If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
it also talks about the unbelievers as being spiritualy blinded ...klint has a huge blind spot.
the faCT KLINT CANNOT DESCERN THINGS OTHERS CAN IS HIS LOSS.
And also claims to be the word of something imaginary. Of course, even the drooling mad might say something worthwhile by accident.
The fact that there is nothing to discern means there is no loss at all.
So the people with the richest experience of life are those who see things that aren't there?
Pop along to your local asylum and see if your right.
The only way you know your senses have been decieved is from information that you get from your senses.
And again, quite ho this fundamental uncertainty in the basics of existence leads to proof that there is a god is going to take some explaining.
My position is clear.
1) In the absence of evidence, you cannot say something exists, in fact you must say that it doesn't until proof arrives.
2) There is no evidence for the existence of god.
It's puely and simply not a case of having to disprove that god exists, that starts from a postion of their being one. Any doubting position, either weak or strong must start from a state of nature - i.e. that he who claims something must provide proof for it.
People believed it was flat because that's what the sensory evidence told them was so. If you tell them it is actually a big sphere. your the one who has to prove it. Having done so, job's a good 'un. (Unless you are using myths as an excuse to violently suppress millions ofc, then you look a bit of a juggins)
Guy comes up to you, says Everest is the worlds highest mountian. You say, "how do you know?" he explains measurement used etc and you can soon see if he is right or not. Religious people do not do this. They go "there is a mountain that you cannot see, hear, or otherwise measure that is bigger than all the others". You say "proof please" and they say "I don't need to prove it exists, you have to prove it doesn't. Which is bollocks..
Nope. His existence is awaiting proof. In the absence of proof we say he doesn't exist. Unverified theory is held to be currently false. Unverifiable theory is known to be nonsense.
Ok. How? We have similar neurology, we are capable of using language etc so if one can do it, others can do it. So...how?
Fair enough, but it is only sensible.
Wrong. I claim that all things fall at the same rate in a vacuum. We set up an experiment. We find out I am right. Verifiable theory.
Nope. All esoteric theory like atomic theory becomes questionable, but all basics like gravity become confirmed.
Will anyone ever answer the point that if scientific theories are a bit shaky, claiming that god exists must be bollocks.
Why on earth is that ludicrous, that is surely the only logical position to base your ideas on?
Don't pretend that if i proposed that a load of crazy stuff existed you would accept this because you couldn't 'prove' I was wrong and that you would hold this view with as much credit as someone who came along and suggested something existed and had evidence for it.......
People who see things that aren't there are usually described as being insane.
People who believe in god and religion claim that there is something "out there" which can't be seen, that is, they see things that aren't there.
Ergo, religious people are nuts.
You cannot do it the other way around cos there isn't any proof for the assertion, that's the whole point.
Nope. i was describing someone elses views.
I like empiricism.
I doubt xtrians are mentioned at all in the thread. They are all nuts.
Or faulty in some way...like being, for instance....blind?
The way in which we would determine a fault would be to return once again to the real, physical world and devise some kind of test.
If we do so, we of course find out, once again that I am correct and that there is "something wrong" with religious thinkers.