Well let's use facts, seeing as you seem so keen on them.
Add up the various religious 'God' believing people from around the world and subtract from the total world population. You can keep the rest and claim them to be atheists. Which group do you think is the big one and which one is the tiny one in comparison?
That's silly. The word god means vastly different things to different people. To lump them all into the same category is meaningless.
I don't believe there is a higher being. Those who have faith and believe, I respect that.
It doesn't affect my life so doesn't bother me. We have a christian centre in the village and the leaders are nice people. I meet them in the pub quite often:)
If you had directed that statement at me I would now be reporting you to the moderators. You have absolutely no right to say something like that to another poster.
Well excuse me if I believe that those who truly believe in fairy stories are morons, you precious little thing.
Religion really grinds my gears, but report me if you wish. It's a freaking tin pot forum for self important nobodies such as myself to scream in a vacuum.
Fortunately people have always existed who are capable of holding opinions regardless of the popular beliefs.
Being a minority does not make people right nor does it make them wrong but for sure if they did not exist knowledge would never increase.
Very true and I never said otherwise. I was replying to a post where someone for some reason was trying to suggest there are more Athesits than religious people in the World. I proved there isnt, that's all.
Well excuse me if I believe that those who truly believe in fairy stories are morons, you precious little thing.
Religion really grinds my gears, but report me if you wish. It's a freaking tin pot forum for self important nobodies such as myself to scream in a vacuum.
No, I've never reported anyone and I'm not going to start now.
You do have a right to your opinion but so do other people. Many educated people believe in God - to question their intelligence is really quite insulting. And how do you KNOW it's all a fairy story? How can you be so sure when you've only got the same information as the rest of us? Admit it - you don't. You have just come to a different conclusion that's all, which of course you are entitled to do. (As are they.)
You have a point about screaming into a vacuum, it's a good analogy. In fact, it's made me think about what I'm doing on here. I think I'll shut down now and get back to the real world. (For now!)
Very true and I never said otherwise. I was replying to a post where someone for some reason was trying to suggest there are more Athesits than religious people in the World. I proved there isnt, that's all.
Surely you started the size debate in post #227 when you said;
A select group of humans seem to have worked out what the creator of all the universe wants not only of them, but what it itself is capable of, it's beyond narcissism.
which does not refer to size. Perhaps you interpreted ‘select’ as meaning small. Actually I read O’Neill’s post as meaning the people who have devised religions rather than just follow them.
Anyway we seem to agree that popularity is no measure of ultimate truths.
True.
And there's no evidence for creation at all.
There is, however, evidence for reality. But not creation. Reality cannot be called Creation because we weren't created.
The thread's just over 12 hours over old, and already had over 100 posts in that time.I posted a question about religion on a different thread four days ago, and not a single religious person has had the courage to reply to it.
I'm a bit surprised myself how it's managed that many responses. I've posted here for 3 years but rarely on this topic, mostly TV stuff.
True.
And there's no evidence for creation at all.
There is, however, evidence for reality. But not creation. Reality cannot be called Creation because we weren't created.
I think there's too many things that are 'coincidental' for our planet to simply be the way it is through sheer luck. That's my opinion anyway.
I'm inclined to agree with that because, particularly, the changes in the universe seem to be from random event at the start and finish up in our time intensely interdependent, whereas logically this is the opposite of how you'd expect it to happen over such an expanse of time. ie, concentrated at the start, then diffuse by now. Weird.
The creator was already there. That's what I think, just like the above is what you think.
That would appear to make things equal then.
Do you think
"I think there are faeries at the bottom of the garden", is equal in validity to "I don't think there are faeries at the bottom of the garden"?
(both sides produce no evidence to backup their claims).
being a winner of the lottery is shear luck (one in 14 million of picking the right number)
The lottery producing a winner is not shear luck there are millions of tickets sold.
I am sure that the winners of the lottery may think "wow! It is shear luck we won!" (and they would be right).
However anyone looking in on the results would not think it shear luck there was a winner.
The universe is a big place, If life starts somewhere producing intelligent life, I am sure those being feel lucky and special.
So how about an example of these coincidental things?
Is there really any point you asking a question like this?
From your posts on this thread, you seem to be coming from a stance of 'no matter what, I won't believe', so it seems no matter what anyone puts in front of you, you will just dismiss it.
Anyway there is a theory that if an additional mass equivalent to one grain of sand, was introduced or taken away at the start (Big Bang) the Universe would not have happened or been able to support life. Seems a pretty big coincidence. But personally I think understanding these coincidences is riddled with preconceptions and prejudice. It's difficult to be rational because most people tend to be either or and not entirely impartial.
being a winner of the lottery is shear luck (one in 14 million of picking the right number)
The lottery producing a winner is not shear luck there are millions of tickets sold.
I am sure that the winners of the lottery may think "wow! It is shear luck we won!" (and they would be right).
However anyone looking in on the results would not think it shear luck there was a winner.
The universe is a big place, If life starts somewhere producing intelligent life, I am sure those being feel lucky and special.
Yes, I just used a Lottery Number generator and got:
43 40 37 30 47 17
The probability of getting that exact string of numbers is incredibly small...and yet, I got them! :eek:
Is there really any point you asking a question like this?
From your posts on this thread, you seem to be coming from a stance of 'no matter what, I won't believe', so it seems no matter what anyone puts in front of you, you will just dismiss it.
Anyway there is a theory that if an additional mass equivalent to one grain of sand, was introduced or taken away at the start (Big Bang) the Universe would not have happened or been able to support life. Seems a pretty big coincidence. But personally I think understanding these coincidences is riddled with preconceptions and prejudice. It's difficult to be rational because most people tend to be either or and not entirely impartial.
Are you considering the possibility of losing your faith on the basis of what someone says on here? If not then your observation of Henry can be equally made about you.
Is there really any point you asking a question like this?
From your posts on this thread, you seem to be coming from a stance of 'no matter what, I won't believe', so it seems no matter what anyone puts in front of you, you will just dismiss it.
Anyway there is a theory that if an additional mass equivalent to one grain of sand, was introduced or taken away at the start (Big Bang) the Universe would not have happened or been able to support life. Seems a pretty big coincidence. But personally I think understanding these coincidences is riddled with preconceptions and prejudice. It's difficult to be rational because most people tend to be either or and not entirely impartial.
If a mass the size of a grain of sand were taken from the original universe, then there would be no universe.
What is your point?
There may be many universes. This one just so happens to have been that one with the correct mass to support life.
(Disclaimer: I have never heard anything about this theory and have no idea if it is true or not. For the purpose of making my point, I have assumed that it is. It may not be)
Anyway there is a theory that if an additional mass equivalent to one grain of sand, was introduced or taken away at the start (Big Bang) the Universe would not have happened or been able to support life. Seems a pretty big coincidence. But personally I think understanding these coincidences is riddled with preconceptions and prejudice. It's difficult to be rational because most people tend to be either or and not entirely impartial.
I doubt it, but it is probably true that if any of the variables were changed such as the the energy "released" in the big bang, then we (the Earth) would not be here . but someone else could be in another part of the universe thinking "wow, if there was a grain of sand less in the big bang, we would not be here".
Personally I do struggle to understand how someone can hold the view that the explanation for existence itself is something that exists and not see any flaw in that position.
Other than that though, this topic's been done to death so many times on DS:GD that it does make me wonder if I'm wrong and there IS an afterlife, because despite being done to countless deaths, these kind of threads seem to be capable of limitless resurrection. I hardly ever post anymore because I just cannot be bothered....I've taken in to account and argued either for or against almost every argument in relation to god(s) that's ever been proposed and I really don't care if people believe something that I don't or vice-versa. It used to give me at least some academic enjoyment and occasionally a new point of view I wouldn't have considered by myself without discussion, but there's never anything new now.
Personally I do struggle to understand how someone can hold the view that the explanation for existence itself is something that exists and not see any flaw in that position.
Other than that though, this topic's been done to death so many times on DS:GD that it does make me wonder if I'm wrong and there IS an afterlife, because despite being done to countless deaths, these kind of threads seem to be capable of limitless resurrection. I hardly ever post anymore because I just cannot be bothered....I've taken in to account and argued either for or against almost every argument in relation to god(s) that's ever been proposed and I really don't care if people believe something that I don't or vice-versa. It used to give me at least some academic enjoyment and occasionally a new point of view I wouldn't have considered by myself without discussion, but there's never anything new now.
I personally enjoy these discussions, and not everyone has been active on this forum for as long as you have.
Personally I do struggle to understand how someone can hold the view that the explanation for existence itself is something that exists and not see any flaw in that position.
That's my major problem - the argument isn't self consistent (i.e. the universe is too complex, so must have been created - but the creator in all its complexity can just exist).
Invoking something complex to explain the existence of something complex just leads to circular reasoning.
Comments
I don't believe there is a higher being. Those who have faith and believe, I respect that.
It doesn't affect my life so doesn't bother me. We have a christian centre in the village and the leaders are nice people. I meet them in the pub quite often:)
Well excuse me if I believe that those who truly believe in fairy stories are morons, you precious little thing.
Religion really grinds my gears, but report me if you wish. It's a freaking tin pot forum for self important nobodies such as myself to scream in a vacuum.
Fortunately people have always existed who are capable of holding opinions regardless of the popular beliefs.
Being a minority does not make people right nor does it make them wrong but for sure if they did not exist knowledge would never increase.
Really, please explain. I always thought it refers to the divine being/s.
In the context of this thread and in relation to the creator, God is the same whichever way you look at it. Your confusing religion with God.
Ultimately whichever way you cut it, whichever religion you look at, if they have a God, that God is their creator.
The comparison I made was all religious people who have a God Vs Atheisits. Numbers wise, there is no competition, that's all my point was.
Very true and I never said otherwise. I was replying to a post where someone for some reason was trying to suggest there are more Athesits than religious people in the World. I proved there isnt, that's all.
No, I've never reported anyone and I'm not going to start now.
You do have a right to your opinion but so do other people. Many educated people believe in God - to question their intelligence is really quite insulting. And how do you KNOW it's all a fairy story? How can you be so sure when you've only got the same information as the rest of us? Admit it - you don't. You have just come to a different conclusion that's all, which of course you are entitled to do. (As are they.)
You have a point about screaming into a vacuum, it's a good analogy. In fact, it's made me think about what I'm doing on here. I think I'll shut down now and get back to the real world. (For now!)
Surely you started the size debate in post #227 when you said;
in reply to this post
which does not refer to size. Perhaps you interpreted ‘select’ as meaning small. Actually I read O’Neill’s post as meaning the people who have devised religions rather than just follow them.
Anyway we seem to agree that popularity is no measure of ultimate truths.
True.
And there's no evidence for creation at all.
There is, however, evidence for reality. But not creation. Reality cannot be called Creation because we weren't created.
I'm a bit surprised myself how it's managed that many responses. I've posted here for 3 years but rarely on this topic, mostly TV stuff.
That is true.
I'm inclined to agree with that because, particularly, the changes in the universe seem to be from random event at the start and finish up in our time intensely interdependent, whereas logically this is the opposite of how you'd expect it to happen over such an expanse of time. ie, concentrated at the start, then diffuse by now. Weird.
That would appear to make things equal then.
Do you think
"I think there are faeries at the bottom of the garden", is equal in validity to "I don't think there are faeries at the bottom of the garden"?
(both sides produce no evidence to backup their claims).
The lottery producing a winner is not shear luck there are millions of tickets sold.
I am sure that the winners of the lottery may think "wow! It is shear luck we won!" (and they would be right).
However anyone looking in on the results would not think it shear luck there was a winner.
The universe is a big place, If life starts somewhere producing intelligent life, I am sure those being feel lucky and special.
Is there really any point you asking a question like this?
From your posts on this thread, you seem to be coming from a stance of 'no matter what, I won't believe', so it seems no matter what anyone puts in front of you, you will just dismiss it.
Anyway there is a theory that if an additional mass equivalent to one grain of sand, was introduced or taken away at the start (Big Bang) the Universe would not have happened or been able to support life. Seems a pretty big coincidence. But personally I think understanding these coincidences is riddled with preconceptions and prejudice. It's difficult to be rational because most people tend to be either or and not entirely impartial.
Yes, I just used a Lottery Number generator and got:
43 40 37 30 47 17
The probability of getting that exact string of numbers is incredibly small...and yet, I got them! :eek:
Are you considering the possibility of losing your faith on the basis of what someone says on here? If not then your observation of Henry can be equally made about you.
If a mass the size of a grain of sand were taken from the original universe, then there would be no universe.
What is your point?
There may be many universes. This one just so happens to have been that one with the correct mass to support life.
(Disclaimer: I have never heard anything about this theory and have no idea if it is true or not. For the purpose of making my point, I have assumed that it is. It may not be)
Other than that though, this topic's been done to death so many times on DS:GD that it does make me wonder if I'm wrong and there IS an afterlife, because despite being done to countless deaths, these kind of threads seem to be capable of limitless resurrection. I hardly ever post anymore because I just cannot be bothered....I've taken in to account and argued either for or against almost every argument in relation to god(s) that's ever been proposed and I really don't care if people believe something that I don't or vice-versa. It used to give me at least some academic enjoyment and occasionally a new point of view I wouldn't have considered by myself without discussion, but there's never anything new now.
I personally enjoy these discussions, and not everyone has been active on this forum for as long as you have.
That's my major problem - the argument isn't self consistent (i.e. the universe is too complex, so must have been created - but the creator in all its complexity can just exist).
Invoking something complex to explain the existence of something complex just leads to circular reasoning.