What are the odds of a religion being the "right one"?

[YoYoPapaya]

“ There is exactly one (1) true reality ”

“ Originally Posted by AlexG
You haven't established that. Nor have you defined that. ”

So. I have been thinking a bit.

If there is exactly one objective reality my equation looks valid. Right?

If not. Then every religion/belief/theory claiming to be the (description of) objective reality must be false by definition.

 

[chimpkin]

John99 said:
Really? New ones are created all the time?

Neopaganism...the Jon Frum cargo cult... the Ordo Templi Orientis...(shudder) the Scientologists....Dianic Wicca-well, any Wicca, but Dianic's particularly recent...

Then every religion/belief/theory claiming to be the (description of) objective reality must be false by definition.

I actually take that the other way and say that they are all, to some undeterminable degree, true.(As Terry Prachett would have it, for a given value of true)

I dispute that there is an objective reality, and not a multi-faceted one...after all, only the present moment is utterly real.

The past is a story in your brain that you will reconstruct many times and eventually forget, the future is a swarm of possibilities that may or may not happen.

You're here now and that is the truth.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

I think that would qualify for the "belief" category.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Well lets see here:
Really? New ones are created all the time?

http://www.religiousworlds.com/newreligions.html

In Africa, David Barrett has documented the emergence of 6,000 new indigenous churches since the late 1960s.

For example.

In fact new religions are nearly universally frowned upon...And why is that?

Universally frowned upon? By the likes of famous Hollywood stars?

Maybe 'cause no one likes a smarty pants.

 

[John99]

A new religious movement (NRM) is a religious community or ethical, spiritual, or philosophical group of modern origin. NRMs may be novel in origin or they may be part of a wider religion, such as Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism, in which case they will be distinct from pre-existing denominations. Scholars studying the sociology of religion have almost unanimously adopted this term as a neutral alternative to the word "cult". They continue to try to reach agreement on definitions and boundaries.[1]

I didnt consider sects as being new.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I didnt consider sects as being new.

Read your own quoted portions:

A new religious movement (NRM) is a religious community or ethical, spiritual, or philosophical group of modern origin. NRMs may be novel in origin or they may be part of a wider religion, such as Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism, in which case they will be distinct from pre-existing denominations. Scholars studying the sociology of religion have almost unanimously adopted this term as a neutral alternative to the word "cult". They continue to try to reach agreement on definitions and boundaries.[1]

Read the links:

Likewise, Protestant Christianity was originally seen as a new religious movement or breakaway development.

Look where that is now...

 

[chimpkin]

I think that would qualify for the "belief" category.

Maybe so. Although as far as the past goes:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199601/the-diva-disclosure?page=4

Merely by careful questioning, Loftus could cause subjects to remember stop signs as yield signs, or place nonexistent barns in empty fields. Subsequent research has shown that violent events decrease the accuracy of memory: in fact, memory is weakest at both low (boredom, sleepiness) and high (stress, trauma) levels of arousal. The bottom line? Memory is fragile, suggestible, and can easily decay over time.

It's a 6-pager, I'm familiar with Loftus' work...but if you're not, you might want to.

To me the implication of memory erosion...to some degree there may be an absolute universe...but I'm not sure we can apprehend it.

So if we create our own individual realities to some degree...

Then those realities are malleable, and erode.

So the future-well, there's a vast (although I don't think quite infinite array) of things that could happen at any given moment.

But I am sitting in my chair at work here and having a spinach salad. Insofar as I can say anything is true, this is true.

 

[wynn]

So you're basically saying that i should shut op because I think there is only one truth about everything? This is nonsense dude. Please clean up your act.
I have said that I believe that there is one truth about everything (more than one truth makes no sense, you must at least agree on that. Otherwise we get paradoxes with several omnipotent entities and such) and that I don't know what it is. That is all.

If you believe there is only one truth about everything, then there is no problem, and nothing to say.

If there is only one truth about everything, then it is ultimately impossible to be wrong.

If there is only one truth about everything, then ultimately, whatever variations of truth or possibilities of truth we may perceive are irrelevant (as things will necessarily work out according to the one truth).


The only way the dilemma "Which religion is the right one?" exists is if it is taken for granted that God (if God exists) is evil.
Because it is only in such a scenario that it is important to choose the "right religion" in a single decision-making situation under the threat of eternal punishment.

As such, a true atheist who lacks all belief in God (including the belief that God is evil) and who believes there is only one truth about everything, does not have the conceptual framework to ask "which religion could be the right one, what are the odds?"

 

[wynn]

So you know for a FACT that one of these 2 or 3 beliefs is the right one?
There is no guarantee for this. If you think there is, I would like you to explain how you prove it.

Because logically, there cannot be many options - 4 at most, depending on the situation.

In the case of religion, there are only 2 options: theism and atheism, perhaps a third one could be considered that is neither theism nor atheism.

If, however, one operates out of the notion that the thousands of philosophies/worldviews/religions are all in exclusive competition and only one of them can be right, then this implies there is already a belief in place that not choosing the "right philosophy/worldview/religion" (in a single decision-making situation) will result in irreversible, irredeemable consequences.

IOW, thinking one can or has to choose the right one among many philosophies/worldviews/religions is not a decision-making situation to begin with.


The rational approach is to reduce the number of options that are to be chosen amongst down to 2.

This reduction is done by reconceptualizing the initial options in such a manner that we arrive at an analytically simple decision-making situation.

So, for example, if we find it is relevant to choose one among the thousands of philosophies/worldviews/religions, we need to reconceptualize the differences among them in such a manner that we arrive at only two options to choose from. A basic dichotomy is theism vs. atheism.
Once we decide on this, we can make further choices, by the same principle of reducing the number of options to two.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

If you believe there is only one truth about everything, then there is no problem, and nothing to say.

If there is only one truth about everything, then it is ultimately impossible to be wrong.

If there is only one truth about everything, then ultimately, whatever variations of truth or possibilities of truth we may perceive are irrelevant (as things will necessarily work out according to the one truth).


The only way the dilemma "Which religion is the right one?" exists is if it is taken for granted that God (if God exists) is evil.
Because it is only in such a scenario that it is important to choose the "right religion" in a single decision-making situation under the threat of eternal punishment.

You assume that I'm interested in the "choice". I'm not. Only the probability. You also assume evil exists. It probably doesn't.

As such, a true atheist who lacks all belief in God (including the belief that God is evil) and who believes there is only one truth about everything, does not have the conceptual framework to ask "which religion could be the right one, what are the odds?"

This is nonsense. You are obviously just trying to shut me up, because my question scares you. There is no logical connection between the first and second part of your post and yet you write "as such".

 

[YoYoPapaya]

Because logically, there cannot be many options - 4 at most, depending on the situation.

This logic you will have to display here. Logically there is only 4 possible explanations for true objective reality? Really? That is utter bs.

In the case of religion, there are only 2 options: theism and atheism, perhaps a third one could be considered that is neither theism nor atheism.

First of all no. Religion does not require you to be a theist. Some theist explained that to me a while ago.

In the case of choosing whether to be religious there is only two option. When choosing your religion there are many options. Unless you claim that God and the entire Norse pantheon are one and the same. That is obvious nonsense again.

If, however, one operates out of the notion that the thousands of philosophies/worldviews/religions are all in exclusive competition and only one of them can be right, then this implies there is already a belief in place that not choosing the "right philosophy/worldview/religion" (in a single decision-making situation) will result in irreversible, irredeemable consequences.

No it does not imply that. Just because only one of them CAN be right, doesn't mean one of them is.

IOW, thinking one can or has to choose the right one among many philosophies/worldviews/religions is not a decision-making situation to begin with.

IOW you're a crackpot that wants me to shut up because I don't believe in GOD.

The rational approach is to reduce the number of options that are to be chosen amongst down to 2.

WHAT!?!?!?! Where did you get this?

This reduction is done by reconceptualizing the initial options in such a manner that we arrive at an analytically simple decision-making situation.

Ok can you show us this reduction process here?

So, for example, if we find it is relevant to choose one among the thousands of philosophies/worldviews/religions, we need to reconceptualize the differences among them in such a manner that we arrive at only two options to choose from. A basic dichotomy is theism vs. atheism.
Once we decide on this, we can make further choices, by the same principle of reducing the number of options to two.

This is of course your standard religoulous horsecrap. Make it a 50/50 thing DOES GOD EXIST OR DOESNT HE.

The whole point of my equation is to show you why the choice situation is irrelevant because whatever "reality" you choose has close to zero probability to be right.

You have not contested the equation, only spewed more religious nonsense.

Let me give you an example of why it is not a 50/50. say you have 100 six sided dice. By your logic there is a 50/50 chance of all of them showing 6 any time you roll them. They either all roll 6 or they don't.

 

[wynn]

Okay. Suit yourself.

 

[420Joey]

temp

Yes you're right. You can interpret my posts as you like. I'm just telling you that you're wrong. It's not about who has the bigger penis Birch. It's about intentions. Mine was to say that science might one day be able to explain these experiences. Everything else is your failed interpretation. It's like you want to see me as some sort of evil Birch hater whose only purpose in life is to make fun of you.

Your posts intentions are based on the fact that you try to say "science might one day be able to explain these experiences" you are cowardly hiding behind the guise of science entering religious arenas and perpetuating irrational contempt and mocking (500 posts in 16 days worth) as your lying as if you simply question there beliefs and present rational arguments. Science and origin have nothing to do with one another. We can't conduct science in regards to the question: Do we have a ultimate frame of reference or about origin. You understand this, no? You understand the investigation is futile, correct?

Your mind is so localized and warped in perspective that you fail to provide your brain the credit that your thoughts or fabric of the very consciousness you take for granted just may be a fragment of the god you seek to debunk (which cannot be done) you can say matter postulated itself or I can say god did, simple and complex are abitary since its a speculation on its behalf. We can ascertain a few basic things we think may be real.

Universe always expands.
Time is relative in the sense of our energy and matters interaction.
Reality as we come to understand it is based on subjective thought and physical processing.
Dreams are apart of this reality but it's not "physical"
"Physical" is subjective thought and objective thought.
Energy is always changing, never destroyed.

I mean, you can say that nothing can do this. That's fine. But you can't ascertain this as the truth. I believe that god is infinite range of possibility. I believe we are living an illusion with no you or I. Thus if you have no theory or speculation to contrast religion, you should keep your mouth shut if your smart, you will speculate, use logical reasoning and try to connect the dots in hopes that you will at the very least expand your horizons mentally and if something is to be made of it, it is what it is.

However if you want to continue acting like a jackass its only because you think your outsmarting someone else by mocking there belief when you lack one and continue to perpetuate a baseless assumption in religious forums to get them to conform to your baseless belief. Like I've stated your acting like a thiest. (Now that's an insult, eh!)

and you should get your act together for god sakes(no pun intended)

 

[Randwolf]

You know Joey, after a more careful reading of your posts here, I begin to wonder. Maybe your stuff isn't so crazy, who am I to say? I certainly don't proclaim to have all the answers, but I do have questions about some of the concepts you appear to be presenting. Will you clarify a few things for me?

Your [YoYoPapaya's] posts intentions are based on the fact that you try to say "science might one day be able to explain these experiences" you are cowardly hiding behind the guise of science entering religious arenas

Why do you characterize science in this fashion? Wouldn't it be cool if science could prove / explain our origins and give us at least a glimmer of understanding about who / what created everything in the first place? And why?

I understand you believe this to be impossible, or at least mutually contradictory, but it seems like it goes further with you. It's almost as if you manifest abhorrence at the very idea. Why? Am I misunderstanding you?

Would you truly have a great objection and put up fierce resistance if scientists one day proclaimed "We have proved God's existence! Here is the evidence, go replicate and see for yourself!"?

It would seem that such a prospect should delight you. Theoretically, that could drastically hasten the process of leading all mankind to unite under the "One and only true God", right? How would that be a "bad" thing?

Again, I understand that you believe it impossible for science to ever "prove" or "disprove" our origin or the existence of God. However, from the viewpoint of a lot of people, religion is pure speculation at best and complete and utter psychosis at the worst. Can you stop and speculate the other way for just a moment? What if science could, one day, help substantiate your beliefs? Would that be a positive or a negative to you, and why?

and perpetuating irrational contempt and mocking

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to and I really have nothing to say about. I included it simply for continuity while quoting you.

(500 posts in 16 days worth)

I am a little curious about this part. It's almost as if the mere fact of someone being a prolific poster angers you. What difference does the number of posts made per day have to do with anything?

as your lying as if you simply question there beliefs and present rational arguments.

Since you appear to have already reached an unshakable conclusion regarding another member's veracity, I doubt anything I say would change your mind.

OTH, it should be possible for someone to question beliefs and assertions as they are posted, correct? Or do the questions themselves inherently offend you by their very existence? If so, why? If not, could you give me a specific example of what does offend you about these questions so that I might better understand your intentions and beliefs?

Science and origin have nothing to do with one another. We can't conduct science in regards to the question: Do we have a ultimate frame of reference or about origin. You understand this, no? You understand the investigation is futile, correct?

I really can't say anymore than I already have regarding this, except to reiterate: Why, exactly, is investigation futile? Are you Ignostic?
(I imagine you are already familiar with that "belief system", but if not, please do yourself a favor and look it up before replying. Interesting concept...)

Your mind is so localized and warped in perspective that you fail to provide your brain the credit that your thoughts or fabric of the very consciousness you take for granted just may be a fragment of the god you seek to debunk (which cannot be done)

Again, I just don't understand why or how you are so positive that it "cannot be done". Please explain.

you can say matter postulated itself or I can say god did, simple and complex are abitary since its a speculation on its behalf. We can ascertain a few basic things we think may be real.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to convey here - the best I came up with is that you believe some claims are arbitrary and speculative. Is that correct? If so, I totally agree.

Universe always expands.
Time is relative in the sense of our energy and matters interaction.
Reality as we come to understand it is based on subjective thought and physical processing.
Dreams are apart of this reality but it's not "physical"
"Physical" is subjective thought and objective thought.
Energy is always changing, never destroyed.

In order:

• Yes, as far as we know, although there are still competing theories.
• ???
• Yes, this view is promulgated in certain belief systems.
• OK, I guess...
• I don't quite get your meaning on this one. Are you trying to say that "thought" is a physical process?
• Agreed.

I mean, you can say that nothing can do this. That's fine.

Agreed, anyone can say anything about everything.

But you can't ascertain this as the truth.

As before, why not? And how do you know this?

I believe that god is infinite range of possibility.

OK

I believe we are living an illusion with no you or I.

Well, let's pretend we do actually exist for a minute, alright? Just so we can continue communicating...

Thus if you have no theory or speculation to contrast religion, you should keep your mouth shut if your smart, you will speculate, use logical reasoning and try to connect the dots in hopes that you will at the very least expand your horizons mentally and if something is to be made of it, it is what it is.

This still elicits the same internal response from me. I feel compelled to ask why you believe that science doesn't "use logical reasoning and try to connect the dots in hopes that you will at the very least expand your horizons mentally", thereby somehow making it incompatible with your belief system. If, in fact, that is what you believe, of course. If not, please correct my assumption.


The rest of your post appears to be directed specifically towards YoYoPapaya, so I will leave it for him to respond.


/Thanking you in advance for your consideration and looking forward to your reply...

 

[YoYoPapaya]

what? this reply makes no sense. but that seems to be the best you can do but of course, you are so smart because you safely use the empirical evidence argument. that is brilliant. lol

Congrats! You officially broke the record.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

Your posts intentions are based on the fact that you try to say "science might one day be able to explain these experiences" you are cowardly hiding behind the guise of science entering religious arenas and perpetuating irrational contempt and mocking (500 posts in 16 days worth) as your lying as if you simply question there beliefs and present rational arguments. Science and origin have nothing to do with one another. We can't conduct science in regards to the question: Do we have a ultimate frame of reference or about origin. You understand this, no? You understand the investigation is futile, correct?

I guess scientists are wasting time then building Large hadron colliders then and stuff. Maybe you should call CERN and tell them to stop what they are doing right away as they are obviously just wasting time and money.

Your mind is so localized and warped in perspective that you fail to provide your brain the credit that your thoughts or fabric of the very consciousness you take for granted just may be a fragment of the god you seek to debunk (which cannot be done) you can say matter postulated itself or I can say god did, simple and complex are abitary since its a speculation on its behalf. We can ascertain a few basic things we think may be real.

I don't want to debunk anything. But I am curious as to how everything began. I have shown you why I think it is unlikely to be am invisible father figure or however else you want to describe the magic creator you believe in and all you did in response to that was try and ridicule me, making yourself look stupid in the process.

Universe always expands.

How do you know?

Time is relative in the sense of our energy and matters interaction.
Reality as we come to understand it is based on subjective thought and physical processing.
Dreams are apart of this reality but it's not "physical"

Are you sure? Chemical processes aren't physical? What are they then, magical?

I mean, you can say that nothing can do this. That's fine. But you can't ascertain this as the truth. I believe that god is infinite range of possibility. I believe we are living an illusion with no you or I. Thus if you have no theory or speculation to contrast religion, you should keep your mouth shut if your smart, you will speculate, use logical reasoning and try to connect the dots in hopes that you will at the very least expand your horizons mentally and if something is to be made of it, it is what it is.

Yes that's the standard response i seem to get from my good christian brothers and sisters: "Keep your mouth shut! You can't make claim about the tooth fairy if you know nothing of fairys"

I'm saying that guesswork and faith are all good and fine. If it works for you, then fine by me. I don't fault that. I just happen to believe that it is highly improbable as I have shown elsewhere.

However if you want to continue acting like a jackass its only because you think your outsmarting someone else by mocking there belief when you lack one and continue to perpetuate a baseless assumption in religious forums to get them to conform to your baseless belief. Like I've stated your acting like a thiest. (Now that's an insult, eh!)

I'm a blank slate. I don't have belief. I do have curiousity though.

 

[420Joey]

You know Joey, after a more careful reading of your posts here, I begin to wonder. Maybe your stuff isn't so crazy, who am I to say? I certainly don't proclaim to have all the answers, but I do have questions about some of the concepts you appear to be presenting. Will you clarify a few things for me?

Why do you characterize science in this fashion? Wouldn't it be cool if science could prove / explain our origins and give us at least a glimmer of understanding about who / what created everything in the first place? And why?

Ofcourse it would be cool. I think science is wayyy more fascinating than religion. I look at micro and even macro pictures and I'm awe struck and sometimes am lost for words. Science currently has standards of empericism so origin will be difficult but maybe one day possible. My beef is not with science, without it, were just animals with minds.

I understand you believe this to be impossible, or at least mutually contradictory, but it seems like it goes further with you. It's almost as if you manifest abhorrence at the very idea. Why? Am I misunderstanding you?

Sortov. I'm saying that certain people rely on this empericism of science to contradict ever idea that our current line of logic can possibly speculate about. From a historical context, look at all those people who were right about there speculations not based on empericism who never knew they were right in there lifetime. Not to say this could happen by speculating but to obstruct the intended purpose of doing so by demanding proof of the emperical kind for such a far-fetched concept in our present understanding of science is absurd. There is a place for this in para, psuedo, philosophy, and even religion. That's what people believe. To demand emperical evidence would contradict the very nature of this genres. I'm not saying let's all be stupid in the science forum.

Would you truly have a great objection and put up fierce resistance if scientists one day proclaimed "We have proved God's existence! Here is the evidence, go replicate and see for yourself!"?

No I believe consciousness will evolve to the point of us manfacturing our reality someday. Look how far the essense of consciousness have gone so far, why should I believe it wont continue.

It would seem that such a prospect should delight you. Theoretically, that could drastically hasten the process of leading all mankind to unite under the "One and only true God", right? How would that be a "bad" thing?

It woulden't be and I dont neccessarily subscribe to the belief that god wants us united. I think that would contradict the very essense of experience if there was a general outline.

Again, I understand that you believe it impossible for science to ever "prove" or "disprove" our origin or the existence of God. However, from the viewpoint of a lot of people, religion is pure speculation at best and complete and utter psychosis at the worst. Can you stop and speculate the other way for just a moment? What if science could, one day, help substantiate your beliefs? Would that be a positive or a negative to you, and why?

I agree with you that most organized religion is speculation at best and psychosis at worst but this can also be applied to your anti-thiest. Every belief centered on this concept is a supposition at the present moment. So what.

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to and I really have nothing to say about. I included it simply for continuity while quoting you.

Thanks.

I am a little curious about this part. It's almost as if the mere fact of someone being a prolific poster angers you. What difference does the number of posts made per day have to do with anything?

How can you miss that point? He claims not to care about religion because of its improbability he says he should just ignore it. I look at his profile and he just joined like 2 weeks ago and has 500 post mostly in the religious section, he's creating threads simply mocking verses presenting rationale arguments. My beef is not with his belief but his insistance on trying to conform people to his belief, actually his lack of one, which is fine if it doesent tread on insulting and isnt based on making someone feel inferior.

Since you appear to have already reached an unshakable conclusion regarding another member's veracity, I doubt anything I say would change your mind.

I could care less about him. It's his character not mine.

OTH, it should be possible for someone to question beliefs and assertions as they are posted, correct? Or do the questions themselves inherently offend you by their very existence? If so, why? If not, could you give me a specific example of what does offend you about these questions so that I might better understand your intentions and beliefs?

This is utter hyperbole. State where I said we couldent question suppositions. This whole time I said rational arguments should be presented. It's sheer arrogance to insult somebody without having a belief to contrast and without presenting an argument consistant with some line of logic that adheres to the op's intended purposes.

If someone is talking about Jesus scripture and asking questions. Only relevant responses should be taken right? Or insults about zombies and the like should be tolerated?? Why can't someone just state historical facts that will convince a theist his belief systems were imposed by blood? Why resort to insulting?

So if there is a specific topic about starwars should I go in there and start calling them low life nerds who should embrace reality?? Or who should play starcraft? No, because it's not relating to the intended purposes of the thread. I'll post my piece and move on, antagonzation is not needed.

I really can't say anymore than I already have regarding this, except to reiterate: Why, exactly, is investigation futile? Are you Ignostic?
(I imagine you are already familiar with that "belief system", but if not, please do yourself a favor and look it up before replying. Interesting concept...)

Investigation of the unnatural cannot be done naturally. Can you prove another dimension? Are you so sure it can't exist?

Again, I just don't understand why or how you are so positive that it "cannot be done". Please explain.


I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to convey here - the best I came up with is that you believe some claims are arbitrary and speculative. Is that correct? If so, I totally agree.

So both hold equal weight and should not be subject to criticism. You can be critical without criticising.

In order:

• Yes, as far as we know, although there are still competing theories.
• ???
• Yes, this view is promulgated in certain belief systems.
• OK, I guess...
• I don't quite get your meaning on this one. Are you trying to say that "thought" is a physical process?
• Agreed.

We do not know if thought is neccessarily a physical process. I'm saying that all the above cant be explained adequately without some intelligence in my most humblest of opinions.

Agreed, anyone can say anything about everything.


As before, why not? And how do you know this?

How do I know what? My point is that we don't know so you can't ascertain it, can you read in context?

OK

:shrug:

Well, let's pretend we do actually exist for a minute, alright? Just so we can continue communicating...

There is only I but we are having different experiences, in my most humblest of opinins, sir. You can be sarcastic as needed.

This still elicits the same internal response from me. I feel compelled to ask why you believe that science doesn't "use logical reasoning and try to connect the dots in hopes that you will at the very least expand your horizons mentally", thereby somehow making it incompatible with your belief system. If, in fact, that is what you believe, of course. If not, please correct my assumption.

I never said that, your putting words in my mouth, I ask you to show me where I said we shouldent use science. I'm saying that if you require science (empericism) to adhere to a belief than you will always be limiting your line of logic. In a historical context, you can understand how this works, science is not claiming to know everything. Science is natural. We are speculating. Not neccessarily natural. There is a difference. It can be inffered from knowledge and the data available to us to form lines of logic (using those brain cells) so you dont simply wait to be told what is reality. Science will not be able to awnser this in our life time, its a moot point, at best. My only point in posting here was to illustrate the hypocricy of some posters.

The rest of your post appears to be directed specifically towards YoYoPapaya, so I will leave it for him to respond.


/Thanking you in advance for your consideration and looking forward to your reply...

I dislike people who conform to suppositions in an exclusive way because they tend to be the biggest hypocrites and I call it the thiest effect - they start bashing and insulting those who don't conform because there own uncertainty. It's human nature, at most. I also dislike dissemblers which I suspect are most "anti-thiest athiests"

 

[420Joey]

I guess scientists are wasting time then building Large hadron colliders then and stuff. Maybe you should call CERN and tell them to stop what they are doing right away as they are obviously just wasting time and money.

Lmao.
Is that what thats for? How about this papaya, google it. I'll give you a hint, CERN will not prove god or our origin. It hopefully will lift the veil on some things though scientests are skeptical. I love it. I think this will prove more than anything our reality is illussion, subjective and that god may exist as an ultimate source code that we "think" we are apart of.

I don't want to debunk anything. But I am curious as to how everything began. I have shown you why I think it is unlikely to be am invisible father figure or however else you want to describe the magic creator you believe in and all you did in response to that was try and ridicule me, making yourself look stupid in the process.

See. Classic. "Association" = "Invisible father figure" with god. Like me saying I think its unlikely on your belief of "magical invisible matter postulating complex organization for eternity because it was bored and wanted to do something". See anyone can do that. You also discredit god due to organized religion. Your mom must be a chinese hooker if someone said it in the past and stated it was true, than? How is this argument logical when presented with the questions at hand unless your talking specifics in reference to an organized religion?

How do you know?

Scientific cosensus. Than again, I dont know anything. How do you know it isnt the case ? I suspect you know with this type of question. Or is it you have no theory to contrast.

Are you sure? Chemical processes aren't physical? What are they then, magical?

If you can prove it is physical you can win alot of money in the digital vs analog debate. Oh I guess you cant prove your magical physical property huh.

Yes that's the standard response i seem to get from my good christian brothers and sisters: "Keep your mouth shut! You can't make claim about the tooth fairy if you know nothing of fairys"

That's what your doing! Except you insult people and go out your way to do it. It's factual you do this. Not a supposition.

I'm saying that guesswork and faith are all good and fine. If it works for you, then fine by me. I don't fault that. I just happen to believe that it is highly improbable as I have shown elsewhere.



I'm a blank slate. I don't have belief. I do have curiousity though.

You havent shown anything except that you can show the probability of one myth being right out of infinity and you can't even do that, I know your not that dumb man, If you were truly curious you would conduct yourself in a more intelligent way.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

See. Classic. "Association" = "Invisible father figure" with god. Like me saying I think its unlikely on your belief of "magical invisible matter postulating complex organization for eternity because it was bored and wanted to do something".

I haven't said this, nor do i believe it.

See anyone can do that. You also discredit god due to organized religion. Your mom must be a chinese hooker if someone said it in the past and stated it was true, than? How is this argument logical when presented with the questions at hand unless your talking specifics in reference to an organized religion?

How dare you call my mom Chinese!

I'm not talking about organised religion. I'm talking about the infinite number of imaginable beliefs about objective reality. This is what you keep (purposefully?) misunderstanding.

Scientific cosensus. Than again, I dont know anything. How do you know it isnt the case ? I suspect you know with this type of question. Or is it you have no theory to contrast.

Source please.

That's what your doing! Except you insult people and go out your way to do it. It's factual you do this. Not a supposition.

I don't tell people to shut up no. I can tell them that a disagree with them and why. That is hardly the same though. It's called discussion or debate.

You havent shown anything except that you can show the probability of one myth being right out of infinity and you can't even do that

I have shown it and you have not yet refuted it.

I know your not that dumb man, If you were truly curious you would conduct yourself in a more intelligent way.

Maybe I do other things than write posts on this forum. But that's just speculation of course

 

[420Joey]

I haven't said this, nor do i believe it.

So you have no belief, how convinient. Why antagonize others who form them because they dont conform to thelack of?

How dare you call my mom Chinese!

How dare you call god one human named Jesus!

I'm not talking about organised religion. I'm talking about the infinite number of imaginable beliefs about objective reality. This is what you keep (purposefully?) misunderstanding.

Let's get this straight right now

Your equation equals DICK

Infinite numbers of imaginable beliefs ?? How likely is one?? Wow what an easy equation.... How many of me are there?? 1 maybe to an infinite possibilities of matter? I just proved how unlikely it is for there to be another exact me in the present now!! I'm smart somehow?

Source please.

Here you go mate. You arent very scientific there are you....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp29hu.html

I don't tell people to shut up no. I can tell them that a disagree with them and why. That is hardly the same though. It's called discussion or debate.

Than we have no problems. Next time you do it, i'll site this statement.

I have shown it and you have not yet refuted it.

You havent shown anything. I just did refute it. Your purposely ignoring the facts and perpetuating nonsense? Why. There is not one thing valid in your equation except that you think you know something because of a stupid hyperbole?

Maybe I do other things than write posts on this forum. But that's just speculation of course

I would hope to got not over 500 religious posts in two weeks. I hope to god you get some fresh air. You might feel better. You might see the synchronization and like the feeling. You want everybody to feel as empty and shallow as you do? Before you say you aren't, why commit so much time to religion and peoples beliefs.