God Hates Fags church threatens to picket Basingstoke

[Casanova[OCAU]]

My own upbringing? I wasn't raised in a house that believes in any God, nor do I actually. I'm just not silly enough to think I know everything. It sounds more like due to your own bias, you want to fit a scientifically quantifiable phenomenon into a model that doesn't necessarily conform to the scientific method.

Oh comeon Jin. You can come up with a better argument than 'NO YOU ARE'

They were indeed stupid assumptions. Try not to make them in the future.

LOL touche.

Not everything needs a point or has to make sense to be (potentially) true. That was your argument last post, don't change it now because it suits your needs.

no.. .you're just taking my point out of context. the 'reasoning' needs to make sense. otherwise, it's hardly a reason is it. however, the reasoning can be 'it's a coincidence'.

For a being that may exist outside of time, that isn't really an issue.

This is a mighty convenient excuse for a mob that historically couldn't come up with the concept of 'outside of time'.

And just because you don't believe in that mixture, doesn't mean it isn't possible. It's so amusingly funny how sure you are that you've solved the mysteries of the universe.

er................ why don't go you read the book 'the mind of god'. We actually know a lot more about certain things that a lot of people realise, and a lot less about other things than people realize. We have a fairly thorough understanding of the founding principles of the universe and how it came about.

We don't have a very thorough understanding of the intricacies of how the brain works. There's a diference.

Philosophers have no obligation to prove anything,

Philosophy and science are not the same things and do not follow the same rules.

Erm. yes it does. Philosophy is not a bunch of cool sounding words stringed together. Philosophy is the earliest form of science and is meant to describe the human condition and how to make sense of our surroundings. Science is steeped in philosophy. They're not two, mutually different concepts.

The point of philosophy is to remind you, you specifically in this case, that you don't know anything. I'll assume you've never read a book on epistemology. You may want to sometime, you may just realize how silly you sound. Don't worry though, we've all been there.

That's just a silly explanation. Philosophy describes how there is boundless amount of things to know and you never know everything. But not that you know nothing.

[Sasquatch]

That wasn't so much fabricated as it was imagined.

... okay, "fabricated" means made-up. Should I just send you a dictionary?

Oh, I see, you don't think evolution is disprovable? I think it can be, but perhaps not. My knowledge of it is far too limited to say. Again, my misinterpretation.

When every piece of "evidence" and information is twisted and manipulated into supporting Evolutionism, you're going to have a hard time disproving it. But when you think about it ... what would have to be found for people to admit that Evolutionism is impossible? A human footprint inside a dinosaur footprint? Found it. Heavy evidence of a global flood? Found it. Multiple holes and hoaxes within Evolutionism? Found 'em.

This post was a bit boring, I'll admit.

Hahahah. Not every post has to be an all-out battle. I get into the same habit sometimes.

The greatest freedom of all good sir. The freedom to believe what you will and practice acts that wouldn't harm anyone else without being harrassed or undermined in any way.

Doing what you want without being made fun of for it is not a "freedom". While few specific members of society might harass, society as a whole does not, and there is no government harassment of homosexuals for their sexuality.

er................ why don't go you read the book 'the mind of god'. We actually know a lot more about certain things that a lot of people realise, and a lot less about other things than people realize. We have a fairly thorough understanding of the founding principles of the universe and how it came about.

We don't have a very thorough understanding of the intricacies of how the brain works. There's a diference.

Isn't it convenient how people can come up with ideas about something that supposedly happened billions and billions of years ago, and hasn't happened since; something that is completely unverifiable and completely unobservable; something that violates the very laws of nature that it is supposedly ruled by ... and they "know" about it? But if you give them thousands of years and billions of examples of the human brain, they still don't know squat?

Jin's point was that you are trying to apply natural rules to a supernatural being. If God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipowerful, rules of nature cannot apply to Him.

[Jin]

Oh comeon Jin. You can come up with a better argument than 'NO YOU ARE'

If you're not going to put any effort into your initial statement, why should I put a lot of effort into my response? The difference here is that I addressed why you're full of bullocks, you've just deflected.

no.. .you're just taking my point out of context. the 'reasoning' needs to make sense. otherwise, it's hardly a reason is it. however, the reasoning can be 'it's a coincidence'.

How am I taking it out of context? You're saying that intelligent, yet flawed design is impossible because there is no greater purpose to it. "What's the point of stupid design," I believe you said. You then went on to say that in lieu of that, one may as well believe in coincidental change, which is the silliest way I've ever heard of proving an argument. If that's not your point then what is?

This is a mighty convenient excuse for a mob that historically couldn't come up with the concept of 'outside of time'.

Something is impossible because it is convenient? Are you serious?

er................ why don't go you read the book 'the mind of god'. We actually know a lot more about certain things that a lot of people realise, and a lot less about other things than people realize. We have a fairly thorough understanding of the founding principles of the universe and how it came about.

No, we have a fairly thorough understanding (at least so I'm told) of how the physical universe that we perceive began. We have very little understanding of reality. There's a difference.

Erm. yes it does. Philosophy is not a bunch of cool sounding words stringed together. Philosophy is the earliest form of science and is meant to describe the human condition and how to make sense of our surroundings. Science is steeped in philosophy. They're not two, mutually different concepts.

Science was born out of a particular kind of philosophy. The kind that valued rationalism and empirical evidence. That is not the entirety of philosophy. On the contrary, it is a very small portion of it. Irrationalism, aestheticism, many Chinese and Indian philosophies and countless other philosophical schools have nothing to do with science and are sometimes outright against science and the scientific method.

That's just a silly explanation. Philosophy describes how there is boundless amount of things to know and you never know everything. But not that you know nothing.

I will take that as admittance that you've never read a book on epistemology. I dare you to read Hume, Nietzsche or any solipsist work and say that again.

... okay, "fabricated" means made-up. Should I just send you a dictionary?

The word connotes intent and shiftiness, while "imagined" does not. But maybe that's just me.

[Furore]

Doing what you want without being made fun of for it is not a "freedom". While few specific members of society might harass, society as a whole does not, and there is no government harassment of homosexuals for their sexuality.

Of course it's a freedom. It's the freedom to do as you please without any need for worrying about ill deserved negative consequences. If a person dreamt of creating a flying machine but stopped trying due to everyone telling him his ideas were stupid or lame or whatever, what's there a good chance he'll do?

Not all the walls that contrict freedom are impenetratable, nay I'd venture few if any are entirely. You could argue that the person could pay no attention to those against him/her, but how many people wouldn't be affected? Humans are a somewhat social creature more oft than not.

[Casanova[OCAU]]

Isn't it convenient how people can come up with ideas about something that supposedly happened billions and billions of years ago, and hasn't happened since; something that is completely unverifiable and completely unobservable; something that violates the very laws of nature that it is supposedly ruled by ... and they "know" about it? But if you give them thousands of years and billions of examples of the human brain, they still don't know squat?

Apples and oranges mate.
People 'coming up with ideas' as placing taboos is religion's method. Reason and logic is sciences. Why do you think we've ended up where we are, with this pitiful god of gaps?

Jin's point was that you are trying to apply natural rules to a supernatural being. If God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipowerful, rules of nature cannot apply to Him.

Our understanding of how the world works at a 'macro' level is complete enough to warrant the discarding of the god or 'supernatural' theory. It seems incredibly arrogant to say 'I don't understand it, so NO ONE EVER will be able to!'

[Sasquatch]

Apples and oranges mate.

Something we've been studying for thousands of years (and holds direct influence on medicine) versus something we've only had the technology to "study" for the past century, maybe (and makes no difference to anybody's daily life one way or another) ... wouldn't a logical viewpoint be that we should know more about the one we've been studying longer?

(That's the brain, by the way.)

People 'coming up with ideas' as placing taboos is religion's method.

You tried to call Jin out on an argument of "no you are", then turn around and try to use "no, that's what YOU do!"? Nice try, kid.

Reason and logic is sciences.

Sure. The problem is that many ideas claimed to be "science" are not scientific at all.

The first demand of a scientific theory is that it must be disproveable. If I say that water freezes at fifty degrees, that can be tested and disproven. If I say that we evolved from monkeys (or apes, or however it's being forced -- err, "taught" these days), tell me, how would one go about disproving that?

Why do you think we've ended up where we are, with this pitiful god of gaps?

"God of gaps" ... you mean Evolutionism, or Big Bang?

Our understanding of how the world works at a 'macro' level is complete enough to warrant the discarding of the god or 'supernatural' theory.

What "understanding"? The crap people make up and claim as "science"?

It seems incredibly arrogant to say 'I don't understand it, so NO ONE EVER will be able to!'

It's not "I don't understand it". It's "it is not understandable". It's not natural, it's supernatural. It's not meant to be understood.

There's a difference in believing that natural laws were broken by a supernatural power for the world and life to be created, and believing that natural laws were broken by a natural power for the world and life to be created.

Besides -- it's incredibly arrogant to say, "I think I understand how the world works at a 'macro' level, and I don't believe in God, so God must not exist!"