faith (3 Viewers)

[D94]

yeah you have every right to believe that god exists just as you have every right to belive that there's a giant teapot orbitng around earth. but that shouldn't stop others from ridiculing you for being credulous

omgzz you can't disprove dat a teapotz donesnt orbiting erth dere4 it doezz11111!!!

Actually, we have good evidence that no country has launched a teapot into space, as a teapot by definition is man made, and we know that matter will not instruct itself to create a teapot without human intervention as again, by definition, a teapot is man made. Bertrand Russel's teapot hypothesis is not the best example to refute the concept of God.

 

[abbeyroad]

Just because we can't prove a theory does not mean it is not true and will be proved at a later date. Albert Einsteins theory of relativity went unproved for many decades yet was generally accepted before it was actually conclusively proved.

no dude einstein's theory was accepted before it was 'proven' because it describes the universe more succinctly than newtonian mechanics. it was supported by a degree of evidence right from the start as the Michelson–Morley experiment indicated a clear evidence of absence to aether.

also no scientists actually believed that einstein's theory was 'true' before it was proven. they accepted it as a working hypothesis and went out to test it. if they all believed that it was true why the hell did they went out of their way to verify it then?

asserting that something is true because it's never been proven otherwise is logically fallacious while believing that something doesn't exist because of a clear evidence of absence is just good scientific thinking

 

[abbeyroad]

Actually, we have good evidence that no country has launched a teapot into space, as a teapot by definition is man made, and we know that matter will not instruct itself to create a teapot without human intervention as again, by definition, a teapot is man made. Bertrand Russel's teapot hypothesis is not the best example to refute the concept of God.

how do you know an alien civilisation didn't put one in earth's orbit? how do you know a magical pink dragon didn't put one there???? how do you know god didn't put one there?????

what the actual object in question is is irrelevant. russel's teapot illustrates the fallacious reasoning that underpins religious thinking.

 

[iwantfreeessays]

You people are all hypocrites. I bet that most of you are not that good looking nor very talented, yet you think that you will be successful in life and have sex with beautiful people. That is pure faith. Fact is, you probably won't. God don't exist, and you won't be successful in life, suck it up.

I am sorry if i made any of you cry.


For example: I see people here saying what they will do after HSc.

1. Get toned
2. Get girls..

Umm, yeah right, good luck with that.

 

[abbeyroad]

You people are all hypocrites. I bet that most of you are not that good looking nor very talented, yet you think that you will be successful in life and have sex with beautiful people. That is pure faith. Fact is, you probably won't. God don't exist, and you won't be successful in life, suck it up.

I am sorry if i made any of you cry.


For example: I see people here saying what they will do after HSc.

1. Get toned
2. Get girls..

Umm, yeah right, good luck with that.

shit troll 0/10

 

[iwantfreeessays]

Mate, how am i a troll. It's the truth. Most people delude themselves about their potential, but if they were to rationally examine themselves, they would realise that no, they are not intelligent enough to make it, and that they are not good looking enough to have sex with good looking people. The delusion comforts them, and the delusion of god comforts religous people. I see no difference between the two.

Btw, tell that communist here to get out.


And friends, look at the thread about what people are going to do after HSc. It proves my point.

 

[boris]

mate

 

[boris]

assertions like that wont get you anywhere

aint no hsc asians itt

 

[D94]

how do you know an alien civilisation didn't put one in earth's orbit? how do you know a magical pink dragon didn't put one there???? how do you know god didn't put one there?????

what the actual object in question is is irrelevant. russel's teapot illustrates the fallacious reasoning that underpins religious thinking.

I think the issue here is not even about the teapot nor the fallacious reasoning, it's more to do with what constitutes as evidence because who makes the rules of evidence; and how much evidence is needed to be persuaded.

Evidently, what I said previously isn't enough to persuade you, but likewise, just advocating "no evidence = no God" isn't going to persuade me. There isn't any evidence of an early inflationary era after the point of Singularity, but it had to occur as per the current models of after the Big Bang. I'm happy to believe it even though there isn't any evidence of it.

And to be fair, I'm sure you have religious friends, and I don't think you are just going to neglect them because they are religious. So whether something is proven or not, I don't think it's going to suddenly impact your every day life, hence why it's useless to discuss these things (especially on an online forum). Any rational person would not care if their friend was religious or not.

 

[cheese_cheese]

no dude einstein's theory was accepted before it was 'proven' because it describes the universe more succinctly than newtonian mechanics. it was supported by a degree of evidence right from the start as the Michelson–Morley experiment indicated a clear evidence of absence to aether.

Not all scientists accepted the theory. Many people today accept religion and God. No, scientists continued to adapt the Michelson-Morley experiment to suit the aether theory; they thought their equipment wasn't sensitive enough. Miracles happen all the time.

 

[Ivorytw]

shane, why do you even bother?

 

[abbeyroad]

I think the issue here is not even about the teapot nor the fallacious reasoning, it's more to do with what constitutes as evidence because who makes the rules of evidence; and how much evidence is needed to be persuaded.

way to miss the significance of russel's analogy bro

Evidently, what I said previously isn't enough to persuade you, but likewise, just advocating "no evidence = no God" isn't going to persuade me. There isn't any evidence of an early inflationary era after the point of Singularity, but it had to occur as per the current models of after the Big Bang. I'm happy to believe it even though there isn't any evidence of it.

hahahahaha that's like saying that there is no evidence that a patient went into shock after his injury even though his cause of death was cardiac arrest resulted from a massive blood loss.

And to be fair, I'm sure you have religious friends, and I don't think you are just going to neglect them because they are religious. So whether something is proven or not, I don't think it's going to suddenly impact your every day life, hence why it's useless to discuss these things (especially on an online forum). Any rational person would not care if their friend was religious or not.

tell that to the fanatics who are only too happy to condemn anybody who does not share their views to death.

 

[abbeyroad]

Not all scientists accepted the theory. Many people today accept religion and God. No, scientists continued to adapt the Michelson-Morley experiment to suit the aether theory; they thought their equipment wasn't sensitive enough. Miracles happen all the time.

jesus why do you people like ignoratio elenchi so much?

what some scientists did is inconsequential. the fact of the matter is, Einstein's theory of relativity was a working hypothesis that was supported by a certain degree of evidence. the fact that some scientists held on to the aether theory proves that it wasn't treated as gospel. it's only considered true after the facts.

 

[cheese_cheese]

Billions have a personal connection with God though.

 

[iwantfreeessays]

This debate is ridiculous. I already proved that people have faith in many things, not just god. Like i said, read the ridiculous things that some students think that they will achieve after 2011; they are kidding themselves. Once we figure out how to quantify intelligence and beauty, you will see similar denial like you see with religious people. With Iq tests today, we already see many people denying what it tells them.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

losing faith makes a crime~~~

 

[boris]

shane, why do you even bother?

i dont i just like seeing what people have to say about things

the more ridiculous the better

 

[alstah]

it has been hypothesised because it explains a certain phenomena while still obeying the laws of physics etc
it may well be dis proven one day or proven
it is nothing but a hypothesis at the moment

it hasnt been used to prove the big bang theory either, it just supports that hypothesis

ergo god is just a hypothesis. one that doesn't satisfy any law of science. one that isn't even logical. for example if you want to hypothesise that god exists to explain the origins of the universe, then where did god come from?

'God' is pure energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

[Galladrim]

tell that to the fanatics who are only too happy to condemn anybody who does not share their views to death.

One does not require the justification of religion to resort to violence.

 

[funkshen]

One does not require the justification of religion to resort to violence.

One does not require the existence of a god to explain [the origins of the universe, morality, the complexity of biological life, magnets] <--- choose one

but it fucking happens anyways