Current Events

TOPICS:

12/19/07

[vegetarianism]. [4]

12/18/07

Ice-caps? I think Grandad told me about them.

12/18/07

NEWS: Dear Democrats, Your Congressional Leaders Suck Balls [2]

12/18/07

NEWS: Asshole Fuckface Roundup: Strike Edition #2! [5]

12/17/07

Saying Sorry to Aboriginal Australians

emotedcreations

12/17/07

Reid pulls FISA act from Senate

12/17/07

Mad Money Ron Paul and Abolishing the Federal Reserve

12/16/07

NEWS: Asshole Fuckface Roundup #23 [13]

12/16/07

NEWS: Wil Wheaton's Geek in Review: For Those About to Rock

12/15/07

A Brief History Lesson

12/15/07

NEWS: Pelosi Is A Worthless, Compromised Piece Of Shit [6]

12/14/07

NEWS: Dude Loves Fuckin Boys But Hates A Gay Boat [3]

12/14/07

NEWS: Tuesday Tasting: When Good Things Go Wrong

12/12/07

NEWS: Tuesday Tasting: Second Life, CyberLove, And Bluetooth Bracelets

12/12/07

NEWS: Saturday Morning Feel-Good Story: Warcraft Saves Children from Moose [2]

12/11/07

NEWS: Asshole Fuckface Roundup #24 [4]

12/11/07

what Iranian nukes? [2]

12/11/07

10 year old girl agrees to be gang raped. [2]

12/10/07

NEWS: What Up Baghdad? [4]

12/9/07

NEWS: Rage Boy Is Actually A Nice Boy [3]

12/9/07

NEWS: I Miss The Old Made Up Scandals [2]

12/7/07

12/7/07

America's Hero sent to Jail

12/6/07

NEWS: On the Annihilation of Stars that Might Have Been [2]

12/6/07

NEWS: When Turning Rock Band Up to Eleven Goes Wrong [4]

12/6/07

NEWS: One Democratic Asshole, A Bunch of Republican Assholes [2]

fountainofdreams

12/6/07

NEWS: Those Are Some Bad-Ass Dolphins [3]

12/5/07

Hilarity... [2]

12/5/07

12/5/07

NEWS: CNN Turns A Presidential Debate Into A Fucking Joke [5]

12/4/07

NEWS: 31 Days To Iowa, GOP Style [2]

12/4/07

Ahmadinejad lobbies neighbors for Gulf pacts

12/2/07

Evel Knievel is no longer with us.

12/2/07

Dude walks to Impeach

12/1/07

NEWS: Robotics Moving in a Direction I Find Borderline Uncomfortable [2]

12/1/07

NEWS: Japan's Sexy Geeky Boarding School Cafes [2]

11/30/07

New Zealand: No Fatties

11/30/07

NEWS: Can We Impeach Now? [8]

11/30/07

ADMINISTRATION torpedoed Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse, missed.

11/30/07

A secret life..

PAGE:

1 ...

80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84

... 484

retweet

NEWS: Asshole Fuckface Roundup #24

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost

October 2006

DEC 09, 2007 07:41 PM

I are a

wereduck

I'm lost

July 2007

DEC 09, 2007 07:43 PM

Zarth said:

we3_pirate said:

Zarth said:

varukasalt said:
I believe in freedom for people, not corporations. Nice try, though. I'm not really into the whole anarchy thing.

My friend, I'm afraid you've run afoul of:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Damn it all! You ruined the MAGIC!

That's what I do. I murder joy.

At least I had a good run before ing.

Chainlink

Key West, FL

August 2005

DEC 09, 2007 07:57 PM

we3_pirate said:

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:

guitargeek said:
When, oh when will our species evolve beyond the need for imaginary friends?

If it can be proven beyond all doubt that there isn't a divine being, maybe.

Frankly, there isn't definitive proof either way, and the structure of religion, which is faith in the absence of proof (much like how our judicial system is supposed to declare innocence in the absence of proof of guilt), is such that it is up to non-believers to prove it. By proof, I mean actual, scientific evidence that says that there is no such thing, not the standard hypothetical "If God exists, then why does he let blah blah blah happen" that is often used in arguments against the existence of God. And, to get this out of the way, the theory of evolution is not proof of God's non-existence, because evolution doesn't explain what happened in the beginning, but how we have gotten to where we are (which makes the religious far-right's denial and criticism of it all the more nutty.). It is a mechanism, not a cause.

Of course, even in the event of absolute proof, there will be some who will deny it. It is human nature, after all.

You could have just said you can't prove a negative.

Generally the burden of proof is on the claimant anyway.
Religion doesn't seem to do a very good job of providing even evidence that a God truly exists, let alone proof.
Religion has it that belief in God is based upon faith, not evidence or proof. So it's apples and oranges right from the starting line.

Thank you. You've summed up what I was saying better than I did. I tend to ramble.

I'll agree with the burden of proof statement. In this case, though, neither side can be certain, like with Shroedinger's cat.

I would like to add however that in a court of law we use a standard called Reasonable Doubt.
While technically it is said to be impossible to prove a negative and the burden of proof is upon the claimant I also believe that it is quite possible to disprove the existence of ( the Biblical, Christian at the least) God beyond a reasonable doubt.
The God described by the bible is a hogwash of self contradictory attributes. To borrow an analogy, I don't need to have omnipotence to recognize that cubic spheres cannot exist. The properties of a cube and the properties of a sphere are mutually exclusive. Therefore cubic spheres do not exist.
And so with God, for me, without a reasonable doubt.

Formus

Milwaukee, WI

May 2007

DEC 09, 2007 08:01 PM

varukasalt said:
I are a

WIN.

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost

October 2006

DEC 09, 2007 08:07 PM

U got your own issues.

Formus

Milwaukee, WI

May 2007

DEC 09, 2007 08:14 PM

varukasalt said:
U got your own issues.

That's completely irrelevant. I wish I could flag it. All I'll say about that is that it's important in those instances for someone to play devil's advocate, so that there's some kind of reality to ground yourself in instead of succumbing to only your emotions without any rational thought involved. I tried to start an actual debate about what had happened instead of the internet thread witch hunt which was the inevitability of such an emotionally charged post.

Moving on.

wereduck

I'm lost

July 2007

DEC 09, 2007 08:20 PM

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:
If it can be proven beyond all doubt that there isn't a divine being, maybe.

Frankly, there isn't definitive proof either way, and the structure of religion, which is faith in the absence of proof (much like how our judicial system is supposed to declare innocence in the absence of proof of guilt), is such that it is up to non-believers to prove it. By proof, I mean actual, scientific evidence that says that there is no such thing, not the standard hypothetical "If God exists, then why does he let blah blah blah happen" that is often used in arguments against the existence of God. And, to get this out of the way, the theory of evolution is not proof of God's non-existence, because evolution doesn't explain what happened in the beginning, but how we have gotten to where we are (which makes the religious far-right's denial and criticism of it all the more nutty.). It is a mechanism, not a cause.

Of course, even in the event of absolute proof, there will be some who will deny it. It is human nature, after all.

You could have just said you can't prove a negative.

Generally the burden of proof is on the claimant anyway.
Religion doesn't seem to do a very good job of providing even evidence that a God truly exists, let alone proof.
Religion has it that belief in God is based upon faith, not evidence or proof. So it's apples and oranges right from the starting line.

Thank you. You've summed up what I was saying better than I did. I tend to ramble.

I'll agree with the burden of proof statement. In this case, though, neither side can be certain, like with Shroedinger's cat.

I would like to add however that in a court of law we use a standard called Reasonable Doubt.
While technically it is said to be impossible to prove a negative and the burden of proof is upon the claimant I also believe that it is quite possible to disprove the existence of ( the Biblical, Christian at the least) God beyond a reasonable doubt.
The God described by the bible is a hogwash of self contradictory attributes. To borrow an analogy, I don't need to have omnipotence to recognize that cubic spheres cannot exist. The properties of a cube and the properties of a sphere are mutually exclusive. Therefore cubic spheres do not exist.
And so with God, for me, within a reasonable doubt.

And so it goes for you, and that's fine. I'm of the position that the Bible is not at all literal, because if such a divine being were to contact humans, then the communication would have to be cryptic/metaphorical in order for it to relate to us. I don't expect anyone else to believe as I do, but I have my beliefs.

As for the contradictions: our universe is one of contradictions at its most fundamental levels. On the massive, cosmic scale, we have Relativity and Newtonian physics, which operate one way, but when broken down to the quantum level, the rules operate the exact opposite. However, we know that both Newtonian and Quantum physics are correct within their own rules, which begs the question: how can two contradictory things co-exist without everything coming apart? Religion is even more abstract, so this analogy isn't perfect, but it's something I consider when doing my weekly navel-gazing.

Chainlink

Key West, FL

August 2005

DEC 09, 2007 08:27 PM

we3_pirate said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:
If it can be proven beyond all doubt that there isn't a divine being, maybe.

Frankly, there isn't definitive proof either way, and the structure of religion, which is faith in the absence of proof (much like how our judicial system is supposed to declare innocence in the absence of proof of guilt), is such that it is up to non-believers to prove it. By proof, I mean actual, scientific evidence that says that there is no such thing, not the standard hypothetical "If God exists, then why does he let blah blah blah happen" that is often used in arguments against the existence of God. And, to get this out of the way, the theory of evolution is not proof of God's non-existence, because evolution doesn't explain what happened in the beginning, but how we have gotten to where we are (which makes the religious far-right's denial and criticism of it all the more nutty.). It is a mechanism, not a cause.

Of course, even in the event of absolute proof, there will be some who will deny it. It is human nature, after all.

You could have just said you can't prove a negative.

Generally the burden of proof is on the claimant anyway.
Religion doesn't seem to do a very good job of providing even evidence that a God truly exists, let alone proof.
Religion has it that belief in God is based upon faith, not evidence or proof. So it's apples and oranges right from the starting line.

Thank you. You've summed up what I was saying better than I did. I tend to ramble.

I'll agree with the burden of proof statement. In this case, though, neither side can be certain, like with Shroedinger's cat.

I would like to add however that in a court of law we use a standard called Reasonable Doubt.
While technically it is said to be impossible to prove a negative and the burden of proof is upon the claimant I also believe that it is quite possible to disprove the existence of ( the Biblical, Christian at the least) God beyond a reasonable doubt.
The God described by the bible is a hogwash of self contradictory attributes. To borrow an analogy, I don't need to have omnipotence to recognize that cubic spheres cannot exist. The properties of a cube and the properties of a sphere are mutually exclusive. Therefore cubic spheres do not exist.
And so with God, for me, within a reasonable doubt.

And so it goes for you, and that's fine. I'm of the position that the Bible is not at all literal, because if such a divine being were to contact humans, then the communication would have to be cryptic/metaphorical in order for it to relate to us. I don't expect anyone else to believe as I do, but I have my beliefs.

As for the contradictions: our universe is one of contradictions at its most fundamental levels. On the massive, cosmic scale, we have Relativity and Newtonian physics, which operate one way, but when broken down to the quantum level, the rules operate the exact opposite. However, we know that both Newtonian and Quantum physics are correct within their own rules, which begs the question: how can two contradictory things co-exist without everything coming apart? Religion is even more abstract, so this analogy isn't perfect, but it's something I consider when doing my weekly navel-gazing.

Clearly there is a whole lot of metaphor and analogy in the book, but if you believe the Bible is not at all literal then you are pretty much throwing it all out the window and making your own shit up anyway so, um have fun with that.

Formus

Milwaukee, WI

May 2007

DEC 09, 2007 08:29 PM

Chainlink said:
if you believe the Bible is not at all literal then you are pretty much throwing it all out the window and making your own shit up anyway

True enough.

wereduck

I'm lost

July 2007

DEC 09, 2007 08:42 PM

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:
If it can be proven beyond all doubt that there isn't a divine being, maybe.

Frankly, there isn't definitive proof either way, and the structure of religion, which is faith in the absence of proof (much like how our judicial system is supposed to declare innocence in the absence of proof of guilt), is such that it is up to non-believers to prove it. By proof, I mean actual, scientific evidence that says that there is no such thing, not the standard hypothetical "If God exists, then why does he let blah blah blah happen" that is often used in arguments against the existence of God. And, to get this out of the way, the theory of evolution is not proof of God's non-existence, because evolution doesn't explain what happened in the beginning, but how we have gotten to where we are (which makes the religious far-right's denial and criticism of it all the more nutty.). It is a mechanism, not a cause.

Of course, even in the event of absolute proof, there will be some who will deny it. It is human nature, after all.

You could have just said you can't prove a negative.

Generally the burden of proof is on the claimant anyway.
Religion doesn't seem to do a very good job of providing even evidence that a God truly exists, let alone proof.
Religion has it that belief in God is based upon faith, not evidence or proof. So it's apples and oranges right from the starting line.

Thank you. You've summed up what I was saying better than I did. I tend to ramble.

I'll agree with the burden of proof statement. In this case, though, neither side can be certain, like with Shroedinger's cat.

I would like to add however that in a court of law we use a standard called Reasonable Doubt.
While technically it is said to be impossible to prove a negative and the burden of proof is upon the claimant I also believe that it is quite possible to disprove the existence of ( the Biblical, Christian at the least) God beyond a reasonable doubt.
The God described by the bible is a hogwash of self contradictory attributes. To borrow an analogy, I don't need to have omnipotence to recognize that cubic spheres cannot exist. The properties of a cube and the properties of a sphere are mutually exclusive. Therefore cubic spheres do not exist.
And so with God, for me, within a reasonable doubt.

And so it goes for you, and that's fine. I'm of the position that the Bible is not at all literal, because if such a divine being were to contact humans, then the communication would have to be cryptic/metaphorical in order for it to relate to us. I don't expect anyone else to believe as I do, but I have my beliefs.

As for the contradictions: our universe is one of contradictions at its most fundamental levels. On the massive, cosmic scale, we have Relativity and Newtonian physics, which operate one way, but when broken down to the quantum level, the rules operate the exact opposite. However, we know that both Newtonian and Quantum physics are correct within their own rules, which begs the question: how can two contradictory things co-exist without everything coming apart? Religion is even more abstract, so this analogy isn't perfect, but it's something I consider when doing my weekly navel-gazing.

Clearly there is a whole lot of metaphor and analogy in the book, but if you believe the Bible is not at all literal then you are pretty much throwing it all out the window and making your own shit up anyway so, um have fun with that.

Oh, shit. Did I actually write "not at all"? Sleep deprivation has led to me starting my own religion.

EDIT: On second thought, starting my own religion sounds pretty cool at this point. If only I can convert some celebrities like that L. Ron fella...

Formus

Milwaukee, WI

May 2007

DEC 09, 2007 09:05 PM

we3_pirate said:
On second thought, starting my own religion sounds pretty cool at this point. If only I can convert some celebrities like that L. Ron fella...

You could convert his corpse to mulch to help your flowers grow with the aid of the all-powerful Xenu, Lord of the Galaxy!

Ascanius

USA

October 2006

DEC 09, 2007 11:19 PM

Formus said:

we3_pirate said:
On second thought, starting my own religion sounds pretty cool at this point. If only I can convert some celebrities like that L. Ron fella...

You could convert his corpse to mulch to help your flowers grow with the aid of the all-powerful Xenu, Lord of the Galaxy!

I think the Mormons already did.

Vidalia

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

DEC 10, 2007 11:47 AM

Anybody who thinks that god wants them to govern a country worries me.

wereduck

I'm lost

July 2007

DEC 10, 2007 05:07 PM

Formus said:

we3_pirate said:
On second thought, starting my own religion sounds pretty cool at this point. If only I can convert some celebrities like that L. Ron fella...

You could convert his corpse to mulch to help your flowers grow with the aid of the all-powerful Xenu, Lord of the Galaxy!

I think the Mormons already did.

Damn them for ruining my new plan for world domination.

strndniowa

Grimes, IA

May 2007

DEC 11, 2007 08:02 PM

Formus said:

strndniowa said:
We have people who say that the old testament doesn't exist....we have people who claim evolution doesn't exist, and then we have people who swear WMD's did/ do or will someday exist....why don't we put these people in an imaginary room...lets call it Auschwitz, and flood it with imaginary gas...and see what happens...because of course that was imaginary...the Nazi's were actually a fun loving group you would like to have over for a picnic.....they never actually did anything, well, wrong...like trying to kill an entire people...

Uh...

What can I say...you were wrong...it wasn't the sky falling...just a domestic spy satellite

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4