Judgemend day! Beware!

[ahinton]

As long as the world remains in such a state where people obtain happiness by harming and hurting others as opposed to helping others, I doubt we're that far off from an "apocalyse".

Since some people unfortunately appear to have thrived on doing just that since time immemorial or earlier and and have continued to do so until now without the world coming to an end as a consequence, your assumption that we're not "that far off from an apocalypse" would appear to be entirely unfounded.

Best,

Alistair

[Bob]

A self-imposed/realization rapture?

[emill]

But since each and every religion teaches whatever it teaches based on a false assumption (the presence of a higher being giving down that what is teached), one might conclude that each religion is basically self-delusional. And mind you, I have studied religion, and was born and raised and actually still live in what counts as the Bible Belt in The Netherlands.

And why is it a false assumption? because it sounds ridiculous? it is unscientific?  it sounds funny? it is based on faith?  it is superstition?  that promoting the good side of man, loving your neighbors as you love yourself,  helping the poor, sharing your wealth and blessings etc. .... as taught by a higher being, entity, spirit, conscience, father or god figure ... is delusional?

[ahinton]

And why is it a false assumption? because it sounds ridiculous? it is unscientific?  it sounds funny? it is based on faith?  it is superstition?  that promoting the good side of man, loving your neighbors as you love yourself,  helping the poor, sharing your wealth and blessings etc. .... as taught by a higher being, entity, spirit, conscience, father or god figure ... is delusional?

In the absence of incontrovertible evidence of such a "higher being", the answer would appear to be yes - at least to those who, in said absence, do not happen instead to take the existence of such a being upon trust - and if not actually "delusional", then at the very lest questionable; furthermore, it is unreasonable to assume that "the good side of man" (as - and in the ways that - you describe it above) is not something by which human beings could live of their own volition without having necessarily to be "taught" those ways of behaviour by some "higher being" (of the existence of which/whom there is no hard evidence)?

Best,

Alistair

[mussels_with_nutella]

that promoting the good side of man, loving your neighbors as you love yourself,  helping the poor, sharing your wealth and blessings etc. .... as taught by a higher being, entity, spirit, conscience, father or god figure

The good side of man? How good it is? We are taught that loving your neighbours is a good thing. When, where and why? And in which case? Why those cases and why others are not? Do those other cases really exist?

We base the sentece "that's the good side of man" and we don't question it at all. However, we are constantly questioning the existence of God. Justice, for example, can be a harmful value. We must look beyond it, and difference between good and bad, not justice or injustice. Even goodness can be harmful, and badness sometimes cannot. Pain is a good thing, for example. We are drawn in the river of culture, enslaved by history, harming and self-harming constantly but don't questioning why, just being absolutely faithful to those immortal and unquestionable (even obvious) values.

And about God... my opinion is that exist. And it's just an opinion, because noone can prove the contrary. The same happens with Forces in physics. Do them exist? They are just a representation of the mysterious causes of the mathematical relationship between happenings we can only see different quiet things or in motion.

And picking up the thread... all of you can die whenever it may happen, and that would be your judgement day 

P.S.: Please don't misunderstand me. I am Catholic, Spanish, and in extension, a not-that-well English Speaker

[gep]

In the absence of incontrovertible evidence of such a "higher being", the answer would appear to be yes - at least to those who, in said absence, do not happen instead to take the existence of such a being upon trust - and if not actually "delusional", then at the very lest questionable; furthermore, it is unreasonable to assume that "the good side of man" (as - and in the ways that - you describe it above) is not something by which human beings could live of their own volition without having necessarily to be "taught" those ways of behaviour by some "higher being" (of the existence of which/whom there is no hard evidence)?

Best,

Alistair

One of the consequences of the idea that "the good side of Man" is/must be "taught" from a higher being is that someone without a religion therefor has no moral. I have quite often been accused of that myself. I would say that it exactly the realisation that there either is no god, or at least not the slightes shred of even the most vague indication that there might be a god makes for a higher moral, for without a god there is no reason or justification to amend the things cited as "the good side of Man". Such as "Love thy neighbour", which is usually amended to something like "Love thy neighbour (unless, of course, that neighbour is of another religion, a woman not knowing her place, gay, not paying enough to the Messengers of God, of the wrong colour, etc etc.)". Or "share you wealth (mainly and formostly with thy religious leaders)". One has only to casually look over Man's history (or even present day behaviour) to see that most of the atrocities great and small perpetraited are either religion based or at least condoned. One may look at the position of women in the world, or the reasons why quite a few wars are started (and superiority thinking for any reason is in fact "religious", if one defines religion as a faith in a superior being includes oneself as that superior being. As in Americans are better than all others, whites are better than blacks, men are better than women etc., Muslims are better than Christians, Christians are better than Muslims, and so forth).

And why is it a false assumption

Because simple logic reasoning brings at least me to the conclusion that if there is not the slightest hint of verifiable evidence for any of the gods man has worshipped over the eons, then the cahnces of there actually being a god are to be considered essentially zero. Moreover, the fact that most, if not all, gods Man has worshiped over the eons show a remarkable or even scary similarity with the worst of Man (violent, arbitrary, wrathfull, incosistend, untrustworthy, obessed with sex, and so on and so forth), the conclusion must be that gods are man made, not the other way round

promoting the good side of man, loving your neighbors as you love yourself,  helping the poor, sharing your wealth and blessings etc. (...) is delusional?

Far from it, the good side of Man needs quite a bit of promoting, actually. If your faith promotes you in all that you name, I can only rejoice your actions. It is just that these things are, to me at least, obvious if one wants to be a human being worthy of existing. It is just that human behaviour (for good or bad) does not prove (or need, or is excused by) the existence of any higher being.
Bisedes that, I think it is arrogance (quite typical of Man) to believe that there is a higher being who created the whole of the Universe and Man as the pinnacle (let alone Lord) of creation, or that a governer of the whole Universe and all that is therein would actually notice something as insignificant and ephemeral as a human..

all best,
gep

[lelle]

"the Bible is not true" because (most of?) its fundamental claims (age of the earth, how man and animals came into existence) have been proven false by science.

/thread

[mussels_with_nutella]

the conclusion must be that gods are man made, not the other way round

Maybe they are made each other? God made us existent, knowers but knowledgeless, and we made Him partly existent from our knowledgelessly. The thing is the more we know of the reality is the more we destroy from our God's essence concept (secularization). The final point would be that we know everything about reality and God has no place in our knowledge, so God doesn't exist as we have made him. But I don't share this opinion:

The cause of existence of all change can be thought in other being/change. That means that our Universe is complete (if the first statement was true). If the Universe is complete, that means two things:


1) Or all things are eternal and cyclical, or God exists and forged Universe once a long time ago until it dissapears again (without His ontologic envolving nowadays, He is not supplying existence, it was once supplied)

2) In the second case, we are free of His willing (which also exists, given an existing Universe). In other words, it's up to us to act in harmony with him or not. This harmony is knowleadgeable thanks to Jesus. If the first case was the true one (all things are eternal and cyclical) that means that we should act so that we make ourselves and the others able (and not only able, but actually be) happy. And everyone's happiness is (I won't say the whole but at least partially) God's desire.


In my opinion, that's why there is a moral and why God is conceivable in an UltraUniverse, even Universe. Given the existence of God or his non-existence, the result is the same: we are here, able to discover what retains happiness away from us, which values we have in our minds (and even hearts) that build an abyss from our suprčme goal and us.

And that means we must experience and, from that, rethink ideas such as love, traition, responsability, justice, innocence, and modify those that makes us and the others unable to achieve happiness... and even invent more?

[emill]

Because simple logic reasoning brings at least me to the conclusion that if there is not the slightest hint of verifiable evidence for any of the gods man has worshipped over the eons, then the cahnces of there actually being a god are to be considered essentially zero..... gep

  (underscoring mine).  You may be right, BUT may I just say that the total absence of verifiable evidence does not automatically infer a falsehood.  It may just be that the means or instruments used in the investigation are inadequate, the data is insufficient, the mind set is not broad or open enough, the conclusions are in error...etc.  Just like the question of life in other planets or aliens ... there is no verifiable evidence, YET the arguments for their existence is so compelling because of the innumerable galaxies and planets and maybe universes out there where surely there would be millions if not billions of earth-like planets so conducive to the development of life as we know it.  To many people the arguments for the existence of a higher being, a supreme being or god is just as compelling.

we have no disagreement ...as you are stating a personal opinion; however, your first statement sounded so emphatic and factual  -

But since each and every religion teaches whatever it teaches based on a false assumption (the presence of a higher being giving down that what is teached), one might conclude that each religion is basically self-delusional.

  -  which now turns out to be a personal opinion. It is such a general sweeping statement ... each and every religion teaches .... (therefore) each religion is self-delusional. The false assumptions of such a sweeping statement becomes immediately obvious.

[emill]

In the absence of incontrovertible evidence of such a "higher being", the answer would appear to be yes - at least to those who, in said absence, do not happen instead to take the existence of such a being upon trust - and if not actually "delusional", then at the very lest questionable; furthermore, it is unreasonable to assume that "the good side of man" (as - and in the ways that - you describe it above) is not something by which human beings could live of their own volition without having necessarily to be "taught" those ways of behaviour by some "higher being" (of the existence of which/whom there is no hard evidence)?

Best,

Alistair

Agree .... however putting aside trust and faith .... as I answered gep above, the absence of incontrovertible proof does not automatically infer a falsehood ..... leading to delusional beliefs or behavior.  Just like the question of life somewhere in the cosmos or aliens ... there is no verifiable or incontrovertible evidence , YET the arguments for their existence is so compelling because of the innumerable galaxies and planets and maybe universes out there where surely there would be millions if not billions of earth-like planets so conducive to the development of life as we know it.  To many people the arguments for the existence of a higher being, a supreme being or god is just as compelling.

I agree that goodness and virtues are innate in man ... but practicing those or making it a way of life coming from the firm belief that it is what pleases his god or was taught to him by his god is not delusional as earlier suggested by gep.  Delusional because of the absence of verifiable evidence as earlier argued.

[ongaku_oniko]

There's absolutely no need to argue with gep, emill. Just look at his thinking:

"based on simple logic"

He doesn't realize how flawed his logic is after having it pointed out several times; he doesn't realize how hypocritical his arguments are when they have much less evidence than the existence of god.

People accuse that you have no morals not because you're an athiest, but because of your actions, gep. Just look at what a bigot you are from this thread.

You believe in Science? Show me the evidence of m-branes and p-branes. The evidence for string field theory. The evidence for chaos causing the splitting of the universe. Do you even know what they are? Your science is nothing but random pieces of information (note: not facts) you heard from various places, and/or thought up yourself. They're not trustworthy. Especially when you can't even locate the slightest proof of your accusations other than your "simple logic", which isn't very logical at all.

You believe in Science? Let's do a thought-experiment.

Let's put a cat in a box, along with a geiger counter and a piece of radioactive substance, such that after an hour, there is exactly 50% chance that the radioactive substance will set off the geiger counter. If the counter is set off, a hammer then breaks a small flask containing hydrocyanic acid, and the cat dies. If the counter is not set off, nothing happens.

After an hour, is the cat dead or alive?

[ongaku_oniko]

"the Bible is not true" because (most of?) its fundamental claims (age of the earth, how man and animals came into existence) have been proven false by science.

/thread

This is actually false. I don't want to go into the truthfulness of the bible, but this is actually false. It's sad how many people believe this and think they're scientific.

But what they don't realize is that science cannot actually prove anything. This is, of course after the fact that there is symbolism in the bible just as with any other book, and arguments can be made on whether "seven days" is really seven days etc.

It seems that it's better to falsify the bible by finding internal contradictions such as the claim of only a single god, yet the father, son and holy spirit are all gods. Of course the bible never actually mentions the trinity... still.

[djealnla]

Deleted

[ongaku_oniko]

I never said religion is science;

Just because religion is not science doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't reject that scientific hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. At the same time, just because religion isn't falsifiable doesn't make it false. Why would you claim that I am rejecting falsifiability?

I'm not sure why you're quoting from the bible and which version you're using.

gep is claiming that god of any form doesn't exist, not just the god of the bible. And his "simple logic" seems to imply that his thinking is absolute. Since there is no evidence of a god, it doesn't exist. People who believe in a god are delusional. Those are his beliefs. And none of them are correct.

[pianisten1989]

Ha! I love when 2 people discusing religion It's always the non-religious one who starts quoting the bible, often from wikipedia. Aah, classic stuff!

[gep]

I should be wiser than reacting to o-o by now, but since he has proven me to be a fool, here we go...

Just because religion is not science doesn't mean it's wrong.

Of course not. One cannot prove the existence of love by measuring it with a tape. BUT one can prove the xistence of love by watching people interact. Science (or at least the scientific method) is that claims made are to be substanciated in some way. This need not be showing the actual thing, but at least some indications that a claim might be true are nessecary. As in

The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability

For example, most of the extrasolar planets so far detected have not been seen, but their presence has been detected by the influence they have on their star. The existence of such a planet in inferred because all other current explanations for the behavior of the star have been ruled out. This is testabillity. However, sometimes it happens that another investigator finds out that their is or might be another explanation for the behavior of the star, and then the planets may turn out not to be real. This is falsabillity. So other ways of trying to detect that planet may be tried (such as trying to find its infrared signal, if the planets is close enough to the star). If these methods fail, the claim of the existence of that planet is withdrawn. This is refutabillity.
Simple logic (yes, simple logic!) would then demand that if their is not the slightest evidence or even indication for the existence of something, the existence of that something must be denied, at least until such time as that evidence or indication does arise. In the case of religions, the huge number of gods claimed to exist throughout the existence of Man alone is an indication that at least those claimed gods must be made up. The way in which all those gods resemble human behaviors and desires is another indication that gods arose in the imagination of Man.
To put it perhaps somewhat roughly: if there is no evidence of whatever level for the existence of fairies, the existence of fairies must at least be doubted. Ditto with any god you wish to name.

At the same time, just because religion isn't falsifiable doesn't make it false.

It makes it suspicious at the very least.

You believe in Science? Let's do a thought-experiment.

Let's put a cat in a box, along with a geiger counter and a piece of radioactive substance, such that after an hour, there is exactly 50% chance that the radioactive substance will set off the geiger counter. If the counter is set off, a hammer then breaks a small flask containing hydrocyanic acid, and the cat dies. If the counter is not set off, nothing happens.

After an hour, is the cat dead or alive?

A most excellent example! One can test your experiment by opening the box, and see if the cat is alive or not. So you can know the truth of both the posibillities. It would be nice to have a test that simple to test if there is a god or not...

You believe in Science?

I think I already said I believe in the scientific method. Which is something else.

Show me the evidence of m-branes and p-branes. The evidence for string field theory. The evidence for chaos causing the splitting of the universe. Do you even know what they are?

To start with your question: yes I know what they are. And indeed the 'evidence" (at least so far) is purely mathematical, without any "real" facts known. Indeed this is at the very least a very weak point is string theory. I think that it is high time indeed to either think up some test to see if anything about it is right, or to abandon the idea until at least some better indications are found. The idea of multiple split-offs of the universe is claimed to be untestable, which as far as I am concerned makes it useless.

[pieces of information (note: not facts)

How can pieces of information not be facts?

gep is claiming that god of any form doesn't exist, not just the god of the bible.

Strickly speaking, I am claiming that every god Man has ever had has been made up by Man. This is not quite the same.

his "simple logic" seems to imply that his thinking is absolute.

This is bogus! All I ask is anyone who claimes there is a god to show at least some indications that this claim might be correct. There is none. You connot prove a non-existence (prove Santa does not exist), but you should be able to prove an existence.

People who believe in a god are delusional

Indeed. Mind you that this does not include any judgement on my side about the people who do believe in a god. I do not, in any way, dismiss people for disagreeing with me.

And none of them are correct.

Give me proof of that, and I will correct my conclusions.

It's always the non-religious one who starts quoting the bible

And what would be wrong with that? I have quite often seen that religious people have less knwoledge of the Bible (or Quran or whatever) that the religious people who's Holy Book it is! You must study something before you can pass any (logic) thought about it, right?

all best,
gep

[ongaku_oniko]

First of all, I am not religious.

Secondly, if you are only saying that the gods that man believe in are likely to be false, then I agree with you. I don't believe in any human religion either. For me, god is the explanation of the existence of the world. Something must've caused the universe to exist, and that cause is my god. Therefore god must exist by my definition.

But anyway, you keep stressing actually performing the experiment, but in reality many experiments cannot be done.

What happens if you find the cat alive? What happens if you find the cat dead? You don't really learn anything from opening the box and seeing the results. Certainly you cannot believe in the current theory of how the cat is alive and dead at the same time, since the cat is clearly either dead or alive everytime you do the experiment.

how can information not be facts? There are false information... For example, if I tell you "it's been proven that god exists", that's a piece of information, but not a fact.

The indication that god exist is the fact that this universe exists. Now I'm not going to argue against the theory of evolution. But how life originally generated is a lot less clear, and there are many theories now.

Let's take the Urey-Miller experiment. They were able to generate a few amino acids under ideal conditions. But how many amino acids are required to make a living thing? Lots, even for unicellular organisms. And you can't just have any amino acids, only left-handed amino acids. And the amino acids have to combine in a certain order. Besides, who's to say th even if all all this happened, the organism will really be alive rather than just a dead cell?

If I remember correctly, the chances of a simple unicellular organism forming is less than 10^-50 unfortunately I can't find my source to confirm this. Needless to say it's a very very small chance, something similar to having junk in a junkyard being made into a ferrari by a tornado.

And even if this really happened, the organism has to survive long enough in that dangerous atmosphere to reproduce and mutate. Not very likely, in my opinion. Of course you can argue that since there are trillions of stars in a galaxy and trillions of galaxies, it'll happen somewhere. But then we come back to the question of where those stars came from.

[gep]

First of all, I am not religious.

Then let us agree to disagree on that point, perhaps we simply have different ideas of what defines “religion”.

Secondly, if you are only saying that the gods that man believe in are likely to be false, then I agree with you.

If you change that to “there is nothing to substantiate the claim of existence of any god Man believes in or has ever believed in”, you get my point exactly.

I don't believe in any human religion either.

You mean the basis of these religions (i.e. the god or pantheon thereof), or the institutions? People can be Christians without being connected to any Christian church, for ex.

For me, god is the explanation of the existence of the world. Something must've caused the universe to exist, and that cause is my god. Therefore god must exist by my definition.

Hmmm, I see what you mean. I too cannot imagine the Universe coming into existence without anything triggering it, even if that triggering was a random quantum fluctuation in the fabric of some meta-Universe. Or something else. Even the possibility that some “meta-mind” in a “meta-universe” started the universe we live in the some sort of “meta-testube”. I also think that we may never know, or even have the slightest clue about, what that trigger was, or wherein it happened, or what went on before, etc. The “brane” theories of string theory do give some explanations, but then say immediately they are not or ever will be verifiable, which, at least to me, makes them little more than useless.
But giving that cause (I think you do not mean to specify that “something” you mention?) a name is prone to misunderstanding. Calling it “god” is deifying that cause, just as calling lightning the hammer of Thor is (or was). Do you mean by your definition of god as cause of the universe a conscious mind or something like that? Or merely a name for an unknown force or cause of unspecified substance? Giving it a name like “god” seems like making an anthropic personification of a force or cause or similar, which is like pulling something unknowable like the cause of the universe down into the realm of Man. Unless I misunderstand you, your concept of god is not some entity calling the universe into being, but more like a “prime mover” of unknown(able) sort. If so, calling that cause “god” may be confusing. As in knowing there is a force that makes lightning happen, and calling that Thor, but not meaning you think of Thor as some big man-in-the-sky with a unsettling big Hollywood contract.

But anyway, you keep stressing actually performing the experiment, but in reality many experiments cannot be done.

No, you cannot put a star in a test tube and see what happens when you prod it. But what you can do is, when you have a theory that the Universe started in a big bang, calculate what the background temperature of the Universe would be if indeed that bang did happen. Then you can proceed by building an apparatus that can measure that radiation and see what you get. If what you get is close to what you predicted, you may be on the trail of something, and if it’s way of, something may be wrong with your assumptions. Or your telescope is covered in pigeon poo, of course… This is different than your usual lab experiment, but still it is an experiment. After all, “experiment” means “an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle”. You do not need to bolt the universe to a lab table to test some principles!

What happens if you find the cat alive? What happens if you find the cat dead? You don't really learn anything from opening the box and seeing the results. Certainly you cannot believe in the current theory of how the cat is alive and dead at the same time, since the cat is clearly either dead or alive everytime you do the experiment.

I doubt that is the “current” theory! The thought experiment was set up to explain the principle of uncertainty. And what is uncertain is the radioactive particle, of which it is completely unpredictable when it will disintegrate. We cannot know, in this experiment, whether the particle has disintegrated until we open the box. The cat is not uncertain, for it will be alive or dead regardless whether we look or not. Of course, if you haven’t paid attention to the construction of the box, you could be certain the cat is dead once you realise you forgot the air holes.
Anyway, if the box is constructed rightly, there are three possible outcomes of the experiment. The cat will turn out to be 1) dead, or 2) asleep, or 3) bloody furious.
There is a very good (if somewhat spooky) real experiment that demonstrates the uncertainty principle. You doubtlessly know the “double split” experiment, in which a ray of light (usually a laser) is directed a two very narrow slits, which produces a pattern of interference on a screen behind the slits. The explanation is that the light going through either slit interferes with the light going through the other. However, if you run the experiment so that at any time only one photon at a time is sent to the slits, the same interference pattern will emerge! The only explanation is that a photon somehow goes through both slits at once, and interferes with itself! The same trick can be sane with single electrons, or protons!

how can information not be facts? There are false information... For example, if I tell you "it's been proven that god exists", that's a piece of information, but not a fact.

Hmm, I see what you mean. However, I consider only right information as information. Clearly wrong information isn’t information at all, in my book!

The indication that god exist is the fact that this universe exists.

Only with the definition of ‘god’ as you proposed above. Meaning calling whatever caused the universe god. Yes there must be a cause, but I personally would not dare give it a name…

Now I'm not going to argue against the theory of evolution.

Good. Would be a bit silly to deny evolution when, for ex, bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics are flying by by the dozen nowadays!

But how life originally generated is a lot less clear, and there are many theories now.

Perhaps we may never know; after all, we cannot rerun how it happened!

Let's take the Urey-Miller experiment. They were able to generate a few amino acids under ideal conditions. But how many amino acids are required to make a living thing? Lots, even for unicellular organisms. And you can't just have any amino acids, only left-handed amino acids. And the amino acids have to combine in a certain order. Besides, who's to say th even if all all this happened, the organism will really be alive rather than just a dead cell?

21 amino acids, in fact, are used in living cells. Chemically it is possible to make many more. I do not know if it is necessary to have left-handed ones, maybe right-handed ones might have done too. But it is very hard to give even a definition of “life” (try!). The best scientific one seems to be “a stable chemical molecular based system that can self-replicate and undergo Darwinian evolution”. The most correct one is probably everything we recognise as life”.

If I remember correctly, the chances of a simple unicellular organism forming is less than 10-50 unfortunately I can't find my source to confirm this. Needless to say it's a very very small chance, something similar to having junk in a junkyard being made into a ferrari by a tornado.

I think you refer to Fred Hoyle, and the chances he gave were even much worse than that, if I recall correctly. He used this to “prove” panspermia, but forgot that panspermia merely transfers the question of the origin of life to another place, and adds the odds of any organism travelling untold light years through space and land on a planet unscathed. Hoyle also did not want a Big Bang, because he, as an fervent atheist, resented the idea of a beginning to the Universe, because that might indicate a Beginner. Hoyle was a very fundamentalist religious atheist, in that he expected the Universe to fit his personal opinions…

And even if this really happened, the organism has to survive long enough in that dangerous atmosphere to reproduce and mutate. Not very likely, in my opinion.

Why not? You would hardly believe what some bacteria can survive, or even thrive on! (Trust me, I work in microbiology. What some can do and adapt to is beyond belief!). What is dangerous to us, is balmy to some of these bugs (like an optimum grow temperature of 115°C (that is 238°F!), or a pH of 1, or the capacity to breath iron…)

Of course you can argue that since there are trillions of stars in a galaxy and trillions of galaxies, it'll happen somewhere.

Who knows, we may life on the only planet on which it ever happened, and existed long enough to evolve into lawyers!

But then we come back to the question of where those stars came from.

We can nowadays more or less see them form before our very telescopes…

*pant, pant, pant…*

Amen, ite missa est…

gep

[ongaku_oniko]

To sum it up, I don't know if my "god" is sentient or not; it could be just a big bang or whatever came before. But certainly if it has the power to create the universe it would have the power to do... well, anything. Whether it is concious or not, I don't know. I guess I personally think that it is, because something doesn't just happen by coincidence.

If you change that to “there is nothing to substantiate the claim of existence of any god Man believes in or has ever believed in”, you get my point exactly.

I don't know how meaningful this phrase is. I mean there is nothing to substantiate the claim that everyone deserves the freedom of speech. Does that mean that people who believe in the freedom of speech are all delusional?

[mussels_with_nutella]

Why am I ignored so constantly? xDDDDDDD

For all of you who love science and religion, revise K. Popper's thoughts and Henry Gosse's Onphalos theory. They are nice!

[gep]

Why am I ignored so constantly? xDDDDDDD

For all of you who love science and religion, revise K. Popper's thoughts and Henry Gosse's Onphalos theory. They are nice!

The most positive epithet to Gosse's Omphalos Theory is "hilarious" I think. Popper's thoughts seem to be rather more interesting. There are limits to falsifiabillity, of course (you cannot prove the non-existence of something, for example), but he seems to be at least on the right track.

[pianisten1989]

Big news: It will happen on October 21. The world is currently under judgement, and will be destroyed on October 21.

[pianowolfi]

Big news: It will happen on October 21. The world is currently under judgement, and will be destroyed on October 21.

Why does it always have to be a 21st?
At least we won't get out of celebrating that way. October 21, December 21, 2012 etc...easy to memorize. I'll put the Champaign on ice already.