DrDNA Posted February 9, 2009 Posted February 9, 2009 (edited) And all gods are mythical, with some having more followers than others. It appears to be a strong 'no' here sir. Edited February 10, 2009 by DrDNA
thief Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Thief here... I voted yes, but I do so for science, for cause and effect.
DrDNA Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) Thief here...I voted yes, but I do so for science, for cause and effect. Good idea. I like it. I had this physiology Prof as an undergrad that no one liked. The main reason no one liked him was because he was a real horse's arse. But I digress too quickly...that's another story, and not at all relevant to your comment. Anyway, the other reason that no one liked him, the one that by some stretch of my imagination is relevant to your comment, was because at the beginning of every year, he had each of his Physiology 301 students pith a perfectly good turtle's brain and then observe and document the outcome at arms length and only at arm's length. Anesthesia was not allowed. He was adamant in his stance that it would skew the results. The students were not allowed to further dissect and/or study the effects of destroying the turtle's brain on it's pulmonary system or respiratory system, for example. And every year, every class got the same predictable result..........a bucket of dead turtles. After the turtles were thrown in the trash and the pithing instruments and bench tops were cleaned, there was a lecture about how every biology student needed to be able to accept the inevitable consequences of using live animals in their studies. Which, of course, was the entire purpose of that particular lab. Then he would go back out into the hall, which is where he was most of the time, in his stained white coat and light another cigarette, lighting subsequent cigarettes off the butts of previous cigarettes. The moral is: I like your way of perturbing the system better. You are apparently noting both cause AND effect. Plus, it is much more humane and much less predictable I might add. Edited February 11, 2009 by DrDNA
SkepticLance Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 I don't believe in God, but I think I am coming to believe in miracles. Just think, six pages of posts on this incredibly controversial topic, and not one person has said anything nasty enough to force the thread closed. If that aint a miracle, what is?
iNow Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Yeah, the funny thing is that it was the thread on "Do you believe in Thor" which got closed. Ah... the irony.
Baby Astronaut Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Do You Believe in Thor got closed as I was posting, so I'm teleporting my response here. The difference is rather simple. One is faith in the knowledge that evidence exists to support the position, that it could be checked, validated, and further... discarded if wrong. Yep, the "discarded if wrong" part is important. I have "faith" that the sun wil come up tomorrow morning because that's what's happened everyday, and I have a chance to test it. That's rational.To have faith that some guy was born of a virgin, then died, and came back to life...and that he is the master of entire universe like all of the other sky pixies... Sorry, that's irrational. You're making an error. Not everyone believes the interpretations and variances. Many people simply believe there's a creator, and dismiss the "master/king of the universe" kind of egotistical attribute that's really a human quality and not that of a being with omniscient empathy (knowing all our darkest fears and loves). Why knock the faithful who do embrace science and logic? They're on our side. I have a profound distaste for much of the religious establishment's yapping, mostly the fear-reliant parts or war excusers, but it doesn't stop me from believing in God. Those misguided establishments actually fit a pattern in the grand scheme of things. No one has to believe in anything. Conversely, they shouldn't overly attempt to discourage belief either. (There is a healthy level of each) It's something to consider. I knew a lot of people who were anti-god, anti-establishment, etc. They hated religion and politics. Yet all had something in common: they later became obsessively religious, cheered for Bush's victory, rehashed neocon talking points, etc. My point? They never changed. One extreme to another. We should be cautious of where emotionally super-charged dismissal of things can lead us. I like my atheist and faithful friends as they both are, so it's disconcerting me when any march down the road of intolerance full speed. (And I'll even bet that others here also witnessed a number of strongly "anti" people in life go turn strongly "pro", and vice versa. Yet how many went strongly "balanced" instead?)
DrDNA Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 I am EXTREMELY grieved by the death of Thor (his thread actually). At first I thought it was silly, but it evolved into a GREAT thread. Thanks for starting it iNow. By the power of Oden, I call on Thor to awaken with his mighty hammer up and smash his way back into the forum.
Mr Skeptic Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Yeah, the funny thing is that it was the thread on "Do you believe in Thor" which got closed. Ah... the irony. It seems a higher percentage of people believe in Thor than believe in God. Food for thought... *Wonders what followers of Thor think of lightning rods*
bob000555 Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) I don't mean to attack anyone`s position , only to explane my own. I mean no disrespect to agnostics but I’ve always found agnosticism quite strange. It seems akin to saying that because no one has yet definitely proved that Bigfoot dosn't exist you won’t decide weather or not Bigfoot exists. Personally I’m an atheist because until anyone proves god exists his existence seems even less likely then Bigfoot’s (Bigfoot is just a giant apeish thing, god is an omnipotent omniscient being. He knows exactly what path he is going to take yet he has the power to deviate from it?) Edited February 11, 2009 by bob000555
padren Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 I don't mean to attack anyone`s position , only to explane my own. I mean no disrespect to agnostics but I’ve always found agnosticism quite strange. It seems akin to saying that because no one has yet definitely proved that Bigfoot dosn't exist you won’t decide weather or not Bigfoot exists. Personally I’m an atheist because until anyone proves god exists his existence seems even less likely then Bigfoot’s (Bigfoot is just a giant apeish thing, god is an omnipotent omniscient being. He knows exactly what path he is going to take yet he has the power to deviate from it?) Well, weak agnostic is someone who thinks there isn't enough evidence either way, I myself am a strong agnostic, which means I don't think it's possible to know either way, based on the fact that any being of near god-like power/advancement could either remain hidden or completely fool our senses into thinking it was God god. Bigfoot could be proven to be true, and if the creature exists but wants to be hidden, it has limited resources to accomplish this, so it's fair to believe it's unlikely. If there is a God that wants to be undetectable, that bugger's gonna be undetectable, period. If some guy popped up claiming to be the son of God and raised the dead, walked on water, etc etc, it still would be pretty weak evidence that the guy is actually the son of God, since if there is a being that can do those things, then he can probably fake being a god too, or actually be God. There's just no way as a human to know which is which, hence strong Agnostic.
sherry Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 no, i do not believe in god, i do however believe that all/everything is everlasting. being someone who has no formal education my opinion is based on personal experience and observed occurrences and events. throughout my life i have always instinctually felt all that is is made of energy. energy which may change but in some form will always exist. Peace sherry
DrDNA Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 It seems a higher percentage of people believe in Thor than believe in God. Food for thought... I told you scientists are a bunch of liars. This revelation makes me rethink the round earth theory and the moon landing.....
ParanoiA Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 I don't mean to attack anyone`s position , only to explane my own. I mean no disrespect to agnostics but I’ve always found agnosticism quite strange. It seems akin to saying that because no one has yet definitely proved that Bigfoot dosn't exist you won’t decide weather or not Bigfoot exists. Isn't agnosticism the default position of science? How is that strange?
padren Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 I told you scientists are a bunch of liars.This revelation makes me rethink the round earth theory and the moon landing..... Thor is the Supreme Commander of the Asgard fleet. Sure, he died when he and his people created a black hole to destroy their own planet to keep hostile civilizations from acquiring their technology, but the question didn't qualify if people believed he was alive or not...
DrDNA Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Thor is the Supreme Commander of the Asgard fleet. Sure, he died when he and his people created a black hole to destroy their own planet to keep hostile civilizations from acquiring their technology, but the question didn't qualify if people believed he was alive or not... Huh?
padren Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Huh? Did you read the link under the name "Thor" in that post? Basically: People may have voted they believe in Thor because they have may have believed in some actual, non-literary being named Thor, that may just not have had supernatural origins. Or maybe they voted for Thor because he's always fun at parties, could go either way.
DrDNA Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Did you read the link under the name "Thor" in that post? Basically: People may have voted they believe in Thor because they have may have believed in some actual, non-literary being named Thor, that may just not have had supernatural origins. Or maybe they voted for Thor because he's always fun at parties, could go either way. Thanks for the clarification. I get it now....Supreme Commander Thor is no longer fun at parties because he is dead.
iNow Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Thor is the Supreme Commander of the Asgard fleet. Sure, he died when he and his people created a black hole to destroy their own planet to keep hostile civilizations from acquiring their technology, but the question didn't qualify if people believed he was alive or not... In fact, Pangloss has voted for that Thor at least twice now.
DrDNA Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 In fact, Pangloss has voted for that Thor at least twice now. I didn't know we could have voted more than once. I have no qualms about skewing statistics in favor of my own views.
YT2095 Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 evidently this thread has come to a natural end as it has strayed into silliness. Closed.
Recommended Posts