0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
But theism does not endeavour to discover and find answers.
Neither does atheism then. Both extremes are holding a belief.I just disapprove of your way of combating religion by making unsubstantiated claims yourself. Each religion has an abundance of holes to chip away at, but disproving gods is impossible.
I never mentioned atheism. [...]What unsubstanciated claims? WAREWOLVES!?!?!
Neither are provableNor disprovableIt is the nature of non-existent things.
Atheism is not holding a belief, it's holding a disbelief.
No proof to either counter or support theism, therefore gods are non-existent? Sounds like atheism to me.
I guess we have different definitions of atheism then. I always thought of it as the belief in the non-existence of gods. Since gods can't be disproved using the scientific method, it requires a belief to hold that claim.
Do you believe in warewolves?
Warewolves can't be disproved using the scientific method.
1 - Warewolf example already given. Is it efficient to consider that any concievable non-existant being could exist? No it's not. It's most efficient to presume unless there is any evidence that none of them exist. No exceptions. Especially mythical men who look like santa-clause and are proclaimed by poorly educated people to have created the universe.
2 - It's called dramatic pacing.
...PC vs Mac is like AK47 vs M4A1...
Take into account that it is scientifically proven: Any system of axioms is either incomplete or inconsistent.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
The link I posted clearly states that your claim is not scientifically correct.Incomplete means that there is always something not included in your set of knowledge.Your "Yes." sounded like you either didn't bother reading or understanding it even though you're hooding under rationality.
I still think it's quite interesting to think about how such stuff could possibly exist without us knowing about it, as a fun thing to do when i'm bored, to keep my mood and brain activity up; in this case I can't really see your argument working.
Dick-swinging under the guise of rationality is ridiculous, spend your time thinking about things that matter.
Alright, it was described in a too simplified way. However, showing up MY mistake does not have an impact on the message, for I am convinced that the conditions are met. Here we have an "effective method" to decide about facts and existance.Even if I am mistaken and this theorem can not be used, still the phrase Mangled started with is narrow minded and can never be true for everything. It means shaping the reality according to your knowledge and denying anything you don't know about. Our knowledge is far more limited than reality is.
Well, I'm not agreeing with mangled at all. This thread is pretty pointless. I am completely unimpressed with Mangled's stance on this subject, as it seems to lack any real originality or respect for the subject matter given. This is why I'm with Rai-Dei. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with exploring religious thought, but it tends to attract people like mangled. The type of personality that thrives on spitting out another person's ideas to one-up another individual. I think Rai-Dei put it fine and there's nothing really more to add.
However, I did not mean to sleight your opinion by correcting you. I believe you to have more respect for the underlying issue at hand than mangled, however you were still misleading and I simply wished to clear it up. I do not believe we can apply Godel's theorem here as we have little clue to what axiomatic system Mangled is using other than it depends on classical two valued logic, which Godel's theorem relies on anyway as well. I also think you have not quite understood the definition of completeness, at least this is what I want to say, as it doesn't depend on the total knowledge of all things, simply what the truths the formal system can generate which must be provable under that system. Your definition makes it impossible for any system to ever be complete, which makes the definition kind of useless in this sense. I just wanted to clear this up because I feel this type of thinking leads to less creativity and ultimately a lesser understanding of logic's underpinnings.
Exploring religious thought obviously attracts people like you too. Here you are! One-upping me!
However, I agree with everything you said here.See Smegma, you are not so daft. But maybe you have an inferiority complex?
I don't think we agree with quite everything in this post, implicitly. I just feel your point could have been conveyed a bit better and explored more, in fact its a very interesting thing to think about. Its still a bit pointless as trolling threads like these could be spent on better discussion or even just thinking by yourself.
I want them to question their beliefs and I feel ridiculing them is a perfectly acceptable way of going about this. If I can make just one religious person feel like they are stupid for what they believe in then I've done my job.
What do you take me for?
Werewolf doesn't have an "a" in it.
QuoteWhat do you take me for? Angst that should've died out after puberty while still attempting to prove your mind on a dying forum, a forum generally inhabited by 13-15 year old's who are fixated on pwning. I wonder if you fear a more competent audience?Validation victory. If you are argued with here, you assume the other is less intelligent/less enlightened than yourself, proving mastery. If you're agreed with here, you eat it up, building yourself as some sort of rational seer. A win-win of a miniscule and pathetic proportion.
