Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
dont generalize, we certainly dont say all muslims are evil because of 911, why do you generalize about all christians because of this video?
The location of my letterbox is unknowable unless you have a Heisenberg compensator :)
I thought it was time to throw in a Star Trek reference."
Oooh, don`t worry. I know exactly where it is.
I thought it was time to throw in a Star Trek reference.
It`s a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Not all hypotheses are non-falsifiable.--------------------------------------------------
Angilion! You know and I know that "that" post was destinguishing the diffrence between a hypothesis and a theory. Bringing falsifiability into the conversation would just have made it even more complicated and it wasnt relevant to the point.
And if I have to get into this debate about truths, non truths and the unknowable again, I swear I will hunt you down and shout abuse through your letter box! :-O
Just pointing that out!
If there was a god, this isn`t what he/she would want.
It`s a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Not all hypotheses are non-falsifiable.
By the same line of argument, the existence of everything has been "proven" if the universe is big enough. A moon made entirely out of cheese. A flat world on the shoulders of immense elephants riding on a turtle the size of a gas giant. You can`t say they absolutely cannot possibly exist anywhere in the universe, therefore they are "statistically proven" to exist.
In those few words, you show that you don`t understand any of the concepts you`re talking about: evolution, science and theory (in a scientific context).
Evolution is fact. You can even watch it happening if you want to.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has stood for a long time, which means that many people have tried and failed to disprove it. It`s not just a matter of might or might not be true.
Strictly speaking, a scientific theory can`t be proven true. Science doesn`t make claim to absolute truth for something as complex as a theory.
The one man citing the commandment "thou shalt haveno other gods before me" should probably do his homework about other religions before spouting off nonsense he knows nothing about. Al this man was trying to do was say a prayer. the guy didn`t know anything about his religion at all and just jumped to conclusions. Hinduism is peaceful religion that teaches tolerance and karma. Something Jesus seemed to know a lot about. Christians should behave more like their messiah instead of spewing hate and ignorance.
To quote Gandhi "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
that`s all i`m going to say.
Those people should be deeply ashamed of themselves. I had to go online to look this up because I don`t study theology or read up on it on a daily basis so excuse me for having to copy and paste this but "Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, and atheism, and its concept of God is complex and depends upon each particular tradition and philosophy. It is sometimes referred to as henotheistic (i.e., involving devotion to a single god while accepting the existence of others), but any such term is an overgeneralization."
I argue about anything with anyone, (hence the nickname) however the invisible super-being argument is, I agree, quite the most difficult to prove true or untrue. I don`t have an opinion on the status of truth on the being in the sky thing, although I have many others on the doctrine. One good argument I read (written by a convicted murderer actually but please try not to judge the argument by that) is this: if god exists and you are without sin, then if someone kills you, you are going to heaven; so the killer is doing them a favor. You got to love logical debate accor
Now this started about god + christians, so it`s high time it went back to christians. My original point stands. Dont argue about god with a christian. Neither party can prove or disprove the existance god / flying spagetti monster.
I WAS originally trying point out, if you want to argue with someone about their faith, dont go for the invisible sky being. Go for the religion and what it teaches. Pick out facts. Truths, as it is, that you can use to knock their house of cards down.
And on that note I`m going out to get drunk.
Not true or untrue..its the polar opposite of true. If you cant prove something as true but you cant prove it as untrue / not true either, it`s a hypothesis! It`s unknowable. In the case of a theory (Evolution for example) there is evidence that supports the theory (fossils, DNA etc) but we can not observe it happening in real time, ergo its a theory. You can not say that evolution is "not true" because it cant be proven as fact. It`s in the spectrum of unknowable/unprovable but to applie the value of "not true" to a theory is just wrong.
That is what you have done in that one original statement. You`ve now gone on to say "if it can`t be proven then it can not be said to be the truth".
Hence why I said "I would argue that you can indeed prove a theory to be true because by doing so you would have turned the theory into a fact."
Now I refer to your statement "And reading your last post I`ll give up!" we have now gathered the evidence to show this is untrue. :)
For the last time, a theory is nether true nor flase. As allready stated, if it had a value of true or false it wouldnt be a bloody theory!
No..the problem waffle, is your interpretation.
I`ll say it again..it might sink in!
A theory is neither true nor untrue for it`s given value.You define it as untrue since it can not be proven true. This is incorrect! Focusing on the "alien life" debate your clinging onto ( i really should have picked a better example), we can not know the truth untill we develop the technology to do so. You can not claim, as you allready have ("If you can`t prove it to be true, it is not true") without evidence eitherway.
A theory is neither! We can test the theory (i,.e listen for radio signals, send out deep space probes, examine meteorites) but we have no evidence eitherway. We have evidence that "may" support the theory (Google the WOW signal, Mars meteor etc) but it`s a theory until we are either visited or we vist all the other worlds out there.
So fo now, that theory is neither true nor untrue.Your defaulting theories to untrue >>
@ spankyjake - since truth is defined (loosely) as "a fact that has been verified" and facts are used to substantiate a theory in your nicely put definition, then I would argue that you can indeed prove a theory to be true because by doing so you would have turned the theory into a fact.
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
you cant undeniably prove a theory to be true...but its been repeatedly tested, and found to be true enough to be accepted
Now that is true... or is it? :)
Another example, a hypothesis "aliens live on a planet somewhere" ; is this true? Is this false? We can only know the answer by proving it, i.e. communicating, meeting, detecting them in some fashion - observation. So by observing this we gather evidence and can now say it is true. It is not true until we can prove it to be so, yes the aliens may still exist before we can prove it but we don`t know that till we prove it. Hence my comments about the definition of the word truth.
You`ve got no case to rest.
Point: You said, and I quote "If you can`t prove it to be true, it is not true. Show me one truth that cannot be proven and I will show you a theory"
Fine. Your words, as you said above, states a theory is "not true". So I`ll ask and perhaps you understand my point about what you are saying.
The theory of evolution:
A) True. (fact)B) Untrue. (fiction)C) Theory. (unknowable)
Seriously...a theory (and I think you really mean hypothesis) cant be considered true or untrue if you cant prove it eitherway.
As I said..your oversimplifying. Either you get what I`m saying or you dont..but a "theory" is not considered true/untrue in scientific circles.It remains a theory till proven eitherway. Creationists my claim evolution is untrue but a theory is neither true nor untrue! You cant prove it to be either...thus it remains a theory / unknowable. Slap bang in the middle of truth and untruth!
Tell that to my kitchen table. I know it`s there, this is the truth, my kitchen table exists. It is beyond a question of belief or theory, walk into it believing it`s not there and you will soon find out it is when you bang your leg. Truth and fact, theory and belief; these do not share the same definition. No matter how much you try to gray the argument, belief and theory are things which are unproven. Truths and facts are things that can be proven.
Oh and I AM very much an atheist. Unfortunetly for me I do get the other arguments and they have certain points. If I cant disprove something (again..we will say god) it means no matter what I belive and know to be fact, someone else can allways come along and say "but you cant prove it" thus the circular argument.
True, untrue and unknowable. Truth I`ll argue for, untruth I`ll fight against and unknowable (and I mean real unkowable stuff..not theorys with masses of evidence supporting them) I`ll avoid debates on from now on!
It is called a theory because they can`t prove it true with the evidence collected to far. If they ever collect enough evidence it will be a "truth", until then it is merely a theory. Hence why I said show me a truth that cannot be proven and I will show you a theory. I rest my case.
im sorry they are all idiots
I think what the other guy meant was, if you have a theory its not *considered* true (by everyone else), until you prove it.--------------------------------------------------
Thats not what I was getting at, nor in total, what I said. It`s a case of true, untrue and unknowable. It`s not black and white, which is what waffle247 is stating!
A theory isnt "untrue" no matter how certain groups wish to paint it. It has evidence to support it. Would yopu claim the theory of evolution is untrue? It`s a theory with strong evidence..all but proven in many peoples eyes..yet it is a theory. Waffles statements would define that theory as "untrue".
This is not the case! I`m not saying thats what waffle means , but it`s how is argument "could" be turned on its head!
I was simply pointin
When did the discerning ever begin with regards to the spiritual exactly?
An Atheist realizes that its impossible to disprove god, but goes on say that since the chance of god (as according to any religion in particular) is either zero or so low that its beneath consideration and irrelevant to his life, then his default reaction becomes "I believe there is no god".
I think what the other guy meant was, if you have a theory its not *considered* true (by everyone else), until you prove it.
Is this your belief? I myself prefer to live by objective truths because these can be proven to be true, a subjective truth is, by definition, not true until it has been objectively proven. By my existence I have proved your subjective truth to be flawed.
exactly my point.. the term "correct" suggests a fact or a truth, when there is no evidence to support this. They "believe" your friend was correct, but they have no evidence to support this. Yet these people (and probably many others) will go on to tell their children their beliefs are all true and it is only in recent years that people are able to question these beliefs without fear of being blown up by a bunch of loonies.
btw, i notice here people constantly harp on about `objective` truthes. We all live our lives on subjective truths that we neither understand or care to speculate about most of the time. We percieve the `objective` truths with our subjective selves and are unltimaely ruled by the minds in our hearts rather than the minds in our heads. No one has it over anyone here.
Wait, what? If I have theory, it`s not true till I prove it?
I think your getting a little confused there pal!What we know as fact (true) and fiction (untrue) is not the same as an untestable theory (unknowable). I simply used "life out there" as an example.
I`m simply pointing out to you, the existance of god or some supreme being is unknowable. I dont belive nor do I care.
Elements of organised religion however, which DO attribute values to to said unkowable entity, can be proven as either true or untrue...and mostly the later! My point is this..>>
Whoa there partner! I`m no fan of religion and as Ahteist as it gets.. but the "if you cant prove it, it`s not true" arguement? It wont work and to be honest, it`s not a worthy debate either because you can never win it. For example..I dont belive earth is the only planet with life on it in the universe, simply due to the infinite number of stars and planets out there. Now I dont revolve my life around my idiology like a christian or muslim for example, but do you see the point? I cant prove we are not alone in the universe but it dosnt mean its not true.
Perhaps, rather than focusing on god, something no one can prove or disprove no matter how it`s turned on it`s head, perhaps focus your attention directly on the religions and what they teach, themselves. Elements of those CAN be disproven. Sure, it wont change jack for some but it`s a far stonger footing to stand on!
Just something to think about..
They listen to our prayers, see " in god we trust" on american money, etc.
You cant sit quietly, christians, and be respectful of the fact that there are other people and religions on this planet for ONE MINUTE AND 38 SECONDS???
Especially online, you can never tell and it gets so freaking annoying.
I`m not pokerface, but I can answer your challenge:
The existence of Christianity.
In order for Christianity to exist, someone must have been preaching radical reform of Judaism, radical enough to split Judaism and start Christianity. That can be traced to about the right time.
Although what we call Christianity goes back to Paul (who wasn`t really called Paul), not Jesus (who wasn`t really called Jesus).
And find that there isn`t one, not directly.
You`ll find a lot of historians born after Jesus is supposed to have died reporting that Christians exist in their time and believe that Jesus existed, but that`s not the same thing. No-one is disputing the existence of Christians as early as the very late 1st century and no-one is disputing that Christians believe that Jesus existed, and that`s all that secular historical accounts prove. Although none of the early ones mention the name `Jesus`, of course, because that name didn`t exist back then.
Personally, I think there`s adequate evidence to support the existence of a person of unknown name who, just under 2000 years ago, preached a reform of Judaism radical enough to split Judaism and start a new religion.
But I don`t think it`s proven.
India is a vast and extremely varied country. It`s so varied that it`s debateable whether it is a single country at all. The idea that it has a single culture is silly.
Good point, well made.
Believe that some people are manipulating religious tension for their own ends?
Believe that *every* news source is completely lying?
Believe that religious persecution in the past justifies religious persecution in the present?
People, I give you, the flame war!
I`m also an atheist, but my point of view is a bit different. I am in favour of the seperation of church and state, so I am opposed to imposing a religious service on a session of a parliamentary body in an official parliament building.
And then the world goes on and nobody cares about stupid arguments that two insignificant people have had.
Anyway I have to go now, so carry on merrily with the flame war or something like that. Bye...
We pray to someoneBut when it`s said and doneIt`s really all the sameWith just a different name
I believe these things, but I don`t practice them AND I am upfront to everyone that I don`t practice them. And I don`t try to condemn people for doing something that goes against my beliefs.
way to be as intolerant and hateful as you said the man in the video was.
I already posted links for another guy on the secular history of Jesus. Scroll down a tad bit.
No, I wouldn`t say that I`m a hypocrite. The dictionary definition is `a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.` I state that while I believe these things, I don`t practice them.
I`m not even going to directly address your other statements because clearly you`re one of those people who thinks they`re hilarious and tries to argue all the wrong ways and just shows your immaturity. I`m sure you`re just trying to get a rise out of me. ;)
This is why so many people have moved away from religion as a whole.
I am not an atheist but I refuse to associate myself with any form of organized religion specifically because of this type of behavior.
Yeah me continent do be lacking them Free Speaches. But there be a lot of Dragons `ere. Aye matey.So do you also believe my continent has a capital? Do you know what is the official religion of my continent is?
Oh so you`re also a hypocrite then, nice of you to mention it?
Jesus - a hystorical figure? Care to elaborate? Know of any archaeological data of his existance. Or any documents from his time, in which he is mentioned? Or any historians from his time, that have mentioned him? Even when modern history claims Jesus exists, it also explictly says that almost nothing said in the gospels about him is true. So yeah - maybe his name wasn`t really Jesus - okay maybe he didn`t have any disciples - well yeah he wasn`t crucified - he was kinda of a douchebag actually - but there you go - he REAAAALY existed. Get it?
And also - about sarcasm - you`re doing it wrong.
A lot people like to say what you`re saying, but I bet you`d be ashamed and embarrassed to follow Jesus if he was alive in this day and age.
It`s actually [ quote ] TEXT HERE [ /quote ], without the spaces.
Not the best, but still shows secular knowledge of Jesus.
Those are all similar. Basically google `secular history of Jesus`.
And if you`re ever interested in a book, The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel is good.
Yes, it was rude. But everyday people are much, much worse. When I was younger I worked in fast food, and believe me, what customers will say to you for no reason is much worse than this.
Actually, yes, in India. They still execute people for witchcraft in India... The % of that country that is civilized i would put at about 5%. With maybe, MAYBE 10% of it`s population actually living in the civilized areas.
I could link to you some stories of men and women being publicly executed this year, not 200 years ago, for being accused of witchcraft...
Actually, though, I`m not one to talk. Even though you call me a religious fanatic, I don`t practice these beliefs. I fully believe that if I died right now, I`d go to hell. I don`t care if you call me delusional, I`ll throw it right back in your face...and we`ll both find out the truth, when we`re dead.
Unicorns? Hobbits? Oh my, how did you know that I structure my life on those fantasies! :heavy sarcasm intended: At least Jesus is a historical character, even if YOU don`t believe some of the things written about him.
But I am super curious how any of this makes me an `illiterate person`.
To all the p.u.s.s.y.a.s.s. "christians" who say, of that`s terrible! We need tolerance! The Golden Rule! That`s not what Jesus taught!
hjjkgdsnmaskjhfa you guys are idiots.
Jesus did not do the tolerance thing! Love, yes! Tolerance, no! That`s one of the problems with the Christian church today--they breed a `live and let live`, roll-over-and-take-it bunch of believers. You commenters seem to be sayers and definitely not doers.
This is not to say that I think Christians should be standing on the street corners with Repent signs or shoving it into people`s faces that they are going to hell, but I am proud(still shocked, though) that these people spoke out for what they firmly believe, because hey, you know what? They don`t want the world to listen to and believe that crap(yes I just called his religion crap! I`m sure you`ll do the same to me!). They`re ashamed of what our country`s become..and so am I.
Um...no. Do your research. http://nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
But I kinda feel sorry for the guy, even though I believe he`s been mislead(although I`m sure plenty of you would say the same about me).
I`m pretty shocked that there are still people willing to stand up against it...even though I don`t have much of a problem with it.
In other words, I think many people who are religious extremists would just be some kind of other extremists if religion weren`t around.
Remove the religion, and whaddya got? (hint: it`s better)
Missing the point, Smash. I saw a Muslim bring the Twin Towers down and kill several thousand people. That does NOT mean that Muslims are horrible people. What it does mean, however, is that Islam (like Christianity) is capable of fostering great deeds of unspeakable, reprehensible evil. As John Lennon said in his song "Imagine",
Imagine there`s no HeavenIt`s easy if you tryNo hell below usAbove us only skyImagine all the peopleLiving for today
Imagine there`s no countriesIt isn`t hard to doNothing to kill or die forAnd no religion tooImagine all the peopleLiving life in peace
You may say that I`m a dreamerBut I`m not the only oneI hope someday you`ll join usAnd the world will be as one"
Have any Hindus killed Americans in Iraq?
The same bleat from the Muslims who denounce 9-11. So-called "moderate" religious types are always quick to denounce the acts of the few "extremists". Thing is, you`re all reading from the same book.
The sooner we grow up as a modern society and accept that religion is just another horsewank enforced tribalism, the better off we`ll be. We might even save the species.
Example. You`re white or you`re black. You support one football team or another, and wear their colours. You`re from one nation or another, and so wear their flag. These are all fair enough, and are cause for conflict.
As I`ve siad before, I grew up in Northern Ireland, where we`re all white, all support Ireland football team, and are all Irish. Who would we have known who the enemy was if we didn`t have labels like "Catholic" and "Protestant" to put on people? We wouldn`t know who it was we were meant to shoot!
this is just one article, but there are a LOT more..hindu persecution of christians in india is not uncommon.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4687075.ece
Meanwhile, you criticize angilion of not even looking at wikipedia. have you? lol
Angilion, here is one of many, many, many (believe it or not, your choice)... http://www.dharwad.com/dcforum/national/...
"P.s. the Christian fundamentalists are just as wacked out crazy as the Muslims are, your both the same mouthwash, just swished to either side."
Wow...where to start with this comment. I guess the basic two are: 1) Nowhere near all Muslims are waked out crazy.2) Christian fundamentalists are nowhere near the level of illogically violent as Muslim fendamentalists
We are tribal apes, but we don`t have to be *only* tribal apes. We are capable of being less factious.
You`re apparently replying to me, but how is your post relevant to mine?
That part doesn`t bother me because `us` doesn`t necessarily mean `everyone who can hear me`.
When a theist says `let us pray`, I interpret `us` to refer to other theists of the same religion and possibly theists of other religions, depending on the content of the prayer. You might, for example, have moderate theists of different religions praying together for an end to a religious war.
Anyway, there are many Americans, and many even in our government that would see Christianity an American requirement. These are the same people that adamantly support our current (and NOT original) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (let me say those words again...) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE with the Christan god slapped in the middle of it.
Pretty disgusting for a first world country in the year 2000 and drating 9 isn`t it?
Have you been living on the moon for the last few years? The level of ignorance of current affairs that you`re showing indicates that you are no longer familiar with Earth.
How many different sources would you like me to cite supporting my posts? Don`t bother with Wikipedia - it isn`t reliable.
I`m going suggest something that you`ll find radical:
If you think anything I`ve written is wrong, explain what and why.
Alternatively, continue as you are. You`re providing me with some entertainment.
Really???If you don`t want to pray to his god (which is the same god your god is) then don`t. It`s like TV, if you don`t want to watch then stop paying attention. He`s not forcing you to do anything.
P.s. the Christian fundamentalists are just as wacked out crazy as the Muslims are, your both the same mouthwash, just swished to either side.
P.P.s I don`t care what your response is so don`t bother.
As someone who grew up in Belfast, Northern Ireland, where people blew each other into chunks of charred meat for 4 decades for being a slightly different flavour of Christian, I have to agree with this statement.
The irony, it`s so delicious I wish I could spread it on my toast...
THESE PSYCHOS DO NOT REPRESENT CHRISTIANITY. If you actually form an opinion based on these idiots, you`re no better than people who think all black people are criminals because they saw one, or all gay people are flamboyant psychos. The hypocrisy is amazing.
CrackrJak didn`t say that about India, so you`re talking about the wrong part of the world anyway.
I am saying that there would be protests far, far worse than this one if a Christian prayer was said in the Indian government building. Protests, death threats, riots and murder. Which is happening anyway, but would happen even worse under those circumstances.
It`s you who are, by your own standards, stupid.
CrackrJak is completely right. It`s been happening for several years now. "Protests and disrespect" are very common and assault and murder are fairly common. That`s just for Christians existing. If there were Christian prayers in the Indian government, people would die.
And you`d be wrong. There are millions of Christians in India. They face attacks from Hindus, including torture, murder and attempted mass murder, but that is illegal. The Indian government certainly allows Christianity - there are Christian churches. Although I`m sure they wouldn`t allow Christian prayers in the Indian government building and that if they did the response from Hindu extremists would be far worse than the Christians shouting in this video.
See that only applies to other people of the same faith. Should you happen to believe in the wrong god, or even worse: no god, you are an abominable heretic who will be tortured forever in hellfire. But god loves you.
I think you`re either joking, an alien or posting from an extremely unusual and isolated community, because the idea of religion on Earth bringing people together in hope is ridiculous and goes completely against the entirety of recorded history. Religion has always been a force for division and hatred, except sometimes in places where there is only one religion (and usually not even then, as there would be division within the religion and hatred between those divisions).
yes ... hope that answers ur question.
"There would not only be protests and disrespect but also death threats, imprisonment, and possible execution."
in india? .. i realy hope the age of 40-49 isn`t accurate, nd this is some idiot 12 year old, beacuse if a middle aged man is stuid enough to think this then theres very little hope for the future.
Eh, it`s a nice idea, but history shows that beliefs always turn into actions.
If a Christian or Jew were to say a prayer in a government building in an Arab country, There would not only be protests and disrespect but also death threats, imprisonment, and possible execution.
Hey, non-retarded religious people, you might wanna let your ignorant friends know that their actions are the best support for Atheism we could ever possibly hope for, lol.
we dont suffer these problems.. i let people belive what they want.. it was very rude for the dumb cristians to interupt..
but truth be told.. everything that goes tits up in the world is down to religion.. so ostricising the guy that hates religion doesnt put him on the side of teh dumb cristians.. it make him better than them.. i love what dogma taught us..
I`ve read the bible. Thats my reason!
Sure.. it`s mean... but it would scare our (Christianity`s) more... passionate... members into shutting up once and a while.
Three Cheers for Agnosticism!
Anyways, I am wondering why this speaker is in Senate in the first place. And yes, those Christians were rude
2) If it isn`t allowed, they should be annoyed, and I think it`s fair they shout out a comparative prayer. Otherwise, I agree they`re simply jackasses.
3) Would you prefer they sue? Why is this better?
4) "This is why I hate all religions." <== Comments like that are why you have more in common with the people in the stands than the guy at the podium.
3 people influenced you against all religion? really, if it`s not religion, somebody will find something else to hate.
Some groups of Christians make me rather sick...