Things You Can't Prove, But Believe

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
...pretty much this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx_UJxuQGXo#t=0m16s].

I make basic assumptions and act upon them, but I'm never entirely convinced that I'm correct in my assumptions. A complete lack of doubt in a decision based on incomplete information is a good indicator of a closed mind. Also, arrogance.
 

Soods

New member
Jan 6, 2010
608
0
0
I believe the universe will die with me, but I wish not to prove it, since I like being alive.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
Terminate421 said:
by evolution through natural selection. This is not to say that I do not find natural selection nonexistent. I do not however believe we came from monkeys.
Dont get so upset. First of all id like to say im respectfull of your views, although your "im 100% sure" attitude is fanatisicm and is very very scary. A view that cannot be swayed by any amount of evidence is based in ignorance. I dont claim to be 100% sure of anything. Even gods non existance. God might exist. Dont blame others for being scared or offended by a view that negatively impacts the way you view reality. Not believing in god. But "Knowing" god exists. The inability to doubt even for a second is scary. Its a scary inhuman trait to be unable to question or doubt something.

My second point is what i quoted you for because its utterly utterly false. Evolution doesnt imply we came from monkeys. Seriously. Who the hell teaches you people this?

Secondly there is a lot of evidence of evolution through natural selection.

See:

Dinosaurs at all.

Any fossil record whatsoever missing links or otherwise.

The existance of dogs.

Darwins finches.

Basic theory of natural selection and mutation.

Im FINE with your beliefs. Just dont go around saying things that are untrue. Like the monkeys or "no evidence" things.
 

Mycroft Holmes

New member
Sep 26, 2011
850
0
0
Abedeus said:
I can disprove God by stating few paradoxes: thou shalt not kill. Unless it's a witch, adulterer, thief, someone having sex outside marriage, homosexuals and so on. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife or property. Unless God tells you to, then you have to fuck your dead brother's wife or you'll get smitten.
Welcome to different parts of the bible. Jesus was a game changer, who through his actions allowed the base rules of the religion to change. Congratulations at insulting Christians without actually reading their book. You're like a movie critic who stopped the movie half way through, didn't even bother to read a synopsis, and is still trying desperately to convince everyone he watched the whole thing.

Do you often get confused when a law is repealed? Because how can it exist and then no longer exist in legal codes. Its a paradox that disproves the existence of Government, I'm sure. Because things can never change ever, and if they do: then they don't exist, because I don't understand the concepts of time and change. Right? Right bro?

Abedeus said:
And of course, Genesis says that men have one rib less, are made out of mud and that God created light before creating light source, or that Moon is a light source.
What does this have to do with your false claim that evolution disproves genesis? Try to stick to the subject, sweety.

Abedeus said:
Science proved that Genesis is a load of crap, like most of the Bible. And Occam's Razor allows us to cut out any entity that isn't necessary for something to happen.
Your only experience with the world is through your mind. Nothing verifies that your eyes exist and send signals to the brain. Nothing verifies that your ears exist and send signals to your brain. When you dream, is that your ears picking up sounds and your eyes picking up images or is it your extremely powerful mind fabricating realities? And if your mind is powerful enough to fabricate realities it is powerful enough to create whatever it wants. Whether or not we assume that all that exists is the mind, or if we assume that other things exist(an unprovable assertion) and that the mind is just a powerful tool the following is true according to your rules:

Your mind is all that is necessary to create the sun, to create light. So I guess Occam's Razor allows us to cut out the unnecessary Sun from existence. Your mind creates people in dreams. So I guess Occam's razor allows us to cut out people and assume they don't exist. Your mind is all that's needed to create people. Your mind can make the ground you stand on, the ocean you swim in, the buildings you see all with the simple power of just your mind. A mind that is the only necessary part for any of that to happen. And as you are apparently fond of doing at least when it benefits you, if you cut out all that isn't necessary for something to occur you have just disproved science; because your mind is the only verifiable cause and effect.

Congratulations on destroying the basis for your own argument. Stay in school, don't do drugs, and never get in metaphysical arguments with people who actually took the time to read Descartes' Principles of Philosophy.

Abedeus said:
Also, God is supposed to be perfect and he created us in his image.
Which for those who passed reading comprehension tests means he created us to look like him, not that he created us to be perfect.

Abedeus said:
So why do we have two organs that are redundant, but can burst and kill us? Our skulls are not big enough for all of our teeth anymore
Neither of which prove anything. The common argument is that God would create things for us to overcome. Perhaps he wants a few people to die occasionally from burst appendix. Perhaps he wanted me to be genetically superior to you by being born with no wisdom teeth.

Abedeus said:
and our center of pleasure (ding-dongs and hoo-haas) is in the middle of sewage.
Yes male system of having them both run through the same channel is less likely to be effected by infection or problems than the female system of one channel for sex and one for urination. So apparently the more combined the two systems are, the closer to perfect.

Abedeus said:
That's kind of weird that a perfect, omnipotent and all-knowing God would create such crappy copies of himself.
Why is that weird? A life where everything was perfect and there was no pain would be boring as hell. Didn't you ever watch the Twilight Zone?

Abedeus said:
And if he did that on purpose, to make our lives harder and make sure without science most of us wouldn't live past 30, that cancels out his benevolence.
We can not know good without knowing bad, just as we can not know happy without knowing sad. They are comparisons of each other, and a life with only one would be a life without either. Thus a God can not be benevolent if there is not malevolence in the universe, even if that malevolence is created by that very same God. If there was a God, a wise and all powerful God, I think the world he would create would look almost exactly like this. Wherever it came from it really is amazingly beautiful in its complexity and the deep contrasts it creates. The contrasts without which, everything would be meaningless and bland.

Abedeus said:
Sorry, but while the burden of proof lies on the one making claim (thus there is no NEED to deny deities or magic or spirits), logic defies all modern gods.
You're making a claim that he does not exist. A hypothesis of a negative value is still a hypothesis. So the burden of proof is yours. My claim is we don't(read: can't) know, which is the null or neutral hypothesis. So prove your claim. I'm done with this argument though. If you can't figure it out from this post then you're pretty much boned as far as basic rationality and logic are concerned, and I'll not waste my time on it further. Your claims are as unprovable as any religious persons, so stop being so judgmental of other peoples equivalently belief-based views.
 

Nuclear_Suspect

New member
Jun 1, 2010
153
0
0
I believe I'm some sorta charismatic beacon, now that sounds all good and dandy in theory, however it only affects a few groups of people.

Drunk bums NEED to talk to me, its not about them wanting a few bob for the next beer, they just want to talk.
Old people are drawn to me (Senile old people doubly so) they also want to talk and want my oppinion on the pink unicorn they bought for their granddoughter.
And finally.. animals... animals of every shape and size, I've had a squirrel sit on me stealing the nuts i was eating and it was in no hurry to get off, just looked at me and went "Well thats a guy I can trust, I'm sure he wont mind me swiping the nuts"

It all culminated some 11 years ago when I was taking some education, I had just missed my bus home and needed to wait an hour for the next one.
Lo and behold, from the bushes tumbled a very drunk bum trying to zip up his pants giggling like a little schoolgirl he came over and said "I just took a leak over there and nobody noticed!", I went "Oh really?" and tried to manifest a bus with sheer willpower, he kept on talking, called me Johnny even though thats not my name then invited me to a 'Resturant'.
Since i had to wait an hour anyways and that I was quite a bit bigger than him I decided to tag along, even if just to satisfy my curiosity.
His 'Resturant' was the cafe at the trainyard where we spent the next 2 hours drinking Gold Tuborg (a 5.6% lager) I think I only paid for one round, I never found out who Johnny was and I never found out what he really wanted... guessed he just wanted a drinking partner.
 

Terminate421

New member
Jul 21, 2010
5,773
0
0
BiscuitTrouser said:
Terminate421 said:
by evolution through natural selection. This is not to say that I do not find natural selection nonexistent. I do not however believe we came from monkeys.
Dont get so upset. First of all id like to say im respectfull of your views, although your "im 100% sure" attitude is fanatisicm and is very very scary. A view that cannot be swayed by any amount of evidence is based in ignorance. I dont claim to be 100% sure of anything. Even gods non existance. God might exist. Dont blame others for being scared or offended by a view that negatively impacts the way you view reality. Not believing in god. But "Knowing" god exists. The inability to doubt even for a second is scary. Its a scary inhuman trait to be unable to question or doubt something.

My second point is what i quoted you for because its utterly utterly false. Evolution doesnt imply we came from monkeys. Seriously. Who the hell teaches you people this?

Secondly there is a lot of evidence of evolution through natural selection.

See:

Dinosaurs at all.

Any fossil record whatsoever missing links or otherwise.

The existance of dogs.

Darwins finches.

Basic theory of natural selection and mutation.

Im FINE with your beliefs. Just dont go around saying things that are untrue. Like the monkeys or "no evidence" things.
Mind my posts. I am not a threat.

I said that mainly because, like I said, I was on Iphone and had little time.

I respect other people's views and I don't care what people believe in. I don't know how it all fits in but I stood fast mostly because I stated my opinion and was practically assaulted for it. Its Adebus's fault and in all honesty, he's wrong, wrong not in beliefs but he's just being an asshole.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
Mycroft Holmes said:
You're making a claim that he does not exist. A hypothesis of a negative value is still a hypothesis. So the burden of proof is yours. My claim is we don't(read: can't) know, which is the null or neutral hypothesis. So prove your claim. I'm done with this argument though. If you can't figure it out from this post then you're pretty much boned as far as basic rationality and logic are concerned, and I'll not waste my time on it further. Your claims are as unprovable as any religious persons, so stop being so judgmental of other peoples equivalently belief-based views.
While the rest of your paragraph was witty (though misplaced) this is just plain wrong. Rejecting a hypithesis isnt a hypothsis in itself. Its a rejection of an idea. I dont claim to KNOW god doesnt exist. Not many atheists do. Such a claim WOULD be in faith. However i claim to reject the hypothesis god exists. I dont think it is true. I dont know it to be so because that would be faith. I have no claim to faith. And i have no claim at all. All i say is that no hypothesis is brought to me with merit claiming an existance of god. Thus i reject them. No claim is being made by me at all.

This arguement of "its your job to disprove god" is so obviously fallacious i dont even know. The null hypothesis is the default. Lets do an experiment with the burden of proof being on YOU to back up the claim "Khaine is the bloody handed lord of murder and demands sacrifice right now". You must now back up the claim he doesnt exist, or failing that, start sacrificing. Surely? Unless its up to ME to prove khaine is real. Which it is. It always is.

The assumption that something is false isnt a claim. Its perfectly acceptable to go "the orange teapot in the sky" doesnt exist. Because the claim is poorly given. This statement isnt itself a claim but a rejection of a claim. Also in real science the null hypothesis is NEVER "we dont know". The null hypothesis is the assumption NOTHING happens. Or it doesnt exist. Or no relationship is present. Thus the null hypothesis for the experiment on "god" is "god does not exist".
 

Terminate421

New member
Jul 21, 2010
5,773
0
0
Mycroft Holmes said:
Thank you for seeing my point of view. Adebus was kind of an ass right there.

Abedeus said:
I want you to read Mycroft Holmes post and think about what you did.

I stated my belief and then you went ahead not only said I was wrong but that I was an idiot. Not word for word as that but you assaulted me for my belief. I didn't read a damned word of your argument only because its going to be the pulling of history that has existed since the dawn of man, problems.

"Religion is flawed only because Man is flawed"

I respected your belief, but now you have proven that you don't deserve my respect, now good fucking day sir. And take your blind discrimination against religious people with you.
 
Feb 18, 2009
351
0
0
BiscuitTrouser said:
Matthew94 said:
Most of science.

For example, I can't prove on my own that quarks exist but I believe the scientific reports that have proved their existence.
I wouldnt call it believing persay. Ive read the theory of quarks. Ive read the physical implications of the theory. Ive done chemistry and physics. Ive seen that the physical implications of the theory are identical to real life physical properties. Sure i have to take a tiny bit of a leap but the theory explains everything nicely.

Its often the arguement of religious fundies that we have theories and then find evidence to support then. The contrary is true. We find evidence and draw theories. Im not attatched to any theory at all. I dont "defend" it. I dont need to. Its a model of the universe in which we live that i can apply and its pretty much dead on accurate. So im going to use the model. It might not be 100% correct but it does a good job. Its like when i model the rubber ball as a particle in physics. Its "wrong" for sure but i can calculate real life values to like 4 decimal places. So who really cares?

Sure if you come along and offer me another model to use that fits even MORE accurately ill drop the old one like its hot and take this new one.

As long as it fits accurately in our perception of reality i see no reason not to accept a theory, surely by matching it to real life thats all the proof you need.
Yes! I keep finding it so hard to explain to people that, actually, maybe atoms and electrons and whatever as we use them aren't actually how things work, but it lets me know that if I add this blue liquid to that green one then it will turn red. Sure, our explanations of energy levels and wavelengths and yadayada may be wrong, but as long as they do the job it's good enough. It's like if you're modelling something on a computer you need to decide whether you want it accurate or you want it fast - 'will it be good enough?' is ultimately the only important question.

I think that may be my life philosophy. So much for ambition.
 

RustlessPotato

New member
Aug 17, 2009
561
0
0
Grinnbarr said:
BiscuitTrouser said:
Matthew94 said:
Most of science.

For example, I can't prove on my own that quarks exist but I believe the scientific reports that have proved their existence.
I wouldnt call it believing persay. Ive read the theory of quarks. Ive read the physical implications of the theory. Ive done chemistry and physics. Ive seen that the physical implications of the theory are identical to real life physical properties. Sure i have to take a tiny bit of a leap but the theory explains everything nicely.

Its often the arguement of religious fundies that we have theories and then find evidence to support then. The contrary is true. We find evidence and draw theories. Im not attatched to any theory at all. I dont "defend" it. I dont need to. Its a model of the universe in which we live that i can apply and its pretty much dead on accurate. So im going to use the model. It might not be 100% correct but it does a good job. Its like when i model the rubber ball as a particle in physics. Its "wrong" for sure but i can calculate real life values to like 4 decimal places. So who really cares?

Sure if you come along and offer me another model to use that fits even MORE accurately ill drop the old one like its hot and take this new one.

As long as it fits accurately in our perception of reality i see no reason not to accept a theory, surely by matching it to real life thats all the proof you need.
Yes! I keep finding it so hard to explain to people that, actually, maybe atoms and electrons and whatever as we use them aren't actually how things work, but it lets me know that if I add this blue liquid to that green one then it will turn red. Sure, our explanations of energy levels and wavelengths and yadayada may be wrong, but as long as they do the job it's good enough. It's like if you're modelling something on a computer you need to decide whether you want it accurate or you want it fast - 'will it be good enough?' is ultimately the only important question.

I think that may be my life philosophy. So much for ambition.
Indeed, Science may be abstract and doubtful, Untill it makes machines work :D
 

Terminate421

New member
Jul 21, 2010
5,773
0
0
How strange that a thread about what we believe in became a thread about who is right and who is wrong.
 

Mycroft Holmes

New member
Sep 26, 2011
850
0
0
Terminate421 said:
the same could be said by evolution through natural selection. This is not to say that I do not find natural selection nonexistent.
If you believe in objective reality then the case for macro and micro evolution under the natural selection doctrine is exactly as proven as the theory of gravity. Google examples of speciation or check out its wikipage.

The funny thing of course being that the current theory of gravity has holes in it when we move out into space and bring other phenomena like dark matter into the mix, whereas evolution is thus far flawless and more likely to remain true than the theory of gravity.

Terminate421 said:
I do not however believe we came from monkeys.
No one in the history of ever has said that we came from monkeys. If you think anyone has said that, then you have been talking to people who have no fucking clue about evolution or evolutionary theory. 0% of professors who believe in evolution think we came from monkeys, Richard Dawkins does not believe that, Darwin did not believe that, Erasmus did not believe that.

So lets do some simple bio and taxonomy.

1)Monkeys are not apes. No we evolved from monkeys, they don't even say we evolved from apes. They say we are from the same family as apes. Cercopithecidae is the family for most species of monkeys, of which Humans are not a member.

2)Humans are in the ape family. More specifically the great apes. More specifically and scientifically known as Hominidae(seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae) of which Humans, Orangutans, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Gorillas are all members.

3)While we are also somewhat related to monkeys(as we are also related somewhat to cockroaches) what people assert(when you either mishear them as saying we are related to monkeys or hear perfectly well people who have no understanding or training in biology say it) is that we are cousins of the Great Apes, and most closely the Chimpanzees. And you would be no closer to being correct in saying that we evolved from Apes than you would be in saying that everyone's parents are their 2nd cousins thrice removed. You and your cousin had the same Great-great-great-great-grandparent, your cousin is not your father. Just like a long long long time ago two species split and one of them became Humans and the others became Chimpanzees. Chimps didn't just stop evolving and suddenly we budded off of them. We both evolved away from a common ancestor, just like your 2nd cousin thrice removed is probably way different than you.

Terminate421 said:
And befor you bring up "oh religion has caused problems too!"
No it hasn't. Douchebags are douchebags no matter what colors they fly. Hitler said he was Christian, Stalin said he was atheist, Mao said he was atheist, Mehmed the fifth(Armenian Genocide) was a Muslim, the inquisition was run under Catholics. Pol pot didn't need to be an atheist to butcher tens of thousands of people any more than the Mongolians needed their religion to stack 90,000 decapitated heads in front of Delhi.

People often use religion to justify their behavior, but a justification isn't a root cause. Here's an example. The Sultanate of Rum and the Ottoman Empire both were expansionist Empires, the latter of which went so far as to advance into the Balkans and up to the point where it threatened Austria, Italy, Germany. It likely would have beaten them as well had the crusades not occurred. And if it had beaten them, France, England and Spain would have been next and they all knew this. So they united together to stop the Ottomans. But the average age of death for the non-nobility that made up the bulk of armies in the middle age was somewhere between 25-35. So how do you convince, say an English peasant, that he has to go and fight people in some place that's going to take him half a year to get to. Hes going to have to fight there for 4 at least, and then he can go home. Do you tell him it's because the nobility don't want to be deposed and that your King is afraid if the Austrian King is deposed that he will be next? That because of that some peasant has to give over a fourth of his time in life to save some king, all the while abandoning his entire family who he will likely never see again?

Hell no, you tell them that God wants them to do it, and that if they follow you there, they will be rewarded in heaven. The crusades weren't caused by religion. Religion was the excuse, they were caused by politics and economics.
 

Terminate421

New member
Jul 21, 2010
5,773
0
0
Mycroft Holmes said:
Terminate421 said:
the same could be said by evolution through natural selection. This is not to say that I do not find natural selection nonexistent.
If you believe in objective reality then the case for macro and micro evolution under the natural selection doctrine is exactly as proven as the theory of gravity. Google examples of speciation or check out its wikipage. If you assert that it's not true, then you are calling billions of people, including the entire population of industrial era London, liars.

The funny thing of course being that the current theory of gravity has holes in it when we move out into space and bring other phenomena like dark matter into the mix, whereas evolution is thus far flawless and more likely to remain true than the theory of gravity.

Terminate421 said:
I do not however believe we came from monkeys.
No one in the history of ever has said that we came from monkeys. If you think anyone has said that, then you have been talking to people who have no fucking clue about evolution or evolutionary theory. 0% of professors who believe in evolution think we came from monkeys, Richard Dawkins does not believe that, Darwin did not believe that, Erasmus did not believe that.

So lets do some simple bio and taxonomy.

1)Monkeys are not apes. No we evolved from monkeys, they don't even say we evolved from apes. They say we are from the same family as apes. Cercopithecidae is the family for most species of monkeys, of which Humans are not a member.

2)Humans are in the ape family. More specifically the great apes. More specifically and scientifically known as Hominidae(seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae) of which Humans, Orangutans, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Gorillas are all members.

3)While we are also somewhat related to monkeys(as we are also related somewhat to cockroaches) what people assert(when you either mishear them as saying we are related to monkeys or hear perfectly well people who have no understanding or training in biology say it) is that we are cousins of the Great Apes, and most closely the Chimpanzees. And you would be no closer to being correct in saying that we evolved from Apes than you would be in saying that everyone's parents are their 2nd cousins thrice removed. You and your cousin had the same Great-great-great-great-grandparent, your cousin is not your father. Just like a long long long time ago two species split and one of them became Humans and the others became Chimpanzees. Chimps didn't just stop evolving and suddenly we budded off of them. We both evolved away from a common ancestor, just like your 2nd cousin thrice removed is probably way different than you.

Terminate421 said:
And befor you bring up "oh religion has caused problems too!"
No it hasn't. Douchebags are douchebags no matter what colors they fly. Hitler said he was Christian, Stalin said he was atheist, Mao said he was atheist, Mehmed the fifth(Armenian Genocide) was a Muslim, the inquisition was run under Catholics. Pol pot didn't need to be an atheist to butcher tens of thousands of people any more than the Mongolians needed their religion to stack 90,000 decapitated heads in front of Delhi.

People often use religion to justify their behavior, but a justification isn't a root cause. Here's an example. The Sultanate of Rum and the Ottoman Empire both were expansionist Empires, the latter of which went so far as to advance into the Balkans and up to the point where it threatened Austria, Italy, Germany. It likely would have beaten them as well had the crusades not occurred. And if it had beaten them, France, England and Spain would have been next and they all knew this. So they united together to stop the Ottomans. But the average age of death for the non-nobility that made up the bulk of armies in the middle age was somewhere between 25-35. So how do you convince, say an English peasant, that he has to go and fight people in some place that's going to take him half a year to get to. Hes going to have to fight there for 4 at least, and then he can go home. Do you tell him it's because the nobility don't want to be deposed and that your King is afraid if the Austrian King is deposed that he will be next? That because of that some peasant has to give over a fourth of his time in life to save some king, all the while abandoning his entire family who he will likely never see again?

Hell no, you tell them that God wants them to do it, and that if they follow you there, they will be rewarded in heaven. The crusades weren't caused by religion. Religion was the excuse, they were caused by politics and economics.
I should put a giant sign over my older posts.

Look, I was angry and I only had my iphone when I posted that. Do I take it back? Not really. But do I support it? Not really.

I'm not a hypocrite but I do manage to be quite lenient on how I see things, while I am catholic, I am not down to the word for word interpretation that people have. But I do easily get angry at people like Abedeus who find it necessary to take pot shots at what I believe and probably would get off to me typing something like "Oh you are right, I wasted 18 years of my life believing in a false deity, I should convert to this random individuals beliefs"

There is actually a rather deep scene at the end of an old movie about the Scopes trail of the 1940's (Or was it the 30's? I forget) the point was that it was creationism vs. evolution. But the point is, at the end of the movie, one of the lawyers walks into an empty court rooms to get his things, picks up a Bible in one hand and a Charles Darwin book in the other. He looks at both of them and then puts them together under one hand and leaves.

I'm not blind as to what science brings us and shows us, but I do find that the bible teaches about us in figurative ways. At the top, running the show, is a higher power, in this case God.

I guess I could say I'm a casual catholic.
 

Ectoplasmicz

New member
Nov 23, 2011
768
0
0
Extraterrestrial life. I mean beings as advanced as us. I don't have proof, but I damn well know that it is out there.
 

Mycroft Holmes

New member
Sep 26, 2011
850
0
0
Terminate421 said:
How strange that a thread about what we believe in became a thread about who is right and who is wrong.
Strange? Never, THIS IS THE INTERNET.

BiscuitTrouser said:
though misplaced
Nope.

BiscuitTrouser said:
I dont claim to KNOW god doesnt exist.
Then why are you trying to disprove something you admit you cant.

BiscuitTrouser said:
This arguement of "its your job to disprove god" is so obviously fallacious i dont even know.
Which fallacies does it break?

Here's a list for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

BiscuitTrouser said:
The null hypothesis is the default.
A baby doesn't not believe in God. It has no opinion on the matter because it does not know as it has no knowledge of the subject. It does not believe that God exists, and does not believe that there is no God. Because the default is absence of knowledge, and absence of believe in either a negative or positive value.

BiscuitTrouser said:
Lets do an experiment with the burden of proof being on YOU to back up the claim
I don't back up claims of metaphysics ever, because I realize it's not a provable prospect.

BiscuitTrouser said:
"Khaine is the bloody handed lord of murder and demands sacrifice right now". You must now back up the claim he doesnt exist, or failing that, start sacrificing. Surely? Unless its up to ME to prove khaine is real. Which it is. It always is.
You can't prove Khaine to be true or false. But I wouldn't sacrifice to him even if he was true, anymore than I would worship the Christian God. I hold them to the same morality I hold myself to, and because they violate my morality I would rather burn in hellfire forever than kowtow.

BiscuitTrouser said:
The assumption that something is false isnt a claim.
Hitler doesn't exist isn't a claim then. Cool.

And interestingly enough you will have exactly as much of a chance to prove he exists as you do that God exists, that Europe exists, that your own hands typing away on your keyboard exist.

BiscuitTrouser said:
Also in real science the null hypothesis is NEVER "we dont know". The null hypothesis is the assumption NOTHING happens.
But we already used Occam's Razor to disprove science. Duh doy.
 

xXGeckoXx

New member
Jan 29, 2009
1,778
0
0
Waffle_Man said:
I believe in continuity external to my perception, but it would be damn hard to prove it.
This is fantastic. I was trying to say this but I am not word-smithy enough to fit it into that few words.
 

xXGeckoXx

New member
Jan 29, 2009
1,778
0
0
Terminate421 said:
A bit off topic but I have a question for you. I have never been a religious guy but the thing you said about not being about to "suddenly drop the deity you have been believing in for 18 years". Most casual religious people I know don't really believe, they more participate in the culture. I was wondering do you believe in the gods or are you culturally religious?

Disclaimer: just interested no real goal with this post.
 

zehydra

New member
Oct 25, 2009
5,033
0
0
I believe that logic works. You cannot prove that logic works, because that would require logic.
 

BNguyen

New member
Mar 10, 2009
857
0
0
Lovely Mixture said:
I believe that censorship is wrong and awful, but this is merely my belief of course. However, I still am conflicted over hate-speech being allowed because I hate bigotry, racism, and any form of prejudice. I wouldn't stop a Neo-Nazi from getting his book published, it's his right to put out his views (and also to be ridiculed by me), but if there was a planned Nazi rally in my neighborhood I would try to stop it from happening.

Matthew94 said:
Most of science.

For example, I can't prove on my own that quarks exist but I believe the scientific reports that have proved their existence.
Agreed.

Also I found the example you mentioned to be amusingly coincidental, cause I actually know the guy who won the Panofsky Prize for providing scientific evidence of the quark structure (not that I understand any of it).
it's not words in particular that are the problems for bigotry and racism but rather the feelings that we put behind them and the actions we take that give them any meaning at all. we just need to stop attaching the words to the actions or thoughts and they lose their function
 
Mar 26, 2008
3,429
0
0
Beside God and ghosts (the latter I've seen but can't prove), I have the following theory on ideas:

I believe that all creative ideas exist in the ether somewhere just waiting to be ?born? into this world. All it takes is someone to be open to this and they receive the idea. If you don?t act on the idea when it chooses you to give birth to it, it passes on to the next open recipient and so on until that idea becomes reality.
A friend and I came up with this theory after talking about all the times we had started writing a great song/story, etc only to find out that someone had beat us to the punch by not a long period of time. Also my wife showed me this idea she had for a redesigning the playground in the Child Care centre she works for. It was quite a unique design and she'd told no one except me about it. A few months later another Child Care centre re-did their playground exactly the same as her design despite her never showing the plans to anyone.

This could be partially explained if there was such thing as a "global consciousness", which I'm not adverse to the idea of.