[an0n]

What?

How is that hypocrisy?

[kasperl]

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. "

[an0n]

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.

[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.

[an0n]

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.

[kasperl]

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.

[Kazan]

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

[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.

[an0n]

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.

[an0n]

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.

[kasperl]

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.

[an0n]

I see you're not familiar with condesention (sp?).

[kasperl]

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)

[Kazan]

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 - you instead have 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

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
converting people TO religion is bad, converting people to a LACK OF religion is good

Letting people decide themselves is best of all

[kasperl]

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

[an0n]

Okay: God does not exist because he has never shown himself to man.

There. Either I'm being irrational or they're wrong.

[kasperl]

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.

[kasperl]

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.

[an0n]

No, we're different because we can prove we're right.