the one true God is Doctor Doom and we should all be worshiping him.
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 08:49:47 PMQuote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 08:29:59 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 06:33:53 PMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.>assuming god existsThere's your problem.Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?I'm saying blindly dismissing a distinct possibility as 'illogical' based on the grounds that 'it sounds illogical' is just as bad as blindly believing in a concept just because it's in a book that's supposed to be holy.Two thousand years ago, not believing in a creator deity was considered laughably illogical. Two thousand years from now, odds are there will be some other belief and our current idea of the Big Bang or Big Crunch or whatever it's called this week will be considered the same. It's why I've never settled on any particular belief. Until I die, I won't know if there is or isn't a creator deity/pantheon, and I'll likely never be given conclusive proof either way. Perhaps the universe was just a happy, astronomically improbable accident...or perhaps it wasn't. Religious neutrality, I call it, because people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.As it is, I find anyone touting either theism or atheism as 'correct' and concluding that the other side is 'stupid and illogical' as both arrogant and rather hypocritical. That's why religious neutrality is objectively the best personal ideology and all others are wrong. (See what I did there?)Logic isn't relative. It was still illogical then for a lot of the reasons it is now.
Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 08:29:59 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 06:33:53 PMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.>assuming god existsThere's your problem.Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?I'm saying blindly dismissing a distinct possibility as 'illogical' based on the grounds that 'it sounds illogical' is just as bad as blindly believing in a concept just because it's in a book that's supposed to be holy.Two thousand years ago, not believing in a creator deity was considered laughably illogical. Two thousand years from now, odds are there will be some other belief and our current idea of the Big Bang or Big Crunch or whatever it's called this week will be considered the same. It's why I've never settled on any particular belief. Until I die, I won't know if there is or isn't a creator deity/pantheon, and I'll likely never be given conclusive proof either way. Perhaps the universe was just a happy, astronomically improbable accident...or perhaps it wasn't. Religious neutrality, I call it, because people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.As it is, I find anyone touting either theism or atheism as 'correct' and concluding that the other side is 'stupid and illogical' as both arrogant and rather hypocritical. That's why religious neutrality is objectively the best personal ideology and all others are wrong. (See what I did there?)
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 06:33:53 PMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.>assuming god existsThere's your problem.Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?
Quote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.>assuming god existsThere's your problem.Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.>assuming god existsThere's your problem.
Quote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.
He obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.
Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 09:18:05 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 08:49:47 PMQuote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 08:29:59 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 06:33:53 PMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.>assuming god existsThere's your problem.Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?I'm saying blindly dismissing a distinct possibility as 'illogical' based on the grounds that 'it sounds illogical' is just as bad as blindly believing in a concept just because it's in a book that's supposed to be holy.Two thousand years ago, not believing in a creator deity was considered laughably illogical. Two thousand years from now, odds are there will be some other belief and our current idea of the Big Bang or Big Crunch or whatever it's called this week will be considered the same. It's why I've never settled on any particular belief. Until I die, I won't know if there is or isn't a creator deity/pantheon, and I'll likely never be given conclusive proof either way. Perhaps the universe was just a happy, astronomically improbable accident...or perhaps it wasn't. Religious neutrality, I call it, because people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.As it is, I find anyone touting either theism or atheism as 'correct' and concluding that the other side is 'stupid and illogical' as both arrogant and rather hypocritical. That's why religious neutrality is objectively the best personal ideology and all others are wrong. (See what I did there?)Logic isn't relative. It was still illogical then for a lot of the reasons it is now.Illogical based on what? What are you basing this conclusion on? I fail to see how a Higher Power setting Earth up for us is any less logical than a massive release of energy somehow, against all odds, making a perfect planet for millions of different forms of life to prosper on.
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 09:25:02 PMQuote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 09:18:05 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 08:49:47 PMQuote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 08:29:59 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 06:33:53 PMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.>assuming god existsThere's your problem.Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?I'm saying blindly dismissing a distinct possibility as 'illogical' based on the grounds that 'it sounds illogical' is just as bad as blindly believing in a concept just because it's in a book that's supposed to be holy.Two thousand years ago, not believing in a creator deity was considered laughably illogical. Two thousand years from now, odds are there will be some other belief and our current idea of the Big Bang or Big Crunch or whatever it's called this week will be considered the same. It's why I've never settled on any particular belief. Until I die, I won't know if there is or isn't a creator deity/pantheon, and I'll likely never be given conclusive proof either way. Perhaps the universe was just a happy, astronomically improbable accident...or perhaps it wasn't. Religious neutrality, I call it, because people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.As it is, I find anyone touting either theism or atheism as 'correct' and concluding that the other side is 'stupid and illogical' as both arrogant and rather hypocritical. That's why religious neutrality is objectively the best personal ideology and all others are wrong. (See what I did there?)Logic isn't relative. It was still illogical then for a lot of the reasons it is now.Illogical based on what? What are you basing this conclusion on? I fail to see how a Higher Power setting Earth up for us is any less logical than a massive release of energy somehow, against all odds, making a perfect planet for millions of different forms of life to prosper on.There is evidence of a big bang, which we can make accurate predictions with, while there is not of a divine being.
Our planet isn't perfect. Most of it is inhospitable for humans without technology. The poles and Antarctica, deserts, salty oceans, etc. 99% of all known life has gone extinct on this so called "perfect" planet.
It was a matter of probability. There's trillions of stars with their own solar systems in trillions of galaxies. It's not impossible for at least one planet to harbor some life.
Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 09:53:57 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 09:25:02 PMQuote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 09:18:05 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 08:49:47 PMQuote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 08:29:59 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 06:33:53 PMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.>assuming god existsThere's your problem.Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?I'm saying blindly dismissing a distinct possibility as 'illogical' based on the grounds that 'it sounds illogical' is just as bad as blindly believing in a concept just because it's in a book that's supposed to be holy.Two thousand years ago, not believing in a creator deity was considered laughably illogical. Two thousand years from now, odds are there will be some other belief and our current idea of the Big Bang or Big Crunch or whatever it's called this week will be considered the same. It's why I've never settled on any particular belief. Until I die, I won't know if there is or isn't a creator deity/pantheon, and I'll likely never be given conclusive proof either way. Perhaps the universe was just a happy, astronomically improbable accident...or perhaps it wasn't. Religious neutrality, I call it, because people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.As it is, I find anyone touting either theism or atheism as 'correct' and concluding that the other side is 'stupid and illogical' as both arrogant and rather hypocritical. That's why religious neutrality is objectively the best personal ideology and all others are wrong. (See what I did there?)Logic isn't relative. It was still illogical then for a lot of the reasons it is now.Illogical based on what? What are you basing this conclusion on? I fail to see how a Higher Power setting Earth up for us is any less logical than a massive release of energy somehow, against all odds, making a perfect planet for millions of different forms of life to prosper on.There is evidence of a big bang, which we can make accurate predictions with, while there is not of a divine being.Which does nothing to actively disprove the concept of a creator deity. Perhaps the Big Bang was set off by a specific being, for instance. Or maybe it just happened for reasons we can only speculate. Neither of us know, and we'll probably never know.
Okay, perhaps not perfect. But it's at least enough to support millions of forms of life, still against all odds.
But still highly improbable that even one planet in the universe would have the right atmosphere, the right distance from a star, the right biospherical conditions for so many forms of life to thrive on. Compare an atomic bomb blowing up a bunch of scrap and forming a house.
There's no evidence that the creation of the one planet we're aware of that contains life was deliberately conceived by a divine (or not-so-divine) being, but dismissing the idea entirely is exactly as ignorant as clinging to it.
There's no evidence
It doesn't have to disprove it, it's never been proven.
Christians haven't disproven Greek mythology or Islam either.
There's no knowledge to gain from believing it.
It's not against all odds, there's hundreds of trillions of stars with several planets existing for billions of years.
But not impossible. NASA has observed several planets that are in the goldie locks zone and have similar atmospheres as ours. The analogy of the atom bomb is similar to the watch maker and just as fallacious. You're comparing a non-natural process to a natural one. The big bang is far more complex than a nuke explosion.
QuoteThere's no evidenceThat's my point. Without substantial evidence, it's pointless to base your life on it.
but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.
people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.
Which does nothing to actively disprove the concept of a creator deity.
There doesn't have to be. It's not a matter of science, it's a matter of personal belief.
That's what I base my personal belief on - all possibilities are equally possible
Like, it's one order of improbability that Jesus will come back in 50 years. It's a whole other order of improbability that he'll come back in 50 years to Massachusetts.
If you think all possibilities are equally possible, you have no way of justifying your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.