The existence of God

Post Reply New Topic

and possibly quite abrasive

Although I do remember discussing in sociology (many, many years ago) a tribe that practiced this very act in a ritual to promote fertility for the coming spring.

Whilst I can comfortably scoff at the concept of gaia I notice that no god botherers are doing the same, could it be that the idiocy of this is reflected in their own beliefs, and is therefore making them rather uncomfortable

woah, woah, woah, woah, buddy, hey, woah. Lets settle down before we all start drinking hatorade. Watch the language, they're are children reading these posts.

But I'm glad to see you've found your superheaven. I'm gonna try life out for a couple more years instead.

F****ng means fishing, doesn't it? Give a man a f*** and he'll eat it. Sounds interesting.

Last edited by Sand on 17 Jun 2010, 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i find it difficult to express, using language, the vulgarity of religionist ideas. "i am the greatest motherfishing being in existence! i'm so motherfishing great, i CREATED existence! believe this claim or go to HELL!" is a vulgar idea, even without the swearing.

F****ng totally refers to fishing.

i'm glad that you understand the foolishness of believing "all people who commit suicide by hanging go to SUPERHEAVEN!" even though it can't be disproven.

religion is like auto-erotic-asphyxiation. it feels "right" and "awesome" and you know other people have killed themselves doing it "wrong" but you know the "right" way. then, one day, you die doing it and the rest of us get to experience that awkward feeling of "...is.... ...is it ok if i laugh?"



except that when a scientist tells someone who chokes them self while they masturbate that choking oneself is dangerous and can cause damage or death, the auto-erotic-asphyxiationist probably isn't going to try to refute the fact that choking can be fatal.




vulgar statements? yes. yes they are.
inappropriate? no.

this anti-intellectual garbage being forced on children is far more damaging to our society than kids reading an asterisk-censored Fish-word, or five.

I think you are just fishing around for a fight.

I respect your views on this I don't expect you to share my sentiment, I would ask however that you reconsider your definition of "sentience" - I can certainly assure you that there's more out there right in front of you if you're of the mindset to appreciate it.

Yes, the bones topic, well think of it this way, the rocks are the bones of mother earth just as the core is it's heart and the soil it's flesh. They're all "alive" in a manner of speaking but it's just a case of being able to see and understand them. Those bacteria colonies, the earth, the bones, the wind and trees and rivers are all "alive". It's difficult to describe this in words as it's something that just has to "click" in you, much like the belief in a god; the theists amongst you will know what I mean.

That is what teleological means. We know what you mean, but we disagree.

That sense of those things living exists not in the objects, but in the mind(s) of the observer. Were humans removed from the occasion, the sense of "alive" would be as well. Yet their existence would continue. The theists would argue that the universe is here for the benefit of humanity. We disagree with that as well. It will not fold up when we are gone.

So it is with all things. If I think, earnestly, that Amber-Miasma loves me, it does not change the reality of her feelings. She simply does or does not. Likewise if she is insistent that she does, it does not change my perception if it is at odds with her actions.

Things are just as they appear, and nothing else. All else is the fabrication and wishful thinking of people.

No, the teleological argument isn't what I'm trying to get over here. It's more the relation between us and the world around us (or the world we perceive) than the relation between the earth's components parts and their functions.

And this is where theists and atheists will always be at odds.

I'm afraid it just takes a little faith to push the boat out, the world looks differently then, it's not a matter of faith then it's a matter of belief. Who am I to doubt the reality you perceive through your senses and who are you to doubt mine? I could quite easily say that the world you perceive was nonsense but it clearly exists to you just as mine does to me, all it takes is one person to believe in what they're sensing, thinking or feeling and that world is made corporeal; this brings me back to my original point, that it is belief which anchors us to our existances whether that existence is shared or not. Basically what I'm saying in a nutshell is "how can you prove it isn't?".

I write this to answer your other posts as well which, in my opinion, you could have taken a little more civility and consideration in writing. I'll stand up to discussion but I won't crawl to fling s*** at other participants.

Aah, but shitflinging is great fun! Of course personal viewpoints are crucial. But pragmatically it boils down to survival and how to get the most out of life. Religions have been around for thousands of years. They come and go and are most entertaining but are pretty static constructions having little if any effect on morality and of no use whatsoever on doing interesting things with the forces and materials of basic living.

I don't see why I should. Are you going to say that the Earth generates things we can know as purposes and acts to fulfill them? Are you going to say that the Earth rationally considers ideas and can carry on (even a very simplistic) debate?


You should look up the term "deepity"

Here is a long speech where it is explained in part of it:
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/4547-3 ... nfusion-39

Go to 29 minutes to find the particular issue. (you can just watch the part on deepities and spin)

Here is a definition:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity

So, I think your mind is just being weird on you rather than following reason.

Well, I can't absolutely prove you are wrong, I just think it is crazy.


Maybe you find Fuzzy insulting, but I find his comment on topic and to establish a point here. To me, and Fuzzy, it does seem as if the motivation is a anthropomorphizing desire rather than truth.

What a specatcular, pantheistic coincidence! I was just watching that Dennett video last night (when I was suppose to be cleaning up the apartment).

Clearly, the fact that I learned a word yesterday that a man with likewise atheistical interests has just used proves that the cosmic puppetter arranged the universe so it would be so!

If my grammar or concepts are sloppy here (aside from the obvious satire) it is because I am tired as hell.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg-4fmbpZ-M[/youtube]

The most arse-kicking concept ever developed.

Are you simply carelessly using metaphores here or are you actually an Animist?

He's a bit wacky. I eat chocolate bars on occasion and they never scream when I chomp down.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. teleological(noun): Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history.

Most commonly applied to supernatural ideas, but it need not be. It can be applied in any situation where human intent is applied to natural phenomena. You might be having a relationship with that pebble, but its not having one with you.



A purposeful development (man learns to respect nature or is punished) requires intent from both parties(a relationship). Either you think nature is capable of that (which is teleology/anthropomorphism) or you dont (which is naturalism/atheism).

Good news: you get to choose.



In my posts I have neither kicked your dog, disparaged your intellect nor peppered your walls with dung. I was no less civil than honesty warrants. If you felt stung it was purely my rebuttal of your ideas. You take certain ethical stances(nature is gonna getcha!) and then talk like its all defined by imagination - "all it takes is one person to believe in what they're sensing, thinking or feeling and that world is made corporeal" - but it isnt.

After all, you arent going to fall into that swimming pool that I am imagining beneath you, are you?

You show massive internal inconsistencies in your ideas and around PPR, you will get negative attention for that. Its pretty standard occurrence. Someone new comes here and they have their ideas challenged. They either think things through a little better, or they bugger off. Staying here probably wont change your beliefs, but it will refine them. You will become a better person as you define it.

As AngelRho said, we can dish it out in PPR, but we can take it too. Welcome to PPR. Dont go away mad.