OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Arryn:
It's all myth, superstition, and outright bunk.

If you believe this, then you're not ...

-- Arryn, resident agnostic.

... you're a strong atheist. Agnostics believe that the question of the existence of god(s) is intrinsically unsolvable, as opposed to "bunk".

I classify myself as an "agnostic weak atheist", i.e. someone who regards the problem as unsolvable and, in addition, has not adopted a religious faith. Agnostic theists exist - people who know there's no way of proving it but choose to believe in a god anyway.

[Norfleet]

I think there are really two fundamental questions about a "god" or other related being.

Firstly, does one exist? It has not been proved that one does, and it's obviously an impossibility to prove that such a thing cannot exist.

However, the real question is....assuming such a thing does exist, is it deserving of worship? This is a question we certainly CAN answer. Personally, I have to say that the answer is "no". I cannot attribute anything I'd actually be thankful about that has occurred in my life to anything other than my own efforts, so I can't say I'd find any such being deserving of my worship. I'd like to see some verifiable miracles before I start worshipping anyone. It should be noted that, technically, an evil miracle is still a miracle, and while highly effective at inducing belief, tends to produce more terror than actual worshipfulness. Which is probably more amusing anyway.

[ July 28, 2004, 06:06: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Boron:


but if you think about it the guidlines of the church HAVE been wrong before (flat earth, anyone?) and could easily be wrong again. Thats no reason to cut all ties with the organization that you might respect and love deeply.

so a question : galilei was the one who discovered that . i am pretty sure you know the story . the catholic church forced him to deny his ideas . he did .

but now some hundred years later the pope spoke galilei holy .


Actually, I think most of the stories about people thinking the world is flat are apocryphal. Certainly, the Greeks knew it was round and the flat earth was not the reason Galileo was persecuted.

The issue there was whether the Sun or the Earth lay at the centre of the solar system. Catholic teaching demanded that it be the Earth, but Galileo knew otherwise.

And yes, official recognition of the error was only forthcoming from the Catholic church in recent times.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
However, the real question is....assuming such a thing does exist, is it deserving of worship?

You assume here a system of ethics, a judgement of who "deserves" what, independant of the god in a godfull universe. There's no agreement on that. Many people argue that if there is a god, then that god defines and dictates the only system of ethics that can be used for such judgements.

In other words, God deserves worship if He says He does.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arryn:
It's all myth, superstition, and outright bunk.

If you believe this, then you're not

---

Wrong. You have confused religion, which is the practice of worship and a system of beliefs, with the question of the existence or non-existence of a deity. It is possible to accept the existence of (some) god, yet not accept *any* of the beliefs commonly associated with that entity, including human-written codices and bureaucratic power structures.

The question of whether a god may or may not exist is a question of philosophy and science. Only after you accept the existence of something does belief (or religion, if you prefer) enter into the picture. It's a fallacy to confuse belief with logic, and philosophy & science deal with logic, not dogma.

Atheism is no different than any other religion. They have come to conclusions (100% sure of things one way or another) about that for which no logical proof has be obtained. IOW, their minds are closed. Or if I want to be really nasty about it, they're drones, tools to be used for the gratification of religious leaders (be they seeking wealth, power, destruction, or whatever).

-- Arryn, resident agnostic.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
Geeze. Well no more empirical science. Graeme hath decreed that it is "useless." Too bad all sciences are emperical. Bummer for us.

You are a complete idiot. That is the only word that can be used to describe someone as stupid as yourself. Please, why don't you outline the "empirical evidence" that you've provided. Note that an unsupported claim that "The U.S. system is better." is not empirical evidence. It is supposition.

You haven't supplied evidence, you've supplied anecdotes. In fact, you really haven't even done that. You've simply stated "This is true.", and expected me to believe it. Guess what, if you can't provide _actual evidence_ to support your point, then your point is nonsense.

I've provided the evidence to support my argument. Where's yours? I've also provided evidence that shows that your argument is wrong, that Canadian healthcare is obviously not worthless since it is the best in the world in certain areas. What's your response to this? You simply ignore what I've written and continue to spout your ignorance. I shouldn't have even had to provide any evidence to disprove your arguments at all, since you have yet to provide any to support them.

So, like I said in one of my 1st Posts I'm an ex-pat and ths I have actually seen the health care on both sides of the fence.

Ahh yes, an appeal to authority. It's nice to see that you've started to trot out the fallacies. Please provide hard evidence to support your assertion. Note that your personal experience is irrelevant if you can't provide actual examples.

Since you are flapping your mouth off I have to assume that you are also an ex-pat with a differing experience.

I don't need experience. I need you to provide some actual hard evidence other than your completely unsupported assertions about the health care system.

Phew. I am *so* glad that you continually define the terms of the argument to suit your purposes. Sadly it's not what I asserted. Which was *if* you can pay the US system is better. Sadly you seem incapable of understanding that.

Oh go cry me a river. If you really believe that the valid way to measure a health care system is by what the wealthiest people can afford then your grip on reality is very poor indeed. I suppose that next you'll tell me that Zaire has a great health care system since the richest people there can afford to go to the U.S. for their treatment. I'm fully capable of understanding what your assertion means, which is why I can see that it would be a meaningless statement even if it were true. Since you haven't even been able to demonstrate that it's true, I can safely assume that it isn't.

You are a funny and sad at the same time. Congratulations!

And you're a moron with all the logical skills of a rather stupid rock. An argument made without supporting evidence is one that can be ignored, as it contains no useful information.

[ July 28, 2004, 06:26: Message edited by: Graeme Dice ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
Certainly, the Greeks knew it was round and the flat earth was not the reason Galileo was persecuted.

It was for heresy. The following Catholic page The Galileo Controversy has an excellent overview of it, despite playing semantic games about it being for heresy.

EDIT: offending the pope is heresy, since it goes against Catholic dogma, and by definition, violating dogma is heresy.

[ July 28, 2004, 06:33: Message edited by: Arryn ]