Invented religion

Originally posted by Megabot: And what have this to do with what i wrote to do anyway? An the thing you say about the idea of this forum is to all to express their opinions yes they can do that if they have some things to say that even HAVE something to do with the problem the topic starter ask for not a damn stupid spam thingie all the time like in my cow thread none had any advice how to stop the cows to make those noises that is what i asked for in the first place [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Sorry. Megabot, but i didn't understand a word of this. If you're on about your cow thread what did you EXPECT people to sya? did you expect a ton of cow herding experts to post or something LOL!!!

as for Neb's comment , he did NOT categorically state that what hwe said was true necessarily. If you think that, you got the completely wrong idea of why he posted that

the point is, badet stated, point blank, that everything he said was TRUE. Therefore we want proof

[ 09-29-2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Lord Shield ]

Originally posted by badet: Lord shield, well, belivers in god these days are just a small fraction of how it used to be, if god isn't dead, he is atleast paralyzed, and hould be unplugged from the respirator

If you think that, then you do not unnderstand the Nature of God. This is your prerogative, however

[Sigmar]

Originally posted by badet: if god isn't dead, he is at least paralyzed, and hould be unplugged from the respirator

That statement could be considered as very offensive by many. It is to me anyway, and as for believers of God being a small faction what they used to be....

How the hell would you know?

[Megabot]

Originally posted by Lord Shield: quote: Originally posted by Megabot: And what have this to do with what i wrote to do anyway? An the thing you say about the idea of this forum is to all to express their opinions yes they can do that if they have some things to say that even HAVE something to do with the problem the topic starter ask for not a damn stupid spam thingie all the time like in my cow thread none had any advice how to stop the cows to make those noises that is what i asked for in the first place [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Sorry. Megabot, but i didn't understand a word of this. If you're on about your cow thread what did you EXPECT people to sya? did you expect a ton of cow herding experts to post or something LOL!!!

as for Neb's comment , he did NOT categorically state that what hwe said was true necessarily. If you think that, you got the completely wrong idea of why he posted that

the point is, badet stated, point blank, that everything he said was TRUE. Therefore we want proof[/QUOTE]No but i had waited that SOMEONE had any idea about the problem with the darn cows anyway here because it is 9000 members here and at last one must knove something about it!

Originally posted by badet: "What, may I ask, is your proof? Just because you've never watched Energy "end" or "die" doesn't mean that it won't or can't." Without an objective standard by which to judge good from evil. This realization was wery troubeling to philosophers a few decades ago, but it hanst had much of an effect in other circles. Most people belive that a universal morality can be based on something else than God, just like Neb. In what is good for people, what is good for the society etc, in what we feel called upon to do. But explenation s of this standard necessarily constitute "universal moral law" are hard to come by. Usually, the arguments fot the existence of moral law is emotionall rather than rational. "but dont u think rape is wrong" moralists ask.as if a shared opinion were a proof of universal truth! the real problem with the idea of the universal moral truth is that it asserts the existyence of something we could really never know anything about, belivers of the moral truth claims that there are things that are morally true in the same way as the sky is blue or that water freezes at 32 degrees. But we can investigate the freezing temperature of water, me can then claim together that it is somekind of an "objective truth". On the other hand, what do we observe if we want to investigate if murder is evil? what is evil by the way, think about that. There is no tablet of moral law on some mountain top,if someone vcant offer any real evidence, why should we accept their claims as truth? And regarding our instincts, if we feel that something is right or wrong for us, but that is not a proof for a universal moral truth either.Universal moral laws are mere superstition.When two people fundamentally disagree whats right and wrong, there is no way to decide who's right objectivly. There is no universal moral code that should dictate human behaviour, there is no such thing as good or evil, there is no universal moral truth. Our values comes from us, and us alone. Whether we like it or not. So we should claim them proudly for ourselfes, as ourr own creation, rather than seeking external justification for them.

erm... sorry to be a party pooper but what on Earth has this got to do with proving your energy statement? with all due respect, it looks like a load of gobbledigook to me that was quotedd from a textbook

and you still haven't proved the existencec of a soul mentioned in your earlier posts

[ 09-29-2002, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Lord Shield ]

[Neb]

Badet, a question. What in the Nine Hells does morality have to do with my post? I will repeat myself:

"What is your proof that Energy cannot end?"

[badet]

Originally posted by Sigmar: quote: Originally posted by badet: if god isn't dead, he is at least paralyzed, and hould be unplugged from the respirator

That statement could be considered as very offensive by many. It is to me anyway, and as for believers of God being a small faction what they used to be....

How the hell would you know?[/QUOTE]We'll, the question is rather, how would you know? If you cannot provide any evidence att all. Why should you, or anyone belive in it? Im feeling that this may degenerate, so im giving up, there is no way to debate gainst fundamentalists, (ironicly, that is one of my points in my previous answer)

[Sigmar]

Originally posted by Lord Shield: quote: Originally posted by badet: "What, may I ask, is your proof? Just because you've never watched Energy "end" or "die" doesn't mean that it won't or can't." Without an objective standard by which to judge good from evil. This realization was wery troubeling to philosophers a few decades ago, but it hanst had much of an effect in other circles. Most people belive that a universal morality can be based on something else than God, just like Neb. In what is good for people, what is good for the society etc, in what we feel called upon to do. But explenation s of this standard necessarily constitute "universal moral law" are hard to come by. Usually, the arguments fot the existence of moral law is emotionall rather than rational. "but dont u think rape is wrong" moralists ask.as if a shared opinion were a proof of universal truth! the real problem with the idea of the universal moral truth is that it asserts the existyence of something we could really never know anything about, belivers of the moral truth claims that there are things that are morally true in the same way as the sky is blue or that water freezes at 32 degrees. But we can investigate the freezing temperature of water, me can then claim together that it is somekind of an "objective truth". On the other hand, what do we observe if we want to investigate if murder is evil? what is evil by the way, think about that. There is no tablet of moral law on some mountain top,if someone vcant offer any real evidence, why should we accept their claims as truth? And regarding our instincts, if we feel that something is right or wrong for us, but that is not a proof for a universal moral truth either.Universal moral laws are mere superstition.When two people fundamentally disagree whats right and wrong, there is no way to decide who's right objectivly. There is no universal moral code that should dictate human behaviour, there is no such thing as good or evil, there is no universal moral truth. Our values comes from us, and us alone. Whether we like it or not. So we should claim them proudly for ourselfes, as ourr own creation, rather than seeking external justification for them.

erm... sorry to be a party pooper but what on Earth has this got to do with proving your energy statement? with all due respect, it looks like a load of gobbledigook to me that was quotedd from a textbook[/QUOTE]I concur with your statement Shield, aimless waffling doesn't prove a point...

[Neb]

Originally posted by badet: We'll, the question is rather, how would you know? If you cannot provide any evidence att all. Why should you, or anyone belive in it? Im feeling that this may degenerate, so im giving up, there is no way to debate gainst fundamentalists, (ironicly, that is one of my points in my previous answer)

Badet, you are the one claiming, therefore the burden of proof lies with you, not with us. Asking us to prove that we are right when asking you to prove that you are right is merely giving up and admitting that you have no evidence whatsoever.

[Sigmar]

Originally posted by badet: quote: Originally posted by Sigmar: quote: Originally posted by badet: if god isn't dead, he is at least paralyzed, and hould be unplugged from the respirator

That statement could be considered as very offensive by many. It is to me anyway, and as for believers of God being a small faction what they used to be....

How the hell would you know?[/QUOTE]We'll, the question is rather, how would you know? If you cannot provide any evidence att all. Why should you, or anyone belive in it? Im feeling that this may degenerate, so im giving up, there is no way to debate gainst fundamentalists, (ironicly, that is one of my points in my previous answer)[/QUOTE]No I believe the original question was how do YOU know, you are merely repeating what you did with Neb, asking him to rebuttle when you have yet to give him a decent answer.

Besides I'm in a greater position to say that religion is still believed and accepted by many as throughout history it has been an important and influential part of society, while I at least have something to go (by assuming it's the same as it has always been) you have no case unless you provide real figures that would indicate otherwise.

"Im feeling that this may degenerate, so im giving up, there is no way to debate gainst fundamentalists, (ironicly, that is one of my points in my previous answer)"-

There is a point in arguing with believers of a faith if you can have a logical and well thought out argument, not if you start proclaiming to the heavens "I'm right and your wrong because your opinion is bias". I often have debates with friends of mine who are Atheists and more often than not we are enlightened to each others opinion and we learn from the discussions that sometimes we are wrong in some cases and right in others.

In this discussion you have set up, there is no way either of us can benefit, we can only express our opinions.

Reply if you will but since you said you wouldn't I won't hold my breath.