Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on April 10, 2004, 09:44:25 am
-
They're out to get ya!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=6&u=/ap/20040410/ap_on_re_us/baptizing_the_dead
Is that just the saddest act of desperation to make a religion look bigger?
Flipside :D
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Is that just the saddest act of desperation to make a religion look bigger?
Yes.
On a side note, i'm making sure my grave is booby-trapped.......
-
how ****ing repulsive.. next time those annoying missionaries come around i'm going to give them a piece of my mind
i think we need "Guns, lots of guns"
-
meh.
I'm going for cremation anyways, let someone throw the ashes out over the ocean or something.... nice and clean, no rotting mess in the ground, no **** with people knocking the jar over, and no problems trying to spread the ashes in a damp forest (i heard that it all clamps together in white lumps).
-
Dude, its Mormons. They're just about the most fundamentalist sect of Christianity in existance today.
Those bastards 'll have my corpse when they pry it from my cold dead...oh wait.
-
BEST. QUOTE. EVAR.
"It's ridiculous for people to pretend they have the key to heaven," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "And even if they say they want to do somebody a favor ... it's not a symbol of love. It's a symbol of arrogance."
-
yeah, Mik. That goes for every bloody religion even thinking about converting people. I mean it. Converting people is bad.
-
Oh, I don't know, Kasperl. You don't really need the qualifier, do you? ;)
-
i didn't get that, I am probably missing some alternate meaning of qualifier.
-
You could have just stopped at: "yeah, Mik. That goes for every bloody religion..."
Ignore me. I'm having a bitter day.
-
converting people TO religion is bad, converting people to a LACK OF religion is good :P
-
They baptized Hitler too.
-
Well he deserved it, the bastard
-
It'd be incredibly funny if they did Saddam Hussein too.
-
Originally posted by an0n
It'd be incredibly funny if they did Saddam Hussein too.
Nah. Funny would be if they did the pope :D
-
Nah, the Pope would have his posse all over them in a second. He's a dangerous mofo, the Pope. Most people don't know that, but its true.
-
Vatican City is in Rome. Rome is in Italy.
The Mob is Sicilian. Sicily is part of Italy.
Don't mess with the Pope unless you wanna have a little talk with Father Baggadonuts
-
id bet theyd be pissed if a terrorist attack took out the pope.
-
That's horrible.
I've never really been one for the transcendental in general and Mormons in particular, so on one level I am somewhat unconcerned with this, 'cause I think it's just a silly ritual (the thought that the Mormon Church might even be correct in their beliefs is too worrying to entertain)... but on another, better, level, I can appreciate people's rights to self-determination in all matters, from political matters to the spiritual sphere, and from such a position this is abominable and inexcusable.
:mad:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
converting people TO religion is bad, converting people to a LACK OF religion is good :P
I don't care if that was meant in jest or whatever, but that is the worst bit of hipocrisy I have heard for a long ****ing time. Kazan, I expected a bit more brains from you. :doubt:
-
What?
How is that hypocrisy?
-
converting is bad, period.
This is pretty much equal to saying "converting people to [size=10000]MY[/size][/u][/b] faith is ok, but converting people to any other faith is bad, really bad. "
-
Uh, no.
If he was preaching a religion, it would be. But he's not preaching anything in the same vein as religion.
Saying he's wrong for trying to get people to accept the known facts is basically the same as renouncing all science and technology.
-
Uh, no. For some people, the known facts are that there is a God. For some people, the known facts are that there are multiple Gods. Prove to me there is no God. Concrete, labarotory proof. Impossible? Well, science is a faith just like the Islam, Christianity, and so many others. It carry's different "holy texts", and everything is a lot more recent then the other faiths, but it is still a faith. It's also one I believe in, but I feel no reason to convert anyone to it.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
Uh, no. For some people, the known facts are that there is a God. For some people, the known facts are that there are multiple Gods. Prove to me there is no God. Concrete, labarotory proof. Impossible? Well, science is a faith just like the Islam, Christianity, and so many others. It carry's different "holy texts", and everything is a lot more recent then the other faiths, but it is still a faith. It's also one I believe in, but I feel no reason to convert anyone to it.
You can't possibly be that stupid?
Fine, I'll humor you.
If the existence of God(s) is to be based upon observed instances of such Gods interfering, controlling or manipulating events in the universe towards an ultimate end, and Science is to be taken as a faith, then Science is the ever-present, totally, irrefutable lord of the universe.
There, God does exist. And he is Science. All other religions are wrong and to allow people to follow them is complete stupidity and is promoting flat-out ignorance, NOT hypocrisy.
-
an0n, you are a **** up who twists a metafore to just have a reason to *****.
what i meant was that for religious people, recorded events, however those recordings have been made, are evidence of God exsisting.
-
Kasperl: Call me a hypocrit all you want - you don't know the difference between faith and fact - someone's PERSONAL interpreatiation of what's true means exactly: JACK****
if you believe in something that has no real [read: independantly verifiable empirical evidence] evidence to support it (see: having faith) you are irrational
irrationalism is dangerous
we've been over this before
-
i haven't been over this before.
and it all depends on how you define fact, and what you call an experiment. Also, any form of fantacism is bad. including that of constantly rubbing science in peoples noses, if those people want to believe in something else. now, if people are saying science should not be practiced because it defies their God, then that is just as bad as telling people to stop worshipping because science is the one true way.
edit: Note i do believe in science myself, and i don't believe in a god. the only thing i am argueing here is that people shouldn't be converted either way.
-
He's also ignoring the fact that, if evidence is proof, Science crushes all other religions into the dirt and pisses on them.
Personally, I'll take modern technology and things everyone around the globe can observe any time they so choose over an event that only 2-3 people and a donkey witnessed 2000 years ago.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
i haven't been over this before.
and it all depends on how you define fact, and what you call an experiment. Also, any form of fantacism is bad. including that of constantly rubbing science in peoples noses, if those people want to believe in something else. now, if people are saying science should not be practiced because it defies their God, then that is just as bad as telling people to stop worshipping because science is the one true way.
edit: Note i do believe in science myself, and i don't believe in a god. the only thing i am argueing here is that people shouldn't be converted either way.
Uh, no.
We KNOW science is right. It can't be disputed (not rationally anyway).
Religion is based on superstition and mindless stupidity.
-
Originally posted by an0n
[size=100]Personally[/size], I'll take modern technology and things everyone around the globe can observe any time they so choose over an event that only 2-3 people and a donkey witnessed 2000 years ago. [/B]
good, great, i even agree with you. now, note the little subtle highlighting i did.
-
I see you're not familiar with condesention (sp?).
-
Originally posted by an0n
Uh, no.
We KNOW science is right. It can't be disputed (not rationally anyway).
Religion is based on superstition and mindless stupidity.
Tell that to a Jehova, they KNOW God can't be disputed (not rationally anyway)
-
we KNOW science is right - the process of science is right - PERIOD
what it currently things about something is subject to revision/improvement - but some things are known with enough evidence that it's is beyond unlikely to have them refuted, we call them facts
i'm not going to repeat what i've said in 10 different threads - go use the search function
expectin people to be realistic and rational instead of irrational and unrealistic is not hypocritical
---------------------
God can be disputed _VERY_ _EASILY_ pathetically easily
If you believe in something you have no evidence for you are being irrational (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irrational) - you instead have faith (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith) (in particular definition 2, 2 thourhg 5 are appropraite)
You cannot support the existance of a god, any god - therefore it is irrational for someone to believe in one. I've argued this more times than there are days in a decade - not once has a theist been able to present an argument without logical fallacy - and that inlcudes a man with two PHd's in various religious studies fields
-
Originally posted by Kazan
converting people TO religion is bad, converting people to a LACK OF religion is good :P
Letting people decide themselves is best of all
:p
-
Originally posted by an0n
I see you're not familiar with condesention (sp?).
no, i don't have that word in my limited English vocabulary.
bloody 30 second limit
-
Okay: God does not exist because he has never shown himself to man.
There. Either I'm being irrational or they're wrong.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
[size=10]we[/size] KNOW science is right - the process of science is right - PERIOD
what it currently things about something is subject to revision/improvement - but some things are known with enough evidence that it's is beyond unlikely to have them refuted, we call them facts
i'm not going to repeat what i've said in 10 different threads - go use the search function
expectin people to be realistic and rational instead of irrational and unrealistic is not hypocritical [/B]
guys, how many times do i have to highlight those kind of words?
Why is respecting peoples believes so hard? You are no different from the kind of people that are standing in front of schools giving out brochures about some God, you just believe in something else, stay inside, and preach to anyone who might be near.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Okay: God does not exist because he has never shown himself to man.
There. Either I'm being irrational or they're wrong.
good. now let time figure that out and let those people believe in what they want to.
-
No, we're different because we can prove we're right.
-
Kasperl: how many times do you need to be shown that's IRRELEVANT - "WE" as in the most educated people on the planet, with the highest IQs and the best working knowledges of physics in existance
WE WHO ARE TRAINED IN FORMAL LOGIC
You don't have to repsect someone's beliefs - only their right to have them
Respecting irrational beliefs is DANGEROUS to the individual and potentially FATAL to the entire species
-------------------------
Before you try to keep arguing with us with various irrelevances go take a class in formal logic - logic is on my side of the argument - don't try to defend irrational morons it's foolish
-
Originally posted by Kazan
---------------------
God can be disputed _VERY_ _EASILY_ pathetically easily
If you believe in something you have no evidence for you are being irrational (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irrational) - you instead have faith (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith) (in particular definition 2, 2 thourhg 5 are appropraite)
You cannot support the existance of a god, any god - therefore it is irrational for someone to believe in one. I've argued this more times than there are days in a decade - not once has a theist been able to present an argument without logical fallacy - and that inlcudes a man with two PHd's in various religious studies fields
Oh? If any experiment fails, you only have to say "God didn't want to show himself to none-believers". There, no dispute God's excistence.
now, please note, i do not believe in God myself, i believe in science, but more importantly, i believe in tolerace.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
Oh? If any experiment fails, you only have to say "God didn't want to show himself to none-believers". There, no dispute God's excistence.
I've got an experiment that'd prove God doesn't exist.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Kasperl: how many times do you need to be shown that's IRRELEVANT - "WE" as in the most educated people on the planet, with the highest IQs and the best working knowledges of physics in existance
WE WHO ARE TRAINED IN FORMAL LOGIC
You don't have to repsect someone's beliefs - only their right to have them
Respecting irrational beliefs is DANGEROUS to the individual and potentially FATAL to the entire species
-------------------------
Before you try to keep arguing with us with various irrelevances go take a class in formal logic - logic is on my side of the argument - don't try to defend irrational morons it's foolish
uhm, let's just say I am trained in the great teachings of the lord of an0n who created the universe out of nothing. I know all of the infidels have less training in the fields of what I find the truth. Therefore, I am right and you are stupid to argue your moronic views on whatever you call "science"
Now, take a step from that little plateau of arrogance and try to truly disprove God. Please take that little line about him taking a day of and not playing for the infidels in mind.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I've got an experiment that'd prove God doesn't exist.
suicide?
please conduct that experiment and come back with a full report ready for peer-review in an easily recreated and reportable envirement.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
uhm, let's just say I am trained in the great teachings of the lord of an0n who created the universe out of nothing. I know all of the infidels have less training in the fields of what I find the truth. Therefore, I am right and you are stupid to argue your moronic views on whatever you call "science".
As your God, I'm telling you: You're wrong.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Letting people decide themselves is best of all
:p
it sure is.
Kaz: yeah, science works within the laws of physics, chemistry, math etc etc. that is to say, science works if you accept those laws as fundamental and true. You see where I'm going with this? its proves itself, and that is a definate no-no to any "rational" person analyzing a system.
the fundamental rules of the universe (action-reaction, inertia etc) are all taken as true. Why? cause we've observed them. but they are nevertheless just an arbirtrary set of rules.
Without axioms, you can have no science. And axioms themselves are illogical, since everything that is to be taken as true needs to be proven as such. And one can't prove axioms, unless you work within the arbitrary rules dictated by them.
right, well that just my view. You can have your own, but let me remind you that imposing your views on others, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, is doing exactly what these mormons are doing. they're also convinced they're right.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I've got an experiment that'd prove God doesn't exist.
*taps his fingers...*
-
Originally posted by kasperl
suicide?
please conduct that experiment and come back with a full report ready for peer-review in an easily recreated and reportable envirement.
There's another thing, religion is set up so that the only way to conclusively prove God doesn't exist is to destroy the Earth.
And as for my experiment:
Gather the heads of every religion in the world. Put them in a huge glass box together, live on TV, and have them tell their followers to pray for them.
Then I take a nice repeater gun with the same number of bullets as there are religious leaders and I start shooting.
Whichever one survives (if any) is the leader of the one true religion.
Simple.
-
one might say God does exist and created the man, but has no influence about someone possesed by the Devil.
-
an0n, also, one might argue that your incapability to aim properly is no proof of any deity.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
it sure is.
Kaz: yeah, science works within the laws of physics, chemistry, math etc etc. that is to say, science works if you accept those laws as fundamental and true. You see where I'm going with this? its proves itself, and that is a definate no-no to any "rational" person analyzing a system.
the fundamental rules of the universe (action-reaction, inertia etc) are all taken as true. Why? cause we've observed them. but they are nevertheless just an arbirtrary set of rules.
Without axioms, you can have no science. And axioms themselves are illogical, since everything that is to be taken as true needs to be proven as such. And one can't prove axioms, unless you work within the arbitrary rules dictated by them.
right, well that just my view. You can have your own, but let me remind you that imposing your views on others, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, is doing exactly what these mormons are doing. they're also convinced they're right.
ive always beleived that most of what we think is either false , a hash of, or part of a greater truth, since we are human, and cannot comprehend the universe in its entirety
To quote, um, that guy:
"I think, therefore Iam"
the only "truth" is that we exist, in whatever "reality" this is. Then again...
bump:
oh yeah, some say death will bring the answers. HAH! even if there is another level of existence, it will probably raise even more questions. Maybe there are sentient forms of consciousness out there we cannot begin the understand or conceive, with the same deliberations and questions we have :p
-
Descartes, IIRC. Cogito ergo sum. I love wikipedia
-
thanks :)
-
Originally posted by kasperl
an0n, also, one might argue that your incapability to aim properly is no proof of any deity.
Who said anything about aiming?
I meant I'd have people hold them down while I put the gun to their head and killed them.
If the bullet doesn't go off, they're safe.
And regardless of wether the 'Devil has taken me', at some point, some religious person would had to have touched that bullet during its manufacture. An all-seeing, all-knowing God would **** it up during that period, or even while it was about my person, or even intercede directly and supress the chemical reaction.
-
it just boggles the mind, dont it :p I see religion as a kind of easy way out of answering the questions life raises.
*collapses and listens to the vines*
-
Originally posted by an0n
Who said anything about aiming?
I meant I'd have people hold them down while I put the gun to their head and killed them.
If the bullet doesn't go off, they're safe.
And regardless of wether the 'Devil has taken me', at some point, some religious person would had to have touched that bullet during its manufacture. An all-seeing, all-knowing God would **** it up during that period, or even while it was about my person, or even intercede directly and supress the chemical reaction.
who said that God could see into the future? and who said God could do anything more then steer peoples thoughts or act in carefully prepared actions? And perhaps he just doesn't like that particular religious leader (pretty damn likely in some cases :rolleyes: )
-
Originally posted by kasperl
who said that God could see into the future? and who said God could do anything more then steer peoples thoughts or act in carefully prepared actions? And perhaps he just doesn't like that particular religious leader (pretty damn likely in some cases :rolleyes: )
So either a cult is right, or God doesn't care, or he's not all-powerful, or all-knowing.
So, regardless of which reason it is, the religious ****-ups would still be wrong.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Who said anything about aiming?
I meant I'd have people hold them down while I put the gun to their head and killed them.
If the bullet doesn't go off, they're safe.
And regardless of wether the 'Devil has taken me', at some point, some religious person would had to have touched that bullet during its manufacture. An all-seeing, all-knowing God would **** it up during that period, or even while it was about my person, or even intercede directly and supress the chemical reaction.
Some would say God planned it all along, knew it was going to happen anyway, or it doesnt effect much in the grand sceme of things.
heres another one for ya to debate. Maybe God isnt all knowing and all powerful afterall. Could it have been exaggerating slightly when these things were written by those it "inspired". A God with character flaws?
-
God seeing into the future? isnt it supposed to exist outside of time, therefore sees all existence in its entirety ( the effect of standing above a parade, or right beside it )
-
Originally posted by an0n
So either a cult is right, or God doesn't care, or he's not all-powerful, or all-knowing.
So, regardless of which reason it is, the religious ****-ups would still be wrong.
no.
Not all of them, at least. There are all sorts of explanations for Him not reacting. And all-knowing, IIRC if you look at the Christian God, He only knows about stuff that is either happening or has happened. And perhaps, after he created the fire, and gave it to man (however that is explained in the Bible) he couldn't just uncreate it?
There can always be made up some explanation, there is no way to definetly proof there is no God. Just as there isn't any proof that there is one. If you are intolerant, you'll only get fights, and then wars over the issue, wich is ultimately bad for the species.
-
A God with character flaws is not all that stupid an idea, look at the Roman/Greek/Norse/Germanic Gods.
And yeah, the Christian God had quite a major character flaw, just as whatever God has "And i shall allow no other Gods to be worshipped" in his holy text. Arrogant prick :)
And yeah, an0n, in the time that it took me to type that last post and get all the typo's out of it, somebody else already demonstrated my point.
-
Okay.
It's a universally accepted fact that you can't prove a negative.
If I lock you in a room with a guy and let you out an hour later, I can say you had sex with him and you can't disprove it. But if you did screw him, I can very easily prove you did.
By the same token, it's impossible to disprove God exists, therefore it's a negative and he does not exist.
Yey for logic!
-
haha :P
*claps*
-
God is simply a word whose meaning varies with each person.
btw.
Everybody sign in for having your own sathani fleet* guarding your grave!
*- limited edition only, if you're too latem, then you will have to do with standard fleet.
-
great, an0n, really ****ing great. Now get back with some real logic. You cannot disprove me when i call you a 40 year old housewife, untill you meet everyone from this board in person. And even then, i can say we met your son, and not you. therefor, you are a 40 year old housewife.
do you have any good recipes for apple pie?
-
you ever think we'll never know the truth about "stuff" ?
To quote my english teacher -
" The human race is better off knowing either everything, or nothing"
bump:
rofl @ kasperl :lol:
-
dunno bout that, knowing everything kinda takes the fun out of it, and knowing nothing, well, with the memory and all, we couldn't exist.
-
isnt life great :)
-
for some reason, this topic has made me very happy :p
-
Originally posted by kasperl
great, an0n, really ****ing great. Now get back with some real logic. You cannot disprove me when i call you a 40 year old housewife, untill you meet everyone from this board in person. And even then, i can say we met your son, and not you. therefor, you are a 40 year old housewife.
do you have any good recipes for apple pie?
If you actually understood half of what I posted, you'd realise that was entirely my point.
I can't disprove I'm not a housewife, therefore it's a negative and thusly it's not true.
-
beat me too it anon :p
-
Originally posted by an0n
If you actually understood half of what I posted, you'd realise that was entirely my point.
I can't disprove I'm not a housewife, therefore it's a negative and thusly it's not true.
you cannot disprove it, therefore it is true. ok. right. for the same token, you cannot disprove you are a 70 year old bald gay guy. therefore, it is true. so you are both a 40 year old housewife and a 70 year old bald gay guy.
-
Originally posted by Jiggyhound
for some reason, this topic has made me very happy :p
yeah, it tripled your postcount.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
you cannot disprove it, therefore it is true. ok. right. for the same token, you cannot disprove you are a 70 year old bald gay guy. therefore, it is true. so you are both a 40 year old housewife and a 70 year old bald gay guy.
*scratches his head*
this is turning out to be quite a pointless arguement..
-
I don't think he understands.
-
Bah - everyone knows this board is just 5 people with multiple personality disorder arguing, anyways.
-
if an argument shows that you can be a 40 year old women and 70 year old guy, its seems a little flawed to me..
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Bah - everyone knows this board is just 5 people with multiple personality disorder arguing, anyways.
[color=66ff00]Eight out of five schizophrenics agree.
[/color]