April 23, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.13 has been released.
News: February 3, 2024: The February '24 Report is up.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
This is masterful cooked starfish genital soup mixed with exceptionally minced weed and exceptionally minced plump helmets. In the soup are images of starfish in exceptionally cooked pasta, the starfish are screaming in agony.agony or pleasure?
So this means that Toady is god!I'm in... as long as we keep the cat slaughtering morals in place.
I'm starting a new religion. Dwarftheism!
Not sure what you're getting at with "when", "where", and "if"...QuoteEverything in the universe could have always existed without anyone creating it at all.
At which point there is no "if". Only a "when" and a "where". Normality would be normality but everything becomes correct.QuoteIgnorance is a two way street.Good for a LOL.
And you realize that to find an answer a scientist must first perform a series of test that disprove any other logical possibilities? Yeah. You realize that they disproved the flatness of Earth, something previously accepted as fact even though no one tried to disprove the roundness of the Earth? You should. Where the hell in what I said did I make out that what people thought was how things are?No. Science only requires that you prove your theorem. You may disprove another theorem on the way there, but your goal is to try to prove that your guess is the right one... not that another is the wrong one. If you think science is solely to discredit everything, you are no better than the Atheists you claim are "attacking" religion. Ignorance is a two way street.
You realize that I did not use the words "big bang"? You realize that there would have to be some point where everything was produced, big bang being the start or not?No... there doesn't. Everything in the universe could have always existed without anyone creating it at all. You formulated the explanation that everything MUST have been created and discredit any other explanation. You formulated a guess, never tested it, and accept it as truth.
You realize that belief doesn't automatically refer to omnipotent beings? You realize that small children will believe there are monsters under their beds, even if no one has told them such?Children are taught about these monsters through television, movies and stories told to them by parents and other children. Have you ever stopped to watch cartoons? There are some that depict "bad things" lurking in dark places. The human brain is good at putting things together to form what it thinks are valid solutions to the evidence it has at hand. It's kind of like science... in fact, it is science. Using the evidence at hand to formulate a guess to what that sound was under your bed. It doesn't immediately go to find out what's NOT under the bed. You ARE like the child with the monster under the bed. Your brain tells you that this thing MUST exist because it's the only thing that explains all the evidence you have for the situation at hand. EXCEPT... you shun science thinking that it's only purpose is to disprove "God" and you fail to use it to try to prove that he does. (Yes, there are people of religious note that do use Science for this purpose...)
You realize that in my first post I already said religious people can't find tangible evidence of God's existence either? So that, in part, you just agreed with me?I never said I disagree. I just don't believe in "God" and I feel that I need to prove that something exists using the scientific method. Not use science to disprove something that someone's brain has formulated as their answer to it all. I don't have any evidence to prove "God" exists, therefore it doesn't.
The fact that individuals are born similar yet slightly different from their parents is perfectly obvious, and I do believe even in Moses' time people were already breeding livestock... and breeding dogs for specific purposes.
Religion is not ridiculous. Humans have a natural tendency to want something to believe. It's a common reasoning behind why we even have religion in the first place. It's also part of why Obama did so well.Ah, this is where I disagree. I was raised in a non-religious manner. I have no belief whatsoever that any form of a "God" exists. I fully feel that humans want to believe because they were taught to believe. You are raised as a child to think that good things will come your way as if by magic. If our children were taught the truth (that we cannot and will not know) you will see religion disappear in a record breaking time. I also fully believe we have religion because some leaders thought it would be a good way to control stupid people and keep them complacent. What better way to control the attitudes of people than to place the "fear of God" into them. I don't think it's coincidence that all religions follow the same basic guidelines either. It's taken decades for the leaders and kings to come up with a winning combination of gods and lessons that people will believe.
God, if he does exist, could be described as the programmer of the universe.If that is the case, "God" could have been no more mortal than you or I. There's no evidence that such a being still exists, or did exist. I still believe that the Universe is infinite and the big bang evidence points to some cataclysmic event, but not the creation of our part of space.
If you are an atheist, why do you care what other people believe? Well? Find for me something that PROVES religion is wrong, and then you can say that those who believe in a religion are wrong. Until then, shut up.I care because religion is used as a tool to control people and forge the will of religious leaders to all men. Before the other thread was locked (The non-Atheism thread) I pasted laws that state that no non-believer may hold office of civil job for some states. Some of them even deny the right to testify in court. I'd say those laws affect us all, not just the religious ones. They've weaseled there way into politics to gain an advantage. It's like Democracy gone bad. Get enough people behind the idea and you too can control the world and it's people. Once you are there, you can genocide whoever else remains.
Oh, and the thing about an invisible pink unicorn: If it is invisible, it has no color. Therefore that specific thing does not exist. On top of that, it is possible to move through that spot and no detectable respiratory byproducts can be detected (it doesn't even make a sound).If you heard it make a sound, you'd be dead. The sounds it would make are so overwhelming that any human that hears them would be vaporized by the sheer force of them. We also know that it's pink because we are formed with his skin and our insides are pink.
Yes, you are mocking religion. Your "straight and to the point" way of talking, as you put it, is not really straight and to the point but rather fairly mocking and aggressive, hence why people get angry about what you are saying. It's hard not to be mocking when you call a large number of people's beliefs ridiculous when you have no tangible reason to say that.So is it not considered mocking or aggressive to cast out non-believers and deny them from holding office or presiding over those that would be religious? (See state laws above) Religious people have no tangible reason to say that there is a "God" as well.
Science is about disproving things, not proving. The idea of being able to do some of the things that happen in some popular sci-fis is somewhat ridiculous, but there are some things we cannot disprove the feasibility of (faster than light travel - it could be that we just don't know the easy way to do it, but looking at our current technology, it's ridiculous). If you claim to have any real knowledge about this whole discussion, you must realize that, and accept that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong. Not the other person (while it is, of course, possible that they may be wrong).And you have to realize that you may be wrong. And very much are. Science is about finding answers. A scientist comes up with an idea and tests to see if it's possible. If you believe Science is about disproving things, we wouldn't be living in America right now because the sailors would have fallen off the Earth and not found the East Indies. We would still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and someone's crazy idea that we might revolve around the sun would never had been explored.
You realize that it could be said that everthing just exploding out of a point in nothing spontaneously is ridiculous without some driving force, right? Has any one said that?There are several theorists trying to prove what I stated above. That the "Big Bang" wasn't creation, but continuation.
Hey, guys...Next time he should create a thread that doesn't have "Atheism Thread" in the title if he doesn't wish to talk about Atheism. Maybe, just maybe, he could put a topic of conversation in there to direct the conversation to whatever means he desires.Post here if you want to say that you're avoiding the Atheism Thread because you know it won't help anyone or change anyone's mind, and if it did, it still wouldn't help anyone.
Like me.
I've been trying to steer this topic to discussing the Atheist thread, and instead, this is turning into another Atheist thread. I want PTTG?? to decide, but honestly, I would think that this thread has gone beyond what PTTG?? intended, and that PTTG?? should lock this.
Want to hear something disturbing? In some American states, Atheists can't run for office.From a quick search:
it might be a suprise for you, but christians do not exactly aim at making it as hard as possible for non beliversNot enforceable Constitutionally, but those of religious background definitely put them in the books.
if that was the case, they would already have done that
And they'll pass laws that benefit them while making an Atheists life harder. It's been proven. The idea sounds great, but in practice it never works.QuoteSo if you want to criticize the Christians' intolerance, then be tolerant. Show them how it's done. Shame them with your tolerance. You won't have to say they're awful. They'll look awful by sheer comparison to you.
and this is why I am saying that you are just as bad as them. you hear them preaching, think they are annoying and tell them to shut up. eventhough they honestly want to help you.A rat just honestly wants to live it's life, eating up whatever source of food it finds. If it works it's way into a silo and starts eating all the seed... it's a pest. It doesn't matter what it's motives are. It's violating the farmer's right to live a healthy life free of rat born disease and infection. It may not feel that way. It's just trying to eat, but that doesn't make it NOT a pest.
if you are unable to think of it that way, then don't call yourself tolerant
they might be nuisances, but preachers do not deserve to be looked down upon as a pest
It really depends on the beliefs, and the leaders of the religious organization.QuoteI have several highly religious people as friends. I tell them my thoughts when the topic comes up and they give their viewpoint. We usually leave it at that.So they don't take their beliefs too seriously - preaching is usually a necessity in many religions. And followers of other, non-religious beliefs usually do this anyway, not because they have to, but because they want to. But I suppose I asked the wrong question.
The right one would be: can two opposite beliefs co-exist without one displacing another?
Screw this touchy feely crap about getting along. I say we all adopt my standard.I think you mean eo ipso ... but they are both very close :p
If you care enough about the insertion of religion into public life to join the discussion, ipso facto you are too close to the subject to discuss it objectively.
Please, can't we all just take a big bite of Jackrabbit's =<=Bland Cookie=>=, get along, and move back to more sane topics, like elf extermination or borgly borgles?As long as we don't discuss the extermination of borgly borgles. That's a sensitive issue.
