Slavik44
-
Posts
1,074 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Slavik44
-
-
If you were reading the previous exchanges, you would've found that there is nothing to argue between us. After all, we agree on the focal point of what I was reiterating all along: Faith does not require any proof for those who believe. I am a believer. And I believe that God exists. That is my faith. And I don't need any proof.
Fair enough
Yours is that, there is no God. That is your belief. You have placed your faith in science....that cannot prove there is no God.As the link I've given you stated (taken from a website that seem to promote your kind of belief)...that website explained that it is not science's job to prove the existence of God.
Since the science you rely on cannot give you any proof of the non-existence of God....you've placed it upon me to prove that God exists. You challenge that if I cannot offer any proof that He exist, therefore He does not exist. But it is not me who needs....or crave....for any proof. It is you.
So this opens to an observation...and I would say, a valid point in this discussion.
You desperately want to have proof that God does not exist....so you can be re-assured in your belief that He does not exist. You project a desperate need to prove that my belief is wrong....so you can be reassured that your belief is right.
You want to validate your belief.
Why do you need validation, if you are secured in that knowledge?
If there is no doubt in any of your minds, then your faith in your belief that there is no God should be just as firm as my belief that there is a God. You should be just as content like me to leave it at that: we have our own faith....whatever kind of belief it may be. And it does not need or require any proof.
You can all give your various analysis, interpretations, conjectures, statements, claims, criticisms of my faith, theories.....you're free to do so. And I can do the same.
But we still have not proven the existence or non-existence of God!
However, I have no need of any reassurance(s) from science or anyone.
Uhmm....well I think the short and easy answer is for me to say that you have slightly mischarachterized my position. I list myself as an Agnostic-athiest for a reason. It is not that I believe 100% that there is no God. Just that as long as there is no evidence of God I see no need to acknowledge his existance. It might seem a subtle difference but there is a difference nonetheless. Just like there is a difference with a car being in park instead of being in reverse.
-
Certainly, but not a single person on this thread has been willing to present one bit of tangible evidence. So what do you want me to consider? Lets lower the standards, just bullet down evidence that indicates there is infact a God.
Why is it that you seem so desperate to find proof and evidence? Even to the point of "lowering the standards?"
I understand your science cannot offer you any tangible evidence that there is no God.....so you desperately want me to provide the answer instead. Anything that could pass for a proof.
As I've said, this is all about faith. No requirements of evidence needed.
I am confident in my belief....even without any proof. I just know.
I cannot validate your belief for you. You'll just have to rely on your science and keep hoping that eventually, they'll stumble upon proof that God does not exist....a validation, some sort of reassurance...which obviously, you so desperately need.
You also can't properly answer my questions either. This may suprise you, but we are on a public forum, in this case in a section of the forum for moral and religious issues. Seeing as how you are entirely un-able to answer my questions, it is clearly not neccessary for you to respond to my posts...particularly if you do not have an answer. You talka bout how Research and an open mind ar vital, but when asked to present research in the form of evidence you provide nothing but sneering remarks. Which kind of undercuts your claim to research.
The point?
Well your refusal to anylize or present evidence, would indicate then that your belief is then void of evidence, which I guess you have addmitted to above. Fine, allright. So where does that leave us? To believe everything and anything that is claimed because evidence is not neccessary. But i would be willing to bet that you don't believe in Oden? Zeus? Thor? Fair enough? In that case if evidence is not what differentiates your belief from other beliefs, would it be fair to say that it is based on desire? You desire to believe in the Bible and The Christian God, therefore you do?
As far as my belief I don't need any validation, I entered a disscussion, I have noticted some people make claims, I turn around and make a counter claim, people tend to disagree with that counter claim, and ultimately end up repeating to me what my counter claim was.
My first post here I said, that Faith was the acceptence of something with out proof. Looking at your above reply you seem to agree with me. The only point of disagreement is that I refuse to accept with out proof and you are willing to accept despite no proof.
-
I know I chose the right religion. I am not trying to convince you or anyone. It is right for me.
However there is ample evidence in scripture to anyone who isn't wilfully blind to it to show that Christ existed, and His life was exceptional in the view of many and geographically isolated witnesses.
Of course you don't have to believe that that proves He is God. You don't have to believe that Hitler was a bad guy either. But you do have to consider the evidence.
Certainly, but not a single person on this thread has been willing to present one bit of tangible evidence. So what do you want me to consider? Lets lower the standards, just bullet down evidence that indicates there is infact a God.
-
Your Canada sounds like some weird mix of the Soviet Union and 18th century US.
You want people imported from overseas who work for food and a bed and have zero rights. Hmm, that sounds familiar - oh, I know, it's slavery.
And then there's the spelling thing.
4|\| j00Z U|\|D3r$74|\|D \/\/|-|@ 1 4/\/\ $4'/1|\|9? 900D, b3(4U$3 7|-|@ 1$ /\/\0r3 1/\/\P0r74|\|7 7|-|3|\| |-|0\/\/ j00Z $P3LL r3PhU9333333. 0B\/10U$L'/ j00Z |<|\|3\/\/ |-|3 /\/\3|\|7 r3PhU933, b3(4U$3 j00Z |<|\|3\/\/ |-|0\/\/ 70 (0rr3(7 |-|1/\/\. 0|\| 7|-|3 07|-|3r|-|4|\|D j00Z |-|4\/3 |\|0 pHU(|<1|\|9 1D34 \/\/|-|@ 1 4/\/\ $4'/1|\|9. 7|-|@ 1$ 4 r34L pr0BL3/\/\. 7|-|@ |-|1|\|D3r$ d3B473. /\/\4'/B3 1Ph |-|3 $P3L7 "r3PhU933" R9PhU33, 7|-|3|\| \/\/3 /\/\19|-|7 |-|4\/3 4 pr0BL3/\/\. bU7 \/\/3 d0|\|'7 b3(4U$3 \/\/3 b07|-| |<|\|0\/\/ \/\/|-|@ |-|3 \/\/4$ $4'/1|\|9. 50 j00Z R b3773r 0PhPh 4774(|<1|\|9 \/\/|-|@ |-|3 $41D, 7|-|3r3 R (3r741|\|L'/ pL3|\|7'/ 0Ph pr0BL3/\/\$ \/\/17|-| 17. 4|\|D \/\/17|-| j00r 4/\/\4Z1|\|9 9r4$P 0Ph 7|-|3 3|\|9L1$|-| L4|\|9U493 j00Z (0ULD $37 4 r34LL'/ 900D 3><4/\/\PL3. 7|-|4|\||<$, $L4\/1|<44
-
I believe that people who cannot be bothered to spell words correctly, nor use proper grammar, should be blocked from posting their opinions in written form.
Can you show me a poster with perfect english?
-
.........
-
I am not required to prove to you anything.
Go ahead ask me: can you prove that God exists?
Answer: No.
And so what? You can go your merry way or argue with somebody else about it. And while you're on your merry way, figure out how you can prove that He doesn't exist. Actually, if you can prove...PROVE...that He doesn't exist, I'll believe you. But of course, you can't.
As I have been trying to explain,
No conclusions can be made off of having no proof of non existance, conclusions can only be made based on having or not having proof of the affirmative.
In which case you have already said you have NO PROOF, kinda makes your claim that you KNOW there is a God absolutely meaningless
If you accuse me of fantasizing having gay sex with a girlie farm animal, I'll see you in court. And the burden of proof will definitely be yours! This is not philosophy. This is slander! The nerve...GAY SEX!
There is of course a philosophical implication to that statement.
It's telling that you suggest that I would be fantasizing...not doing...very Liberal, mind control, social engineering and all that.I would accuse you of fantisizing because it fits with the example...its all in the mind void of any hard physical evidence either way. But we shouldn't accept it just because the claim is made.
If you can also in the future refrain from slandering my name, and resort to just fantisizing about me being a supporter of mind control and social engineering.
-
Scientific method is based on the proving wrong of set out theories, no? (I'm not a science person, I'd be the first to admit).
So then really Slavik, I could turn those questions back to you and say, empirically prove to me that God does not exist.
Believers believe, and non-believers don't. Just remember that you have not proven the non-existence of God anymore than I'd proven He exists. That's all there is to it.Okay see the issue I would take is where the burden of proof is placed. You see if you want to believe in Ogres, Santa Clause and talking donkeys you can, but it is as a result of nothing more then a desire.
Because when there is no proof of existance it is only logical to say that there is no Existance. BUT when that question is turned around and asked if there is proof of non-existance it is not logical to conclude existance, it is only logical to ask what then is the proof of existance. And if there is no proof of existance than it is only logical to say that until there is proof of existance, there is no need to take the step and conclude that such a thing exists.
Burden of proof is for the law courts. Nobody has to prove anything here. No one can prove the existence of God. No one can prove the non-existence of God. No one can define truth. No one can define divinity or love. Does it mean we shouldn't talk of any of them?
Save scientific proof for science. God knows scientists have enough trouble proving their scientific theories.
We'll stick with speculation and discussion when it comes to philosophy.
It is not neccessary to proove the non-existance of God, all that is neccessary is to require proof that he does exist. Because if there is no proof of the non-existance of God it does not allow you to make a conclusion, it only leads you to ask another question, and that is what proof is there of the existance of God and if there is none, the only reason then to believe in God is out of desire. Having no proof of something leads to a conclusion that until proof exists there is no reason to acknowledge existance save desire. But having no proof of the non-existance of something does not suffice to lead to a conclusion.
If I accused you of fantisizing about having gay sex with farm animals you cannot actually disprove that claim. Does that mean I can write in this thread, I KNOW YOU FANTISIZE ABOUT HAVING GAY SEX WITH FARM ANIMALS, even though you and others have said YOU KNOW, based on no evidence. There may very well be a God, but unless there is solid evidence indicating his existance, believing in him is done only out of desire.
-
Scientific method is based on the proving wrong of set out theories, no? (I'm not a science person, I'd be the first to admit).
So then really Slavik, I could turn those questions back to you and say, empirically prove to me that God does not exist.
Believers believe, and non-believers don't. Just remember that you have not proven the non-existence of God anymore than I'd proven He exists. That's all there is to it.Okay see the issue I would take is where the burden of proof is placed. You see if you want to believe in Ogres, Santa Clause and talking donkeys you can, but it is as a result of nothing more then a desire.
Because when there is no proof of existance it is only logical to say that there is no Existance. BUT when that question is turned around and asked if there is proof of non-existance it is not logical to conclude existance, it is only logical to ask what then is the proof of existance. And if there is no proof of existance than it is only logical to say that until there is proof of existance, there is no need to take the step and conclude that such a thing exists.
-
Hmm...
Well I am not a member of any political party,
Provincialy I have no problem voting for the B.C Liberals, Obviously that could change but untill I am given a good reason, they get my vote.
Federally it is a mess, I really don't like any of the parties. The only strategic basis I might have to my vote in any upcoming federal election is the maitenance of some form of minority government. But that would only come into play if my riding itself was a very close race. So I guess you could pencil me in as a last minute chooser. Chances are my vote would be based less on party and more on the local candidate. If all the local candidates suck, then I might look at giving a vote to the Libertarian party and if they are not running, screw it I will vote for the Marijauna party, and if they are not runinng, then I might vote for the Green Party just because they have no hope in hell of wining and theoretically they do claim to be left on social issues and right on economic issues. Which beats the party I voted for last election who were left on social issues and wrong on economic issues.
-
Research and open-mindedness is what helps you separate the b.s from the truth.
Research correct, if a claim is made you need to properly evaluate that claim, and it must be done in a skeptical and inquisitive manner or you are not doing your proper research. After your research is done, you simply evaluate the claim, is there enough evidence for it, in which case accepting it doesn't require anything but the facts you have. The only reason to demand someone not to be skeptical is to desire someone not to do their proper research. And to demand someone not to do their proper research, is to suggest that ultimately you have no confidence in ability of the claim to be verified, and if you have no confidence in the validity of the claim, you are believing due to desire and not as a result of evidence or research.
Given that you are promting the habbit of research, and given that you believe in the God of the Bible, perhaps you can answer my questions.
Can you;
1. Empirically proove to me there is a God?
2. Empirically proove there is only One God (assuming you believe in only one)
3. Empirically proove that it is infact your God?
4. Empirically proove that the holy book(s) associated with your God are in fact divinely inspired?
5. Empirically proove that all events recorded in that holy book actually did happen?
-
Wow, for the moment anyway, Libertarians are tied for first.
Our minority government must be coming up soon.We should enjoy it, Christmas only comes once a year.
-
This guy claims empircal evidence of the afterlife. But if you go through there with a closed and totally skeptical mind, don't even bother visiting his site. link
Skeptisicm is what helps you seperate the bullshit from the truth, so I don't think I will be entering that site, because I would have to excersize skeptisicm. But seeing as how you don't excersize skeptisicm I would encourage you to buy the Egyptian Book of the Dead...this will tell you how to navigate the afterlife, if you do not excersize skeptisism you will find your self very well informed.
-
But it's proven that babies don't come from storks. Doctors know they don't need a back-up plan.
But you just need to have faith in the stork. I mean people have just lost faith these days can you believe that they now think that Earthquakes are a result of a collision of the earths crust and not God...just have faith.
I wonder how many atheists suddenly embraced faith on their deathbed?I am sure there are probabley a few, but so what? This is simply a case of desire, no different then me wanting to believe in Santa Clause and suddenly he existed
-
I want to first talk about the storm thing,
First, the number of intense storms have been increasing over the years, now obviously there will always be outlier years that might buck the trend [recalling that there will still a number of storms this year]. But if we notice a trend of an increasing number of intense storms, is it not advisable to issue atleast a warning to be prepared? Particularly given that the number of category 4 and 5 Hurricanes have doubled since 1990?
Next I want to talk about Warming and Katrina, again there is CAUSATION, I am not saying man caused Hurricane Katrina I am not prepared or interested in getting into that debate. However, storms increase in intensity in warm/warmer water. And in the past few years water tempatures in that area have increased by about 1 degree faranhiet.
I know your immediate reaction is to laugh and say one degree, that ain't much. Which to an extent is true, I wouldn't notice it, you wouldn't notice it, but it does affect storms.
I also am not going to argue that this 1 degree is even as a result of Global warming it could simply be a result of the AMO, which is just roughly a 60 year cycle.
I suppose I can understand why people might question just how much of an affect humankind has had on Global Climate Change, and Hurricane Katrina. But, being able to blame it on natural occurences doesn't mean it isn't happening. But then most of the people who deny Global warming, would also find the historical trends supporting their claim of a natural cycle might come in conflict with their religous beliefs.
Anyways I know one issue that has been raised in that Carbon Dioxide is produced naturally, and by and large there is alot of natural emmission of Carbon Dioxide, and there have been natural peaks of Carbon dioxide in the past. Now I am nto a science student so my understanding is limited, so obviously I migh tmake some mistakes in this explanation. Naturally carbon dioxide is stored primarily in Oceans, Forests, and Soil. So if we were noticing a natural increase in atmospheric Carbon dioxide levels, this would be witnessed by a decrease in levels in Oceans, Forests, and Soils. However the levels of CO2 in oceans has actually been increasing in recent years. It is a little harder to track land totals due to widespread deforestation, but this to shows interesting data. The Carbon dioxide content in Soils appears to have increased enough to contain the CO2 released by deforestation and then some.
Anyways I hope that helps.
-
Personally I don't even associate a Christmas tree with the Christian religion...it is so secularized that it may as well be a six foot tall air freshner. I can't say the same for a the ten commandments or certian exclusive religous texts...is this just me? Do people see a Christmas tree as a symbol of Christianity or religion? Perhaps I am the one who is mistaken.
-
Honestly there area few ways I see this. One is that I have yet to find a party I can support on more then 50% of the Issues, probabley even 30% of the issues. So if I were to vote purely on seeing my own theories come to fruition it would be a wasted vote. So I just pick a few key issues for an election and vote with party that most closely falls in line with them.
Then second, is the realisation that my vote really is useless, it is just 1 vote, but if everyone thought like that, no one would vote. One pebble falling on your head will not kill you, but a landslide stands a good chance of doing so.
Which brings me to the third part of what I wanted to say. Voting is a bit of a dieing tradition in Canada, so I also feel like my vote is not just to support a party but to support a right. As a kid I remember a ver cynical view in my house towards politics and political involvement in general, it was to an extent almost seen as religously wrong.
The first time I could vote was in the B.C provincial election. I spent weeks convincing my Mom to vote with me, her arguement was it would be pointless, she would vote NDP and I woudl vote liberal and we would cancell each other out. I did convince her to come along, and we did theoretically cancell each other out. In the next municipal election, I got my Mom and Dad to come along, and then the day following the results I noticted that the person I voted for ont eh school board lost out by two votes, I had never talked to my parents about voting for anyone but the mayor...those two votes could have come in handy...and obviously ahead of time we had no idea how the school board election results would fall into place. In the most recent federal election I got my Dad, Mom, and older brother to come along and vote. In the end the attitude towards politics in my house has changed to a situation where voting is seen as a legitimate way to express political support or dissatisfaction. All I am trying to say is you don't knwo what you can accomplish until you try, and sometimes you might wish you had tried after seeing what happened as a result of your inaction.
So I guess if you view a vote as a way of supporting and excersizing a right, it is never wasted, and if you can convince more people to come along to vote, you can also change a person's attitudes about voting.
-
Anyway, for all you Atheists and non-believers in God, I'm curious: Do you have any back-up plan?
You know....in case you're all wrong?
Do doctors have a back up plan? You know just incase babies really do come from storks?
-
Maybe its just because I am young and maybe not as well versed in such social matters, but I think not mentioning said individuals upcoming death would be appreciated. Obviously I cannot place myself in the soon to be dead situation, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But if I were to pretend to the best of my ability, I would awager, that I might preciate being able to escape the thoughts of my impending death and just enjoy a normal social situation, it would be almost a gift. But who knows maybe we can all get together and write dear abby.
-
I think De Beers produces much of the worlds diamonds, it's a near monopoly for practical purposes. Marketing a diamond as something particular in fact boosts their numbers, even if the slim few percent go to other companies.
1) being a near-monopoly means nothing
Furthermore, a near-monopoly can still have its profits cut be a small competitor. DeBeers will always strive for you to select a DeBeers diamond over any other.
2) if "marketing a diamond as something particular in fact boosts their numbers" as you say, why not market pebbles instead??
Why not market pebbles as the symbol of love?? The demand for pebbles will rise. Everybody will want a DeBeers pebble!
I thought they marketed pebbles as pet rocks?
-
But the point I was arguing was this: Someone on this forum (too lazy to look back right now) is saying that as a guy, if you go to a nightclub and don't dress to the 9's you not "getting any play" and I'm calling BS - that as long as you're not dressed "inappropriately" then you can get away with simple non-brand name clothing if your a good looking guy who knows how to carry and conversation and have a good laugh...tru or not?
I guess it depends what you mean by "dress to the 9's", "inappropriately", and the proviso "...if you're a good looking guy".
-k
Here is the quote:
Now from a straight guys perspective, I think all of society is obsessed with beauty. I can assure you 100% that if a straight guy went into the bar wearing a white T-shirt from a beer case, faded blue jeans, a John Deere hat, steel toe boots, no cologne, and hasn't shaved in a day or two isn't going to pick up in the bar no matter how naturally good looking he is, trust me.I'm calling BS on that.
Personally I have never tried to pick up girls dressed like that, so I won't say it isn't possible. But would it be fair to say that you start off having to overcome a very negative impression? In that sense wouldn't it be better to start off on a positive note? Sure it might be possible, but it is also possible to run the 100M after shooting yourself in the foot, but that doesn't mean it is advisable.
---------------
Anyways I haven't answered the poll, because I cannot. I personally feel like the true answer is not listed. So far we are trying to lay the blame on men, women, or both. But the blame if we can call it that probabley lays squarley at the feet of nature. Most animals in the natural world, have mating patterns, rituals, and standards. Often these are designed to both attract attention and display reproductive health or maturity. So Who I do I blame for the peackocks tail? Well Why should I blame anyone? Sexual animals need to have sex to reproduce and pass on their genes. And if you can find away to stand out, you stand a better chance of accomplishing these goals. It may be fair to claim that a part of this evolutionary psychology remains with in our psyche. Given that Humans are vastly more complex then most other animals, it would also make sense that are ways of standing out would also correlate and be vastly more complex. Perhaps we are just a culture of peacocks.
I don't blame anyone for capitalism and I don't see capitalism as a bad thing. Yes there are rich and poor in capitalism, and under capitalism not everyone can be Bill Gates. But capitalism unlike any other economic system has a far higher probablity of ensuring Bill Gates can be Bill Gates. I am niether Bill Gates nor am I Brad Pitt, but I will work with what I got to do the best I can, and am probabley better off trying to improve myself rather then complain about myself.
-
If the Liberals were to achieve a majority government I would be very depressed, I think it would be one of the worst things for Canadian politics at the present. Niether the Liberals or the Conservatives have prooven that they have or can offer what is neccesary to govern this country with a majority.
I watched the Liberal Leadership convention and couldn't help but cringe every time I heard the philosophy of name recognition. Thats what i feel like I am being offered by the Liberals. The problem is as long as the Liberals can justify fighting an election on name recognition they will have no motivation to change and for the sake of Canadians they need to. They need to become a party that is accountable, economically intelligent, and in favour of the social policy of liberty, rather then the social policy of promises.
While the poll may not reflect what will happen come the next election, it is still depressing. Because the Liberals went to their convetion acting like children begging for their baby rattle back, displayed the baby rattle tendancy throughout the convention, and left with the reward of increased popular support from Canadians indicating they want to give it back to the same party they took it away from.
-
As I have already said in another pointless thread, the beauty industry spends each and every year billions on creating demand and in creating brand awareness. I will wager that 150 years ago the average women did nothing more to enhance her appearance that to pinch her cheeks and strap on a corset.
Women didn't shave their legs or pits and certainly didn't worry about putting on a few pounds if the high art of the period can be believed.
The industry is ruthless. A single marketshare point can mean 100s of millions. The pressure to capture the minds of consumers is increadible so they are always trying to tickle the imagination, to appeal to a lifestyle that is elusive, sophisticated, glamouress.....
Marketers therefore are constantly trying to stay ahead of the curve, trying to be edgier, more avant garde and seem more exclusive..(whats more exclusive that being thin?) ....Dove is trying to go beyond that narrow psychographic and reach out to women who are tired of trying to be what they and the majority of women will never be.
Nothing more then strap on a corset? Whats it designed to do again? Oh yeah make you waist look smaller and your chest bigger. Gee, those people 150 years ago sure had different conceptualizations of how to be more beautiful. I mean the Ideal tightlaced corset is supposed to reduce your waist to a 17 inch circumference. Chances are your average 12 year old anorexic school girl probabley has a larger waist then that.
What about Early South American Cultures? Where the Idea of an elongated head was seen as beautifull, so elite children walked around with boards strapped to their heads. Or how about being more cat like in appearence that was supposed to be beautiful. So dental surgery and filing peoples teeth down so they were more pointy was practiced. Or what about the belief that being cross eyed was beautiful. So women went around getting surgery to change the muscles around their eyes to allow them to be cross eyed. Or what about the chinese tradition of foot binding?
Now we are bitching and complaining about shaving? Well, yeah...go take a personal poll walk around and ask women wether they would prefer having their feet bound so tight they can't walk or would they prefer to shave their legs.
As far as adding a few pounds, people should care. People should notice. The majority of both Canadians and Americans are overweight. And that is a definite health risk. It is something people should take notice of, obesity is an anethama to beauty. Yes not only is it ugly, but it is the ultimate demonstration of how little you value your own body, how little you respect yourself.
now the issue may be raised that models are often dangerously skinny. Which may be the case. But infact most studies on what Men find beautifulll indicate that a walking skeleton is not high on the list. But that is no reason to flip to an even more unhealthy extreme, where the majority of the population is obese and at risk for heart disease.
-
God has offered you the evidence.
I read your reply and I figure at this point we are just reiterating what we have already said and are not progressing. But on this point, you say God has offered me the evidence but it takes faith. Can I then ask you to present that evidence?
What do you believe?
in Moral & Ethical Issues
Posted
Listen if you want to debate me that is more then fine but I will not stand for this constant E-bitch slapping...it is immature and getting old fast, ultimately it leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth. It is not funny it is just rude and not at all prudent to the devlopment of an intelligent discussion on this thread. I have been like your god jesus and turned the other cheek for you and let you slap that one as well, now I am leaving this thread.