Nooooo I didn't know there were alternate realities. Stop the laughter, make it stop.

(July 23, 2012 at 5:11 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: Stop the laughter, make it stop.

You should probably take your pills in that case.

meh creationists laugh at you.

And why would we care what a person with half a brain thinks of us?

I wouldn't say those with half a brain, but rather those of a certain belief set.

(July 23, 2012 at 8:52 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: I wouldn't say those with half a brain, but rather those of a certain belief set.

Yeah, beliefs that reveal them to have only half a brain. Simple, really.

(July 2, 2012 at 10:41 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: I must admit I'm disappointed the only response I could elicit from you is pointing out a typo.

And still, you have no argument to refute the ideas proposed by the dude in the 'wheelcheer'.

"And still, you have no argument to refute the ideas proposed by the dude in the 'wheelcheer'."

This. He sounds like a creationist pretending to be a fence-sitter.

His lack of any clear refutation is a sign of the real handicap.

(July 23, 2012 at 6:20 am)Ace Otana Wrote:

Quote:Yes and by stating only that which is scientifically proven to be 'natural' reflects your view on natural and science. I don't solely depend on science.

Fine, so I take it you have a better method of determining what's real and what's not then? A method better than the scientific method? Something that can provide more information, details into how and when with support?
You use science every day. The computer, your food, preventing churches from being destroyed (thanks to the lightning rod), medicine.

If you have a better method than the scientific method, please share.

I'm not prosposing a method, how many times do you need me to say that for it to sink in? Although it's the best method humanity has this does not grant it powers beyond its scope. Why do you think it does?

Why you think scinece's roles in computer, food etc contributes towards answering the god question is up to you to rationalise.

Quote:My existence requests that I ask why I exist, and I see no reason to view what we can replicate and measure as a sole means to address this question.

Quote:Then make up whatever you want. Believe what you want. Believing in something won't make you right, however you're free to believe that if you want though. Whatever floats your boat.

I agree, I shall believe whatever I want, as much as you do. Just try not to portray your position as without belief, we all make choices in choosing what we believe to be of relevance, you are no different.

Quote:Why are you convinced that this is the only way to assess whether a god exists?

Quote:Quote me where I said that.

"If you have a better method than the scientific method, please share."

Quote:It's not down to me to prove or disprove god or gods. That's the theist's job. I just reject it as total nonsense. When it comes to god, it's down to you entirely.
I have rejected the claim based on the fact that I've seen no reason or evidence to suggest that a god exists and that he/it is at all required. Simple.

You're confused. I make no claims about knowing or believing so there's nothing to propose. I'm asking why you consider yourself capable of assessing the evidence, or why you assume the evidence must be obtainable? This, in conjunction with a dislike of religion comes across as a stitch up. The scary thing is I'm not sure whether you realise this.

Quote:Your move.

We're not playing on the same board

---

(July 23, 2012 at 6:35 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(July 23, 2012 at 3:20 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: Do you actually think that's what I'm saying? It's either a failure to understand, a disengenious tactic (by attempting to make materialism interchangeable with science) or even worse, this is what you believe to be true.

No science is not a religion, materialists application of science is.

I'm intrigued, how else would you apply science except in a material fashion?

Really? Is that what you got from what I said? I'm not sure if you're seriuos or not. I will assume you are and answer your question. It's such a strange question to ask, I'm assuming you don't understand what materialism is.

Materialism and material are not interchangable. For example, I believe materials exist and that science can be applied to these materials, but this doesn't mean I believe materialism to be true, nor why anyone must believe this to be true. This conclusion would make no sense at all, and something you need to rationalise.

Quote:Religion is a tool used by the powerful few to manipulate the ignorant many.

Science is a tool used to understand the universe.

Quote:Yay science wins so easily.

Quote:It certainly shits all over religion when it comes to understanding the universe.

It depends if religion is right or not.

Quote:And if you con't see the difference then there is no helping you.

Quote:I don't require help from people who accept what they say to be true, as they've said it.

Quote:Prove me wrong then.

That logic is employed by those who ask you to disprove a god. Pot, kettle and all that.

'Disprove that science can't answer every question' - this statements an article of faith, not fact. Until you prove it to be fact, i see no reason to believe it on the basis it's the only option we have.

(July 24, 2012 at 3:43 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: You're confused. I make no claims about knowing or believing so there's nothing to propose. I'm asking why you consider yourself capable of assessing the evidence, or why you assume the evidence must be obtainable? This, in conjunction with a dislike of religion comes across as a stitch up. The scary thing is I'm not sure whether you realise this.

C'mon. Why so bold in your challenges when you 'make no claims about knowing or believing'? Isn't this the ultimate 'I have nothing; therefore, I risk nothing move'? The troll's delight.