On 23 Mar 2013 at 7:07am psdster wrote:
Dear Bloke dont agree with me fine but dont suggest I talk BS becaude thats not mature and reason ed rebate. My head hasn't't gone to mush either. . I was just saying if you can imagine a concept of god which you can then you can disbelieve it. I agree religion is on shaky theological ground but it does not make it a bad thing in itself.
I have a book which is a serious of debates between a scientist and a philosopher I forget the name but I will post it, that deals with the fundamentals of the science v religion debate.
I am not qualified as I clearly get on people's wick.
Jesus did exist he claimed to be the son of God our religion stands on thst fact.
Enjoy your atheism I see arka the hummanist buriel people have opened up shop in lewes
Only in Lewes it makes me think how sad to say goodbye to a loved on forever.
On 23 Mar 2013 at 9:59am Deelite wrote:
Padster, to reiterate:
You said:
You can't disprove God exists
I said:
Nope. I can't.
I can't disprove invisible pink elephants either.
Do you know for a fact that invisible pink elephants don't exist? Can you prove it? I'll wait.
You said:
i cant prove pink elephants that are invisible but i can imagine a pink elephant that can turn itself invisible. I cant prove it nor can you.
-------------------
You've spectacularly missed the point (and at the same time made my point). It's not possible disprove the infinite number of things that might exist (like invisible ping, green, blue or even indigo invisible elephants!). So, what should you do? Believe in all of them or believe in non of them till you can be certain one does exist? You have chosen to believe in one thing that has not been proven to exist, (a God of some sort). In another Universe you might have well chosen to believe in invisible pink elephants (had others told they existed?).
Rather than believe in all things that don't exist it seems infinitely more sane to choose to believe in things that demonstrably exist or can be proven to exist. The main purpose of science is to discover stuff and provide proof of their existence. To have faith is to believe that things exist when there is no proof that they do. If their existence had been written down though the ages it's not beyond imagining that you could as easily believe in invisible pink elephants as much as believe in God.
Supposedly we live in enlightened times. Religion has had its day. It's about time the human race grew up and moved on.
On 23 Mar 2013 at 10:01am Bloke wrote:
Dear Padster who can't even consistently spell ones name right. You do talk BS, in fact, not just normal BS, your BS is so ridiculous and vacuous you sound like a deranged monkey at a keyboard. You sound like you use religion as a crutch or is it just that you are crutch. You can't have reasoned debate with a primate so don't bother you BSmonger
On 23 Mar 2013 at 10:04am Clifford wrote:
Bloke, you are cruel. Remember Padster and psdster were created in the image of their god. And doesn't it show?
On 23 Mar 2013 at 10:08am Deelite wrote:
And he's cruel?
On 23 Mar 2013 at 10:48am Southover Queen wrote:
Beautifully put, Deelite. I concur completely.
Shall we move onto the Ontological Argument? That'll be fun.
On 23 Mar 2013 at 11:31am someone else wrote:
I'll throw y'all my own crazy thesis, just for a laugh. Here's how it goes:
The existence of religion proves the non-existence of God.
Religion tells us that God is omniescent and omnipresent. We are all equal before God and God is equally connected to all of us. Also, God is perfect and all men, though created in his image, are imperfect.
So how is it conceivable that a perfect God, who is omnipresent, would allow his word to be distorted: allowing it to be disseminated by men who are imperfect? It isn't. If there was a God, religion could serve no purpose, because he would be equally available to, and present in, all of us.
So religion can only have been invented by man.
QED. I'll get my coat.
On 23 Mar 2013 at 11:49am Compass wrote:
Look this is all waffle , no one knows and when we are in a position to find out it .....well it will be too late . Also applies to any ontological argument .
On 23 Mar 2013 at 12:00pm Compass wrote:
KD, how original. Everyone else leave Padster alone we all have our little crutch don't we.
On 23 Mar 2013 at 12:07pm Bloke wrote:
Compass, you and padster might have a little crutch, mine's massive and the girlies love it!
On 23 Mar 2013 at 12:18pm Southover Queen wrote:
Whereas yours is having nothing even slightly interesting to add to the conversation.
On 23 Mar 2013 at 12:19pm Compass wrote:
Bloke, you haven't by chance got a red sports car as well !
On 23 Mar 2013 at 12:21pm Deelite wrote:
Who are you referring to SQ?
On 23 Mar 2013 at 12:27pm Compass wrote:
KD, do stop barking.
On 23 Mar 2013 at 12:37pm Southover Queen wrote:
Sorry, Deelite - at "Kinright Doggy", although I suspect we've got an impostor claiming to be "bloke" as well. Tedious tossers.
On 23 Mar 2013 at 1:06pm Deelite wrote:
The post above was not by me.
On 23 Mar 2013 at 1:56pm padster wrote:
I shall stop posting via my phone if it upsets some quite so much. As a fellow salesian i find your post really nasty and agressive Bloke, ( is thats spelt correctly?) i dont know where that came from. I never said you will burn in hell i mever said repent now or your soul will be dammed to hell, i just said i accept science yet i can happily be a RC and believe in the scientifice process as well. Tell me bloke you are involved in the skeptics in the elle do you insult people whi disagree with you face to face or do you behave in a more constrained fashion. I must say i find your words very hurtful but not to worry. I was going come to skeptics in the pub but i dont think i'll bother now.
Deelite once upon a time very eminant scientists believe if you put a glass air tight jar over a lit candle eventullay the flame would go out because combustion gave off a substance called phlogiston. AS science progressed we reralised that this is not true and the flame goes out because there is no more oxygen to burn. My point being that science only knows what it knows now , who knows what the future might hold maybe there are pink elephants maybe there is a god.
look you all believe what you want to believe but i thank you noe to gang up on me (deelite, SQ, Bloke) you seem like angry atheists and rude ones at that.
On 23 Mar 2013 at 2:06pm someone else wrote:
Padster - you'd like not to be abused and you change the topic title to suggest that atheists are sad and lonely? Riiiiight. If you're going to post pointless assertions without any evidential basis, are you OK with me proposing that all priests are paedophiles?
On 23 Mar 2013 at 2:48pm Southover Queen wrote:
Padster, I'm not angry, I have not insulted you or ganged up on you and I don't think I've posted anything nasty. I am also pretty convinced that "bloke" posting above isn't normal "bloke". Without registration it's all too easy for people to assume other people's names and I think that's probably what's happened here. It's a sad fact that our local crop of trolls think it's fun to upset people, and they don't much care how they go about it. They've clearly scored a hole in one as far as you're concerned.
On 23 Mar 2013 at 3:28pm padster wrote:
webbo please introduce registration or all you have is anarchy.
i have been insulted quite too many times on this forum as you u know i post only under this name.
I hate people who hide behind anonymity haven't got the balls to say things to my face.
losers.
On 23 Mar 2013 at 3:31pm padster wrote:
your not helpful SQ despite being polite.
On 23 Mar 2013 at 3:38pm padster wrote:
someonw else post what you like but beware what you say can get you in big trouble.
idiot
On 23 Mar 2013 at 4:20pm Do it wrote:
Yes panty padster, I need to change. You all need to start talking facts and identify yourselves in stead of revelling in you anonymity in the cesspool of lies.
On 24 Mar 2013 at 4:45pm wrote:
Appalling. Padster is obviously quite firm and passionate in his belief system. Though I myself am largely agnostic, I really don't think he deserves derision, shaming and steaming buckets of nasty for that. May your hatefulness haunt you.
On 24 Mar 2013 at 5:11pm rakeNixon Scraypes wrote:
There's a good video on youtube with reference to what this thread started as"the science delusion"by Rupert Sheldrake a TEDx Whiechapel lecture.He talks about the Big Bang as "give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest".He shows how science is as full of dogma as religion. It's very interesting if you're interested!
On 25 Mar 2013 at 3:35am Expat Two wrote:
The Big Bang isn't a bloody miracle, nobody except the religious sees it as a miracle like people who call childbirth a miracle when (to paraphrase Bill Hicks) it's no more a miracle than eating a burger that 6 hours later turns up as a floater in the toilet bowl. It's a seminal event extrapolated from the available evidence. If subsequent evidence shows up, a different model is formed to best fit.
You can't just identify similarities between religion & science and conclude they must be the same thing, that's nuts - of course there's a degree of dogma about empirical science as there is about politics, football fandom, iambic pentameter and a Baked Alaska recipe are you saying they're all religions too?
And do you know what Jesus said? He said in a way, yes they are
On 25 Mar 2013 at 5:19am psdster wrote:
Only god could love them.
On 25 Mar 2013 at 1:11pm brixtonbelle wrote:
Padster, whatever your religious affiliations, you have every right to hold them. This is a free society (last time I looked, allegedly) and we have a long tradition of tolerance and liberalism in this country. Please ignore the trolls and the haters. I'm an atheist, but I believe most religions and humanitarians hold many of the same values. Personally I find some of the 'new atheists' who espouse science and empirical evidence above all else to be somewhat lacking - they are the 'Spocks' of the modern world who seem to believe they are 'right' about everything if they argue it backed up by a sourced study from the New Scientist or 'logic'. (You can see a few of them at the 'Skeptics in the pub' debates, in fact some of pretty aggressive, a reason why I've stopped going.)
Organised religion has huge problems globally, but I think the question is one of power, not religion itself. Abuse of all sorts happens in institutions that are unaccountable and open to manipulators who use those institutions for their own ends - that includes sexual abuse, sexism, bullying, corruption, torture etc - often sanctioned by those who are supposed to protect the vulnerable - churches, charities, schools, governments etc. Child abuse is not limited to the Catholic Church but unfortunately the set up and secrecy of the RC church has allowed to seemingly flourish.
I'm in two minds about the anonymity issue. I'd be happy to register if it helps keep the trolls away but would still like a 'pen name' - as do many other forums.
On 25 Mar 2013 at 1:47pm Blip wrote:
Well said, BB. I am not an atheist, or even agnostic, but entirely agree with you.
And I think I remarked in a previous thread that the secularists were getting a bit strident. Methinks the atheist doth protest too much!
On 25 Mar 2013 at 7:49pm padster wrote:
i agree entirely with you BB well put.
On 25 Mar 2013 at 10:46pm Lewes Skeptic wrote:
Brixtonbelle wrote:
(You can see a few of them at the 'Skeptics in the pub' debates, in fact some of pretty aggressive, a reason why I've stopped going.)
We have never held a debate. I don't recognise your description at all. Which events did you attend BB?
On 26 Mar 2013 at 12:54pm brixtonbelle wrote:
Forgive me Skeptic, I should have said 'talks'. Usually followed by a heated 'debate' in the pub.
On 26 Mar 2013 at 4:29pm Lewes Skeptic wrote:
BB.
If there is an issue about SitP that you don't like I would like to hear about it. There is usually a good discussion in the bar after the event, but I've never seen a heated debate as such. I really would like to know which event you attended and why you no longer go. I don't recognise your description above re: " pretty aggressive" Spock types.
On 26 Mar 2013 at 4:50pm brxtonbelle wrote:
Sorry Skeptic, I'm not going to get involved in a discussion about this with you, I mentioned the Skeptics in passing, whilst making another point. I've corrected myself and moved on. Please don't try and turn what I've said into a sideshow about the Skeptics, it's not about them (or you).
On 26 Mar 2013 at 5:43pm Lewes Skeptic wrote:
Well I don't recognise your description so it seems like a drive-by attack to me. If you have an actual issue I would genuinely like to know about it.
If you want to discuss it Please email me at LewesSkeptic@LewesSkeptics.org
On 26 Mar 2013 at 7:59pm expat two wrote:
I'm more concerned about these 'new atheists' that show up a SitP, who have the nerve to refer to published empirical studies. I've never heard of this faction. I wouldn't mind signing up except I might not qualify, see - I've always been an atheist.
And why is 'logic' in inverted commas?
Are you saying logic isn't a valid route to understanding reality? 'Logic' isn't logic?
What should we use, a crystal ball? A koran?
If you don't espouse science and empirical study above all else, you're not an atheist, you're probably an agnostic.