is stump up some evidence. It's impossible with a priori logic, yes, but not with a posteriori. There currently isn't any evidence we've found to prove the existence of a supreme being, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be any.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
If you can't reasonably prove a theory a priori, it's a very shaky theory.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:32, archived)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:32, archived)
I must be confused.
Surely you need evidence to prove a theory, and evidence is necessarily a posteriori?
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:35, archived)
Surely you need evidence to prove a theory, and evidence is necessarily a posteriori?
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:35, archived)
But god implies sin
Innocent until proven guilty, I say. He doesn't exist until proof is found.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:34, archived)
Innocent until proven guilty, I say. He doesn't exist until proof is found.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:34, archived)
Nope
but I couldn't give a flying fuck if other people do.
ACTUALLY YES HIS NAME IS OBAFEMI MARTINS.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:20, archived)
but I couldn't give a flying fuck if other people do.
ACTUALLY YES HIS NAME IS OBAFEMI MARTINS.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:20, archived)
i think there's a lot of contradictory concepts of god
and that some of them might be acceptable
for instance, a scottish chap once said (and i'm quoting from memory so might be wrong) that "there is an initial cause in the universe, and we name that cause god, and ascribe to it every aspect of perfection." in that case the question "do you believe in god?" maps to "is there an initial cause in the universe?"
by many people's definitions i am an atheist, to be honest
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:30, archived)
and that some of them might be acceptable
for instance, a scottish chap once said (and i'm quoting from memory so might be wrong) that "there is an initial cause in the universe, and we name that cause god, and ascribe to it every aspect of perfection." in that case the question "do you believe in god?" maps to "is there an initial cause in the universe?"
by many people's definitions i am an atheist, to be honest
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:30, archived)
Nope
But I find the concept absolutely fascinating.
I guess if I was going to prescribe the "God" title to anything it would be the sun, thats what gives us all life after all, and I do my best to spend many hours worshiping it and achieving tanned enlightenment every summer. But that's going by the logic that a "god" is whatever you place your faith in, which isn't how organised religion works. So no, not any universally recognised beardy-man god (which the sun is to some religions, but I don't tend to follow their set-out beliefs), just the one thing I put my faith in, which is that theres this thing that gives us life and stops me being pale and cheers me.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:24, archived)
But I find the concept absolutely fascinating.
I guess if I was going to prescribe the "God" title to anything it would be the sun, thats what gives us all life after all, and I do my best to spend many hours worshiping it and achieving tanned enlightenment every summer. But that's going by the logic that a "god" is whatever you place your faith in, which isn't how organised religion works. So no, not any universally recognised beardy-man god (which the sun is to some religions, but I don't tend to follow their set-out beliefs), just the one thing I put my faith in, which is that theres this thing that gives us life and stops me being pale and cheers me.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:24, archived)
Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:42, archived)