Religion

[indigosoul]

No, of the two who actually practice their faith, the atheist and the religious, only the religious end up in peace, tranquility, and self actualization. The evidence is staggering that the faithful live happier and more complete lives. Only the foolish children living in denial of the facts would claim otherwise.

Ahahahahahahaha!!! You are a moron. Explain to me, then how historically so many wars have been fought in the name of "religion". Go read a book and THEN come back with an intelligent argument. Oh, and while you're at it, let's hear some of this "evidence" that supports your statement. I am VERY prepared to think about it, but excuse me if I don't take your word on it.

God. I wish that BD would come back. This is right up his alley. Someone email him, if you know how.

Shh. Thanks hun (you know why), I don't want to overly bias things.

PS- Hi One-Moron. Welcome back!

[Cybog]

Please refrain from flaming each other simply for the sake of flaming. Calling someone a moron because of something stupid they did in life is one thing, but calling someone a moron because they believe something different than you is something else.

Religion is one of those topics that you guys are never going to convince one another of something different. Is it really worth the effort? None of you are going to win, so what's the point?

[indigosoul]

Please refrain from flaming each other simply for the sake of flaming. Calling someone a moron because of something stupid they did in life is one thing, but calling someone a moron because they believe something different than you is something else.

Religion is one of those topics that you guys are never going to convince one another of something different. Is it really worth the effort? None of you are going to win, so what's the point?

Moron comes from the Greek, moros, which means foolish. Which I believe _I've_ already been called earlier, if you care to check. I will therefore assume you are being general in your comments.

Actually, you have simply gotten ahead of me here on this thread. My next comment WAS to point out, as relates to the original posters comment, the difficulties that exist when ppl have differing points of view on religion. This thread being a case in point.

quod erat demonstrandum

[shh!]

[SIZE=4]God. I wish that BD would come back. This is right up his alley. Someone email him, if you know how.

uhh - who is BD?

No, of the two who actually practice their faith, the atheist and the religious, only the religious end up in peace, tranquility, and self actualization. The evidence is staggering that the faithful live happier and more complete lives. Only the foolish children living in denial of the facts would claim otherwise.

haha - I confess indigo: I didn't even read this post of hugo's in its entirety. I read the first paragraph and then skipped the rest because, well, you can guess why. But you are right - this was definitely laugh-worthy.

[Mish]

The only thing I've said is that you need to THINK more. And if that puts your back up, maybe you should also think about why that is. I'm not denying any theory, only your interpretation of it. You don't want to learn, unfortunately, you want to argue and until you make the leap from one to the other this is the level your understanding will stay at. You are stil subscribing to the word of "experts" without thinking for yourself what this means. And yes, I can say this, being one of those so-called "experts". Good luck.

Wow, I've never seen anyone write so many words without actually explaining or saying anything. You must be a queen of evasivism. Unlike you I am not cliaming to be an "Expert" of any kind, I'm just trying to understand your "mysterious" way of thinking and I'm finding it harder by the minute.

Look, turn ON your most basic components of logic inside of your brain here for a minute. We have a theory, called a big bang theory the author of which claims that no time, no energy, no space, no universe, in fact NOTHING existed before the Bang Bang occured. Now you come in with a theory of your own saying that energy IS nothing (Which it is not, but let's for a second pretend that it is). So even if energy is NOTHING, you are suggesting that it existed PRIOR to Big Bang occurence and it was this energy that caused the big bang to occur, THUS this energy occupied a certain amount of space AND had a development timeline for the Big Explosion to occur. SO, what you are saying is that time, space and energy DID exist prior to Big Bang, and THUS you are directly contradicting the whole Big Bang theory, which clearly states that these components did not exist and were in fact created by a giant explosion which simply came out of nowhere. Do you have anything more to say, huh? Huh?

Because if you want to continue arguing on this, you will have to do the following:

1. Prove that energy and mass are NOT interelated (This goes against the theory of relativity and most theories in quantum physics that you speak so highly off)
2. Explain how you can believe that time, space and energy were created by Big Bang and yet at the same time space, time and energy existed before the Big Bang occured???

Please give me something to learn Ms. "Expert" because at the moment your defense for you pretense has zero amount of backup...

P.S. Did you know that the keyboard that you are typing on is made up of atoms that are more than 80% nothing? Perhaps now you will try to argue that your keyboard is a NOTHING as well

[shh!]

Religion is one of those topics that you guys are never going to convince one another of something different. Is it really worth the effort? None of you are going to win, so what's the point?

Some people find debating enjoyable.

[RSK]

i have a hole in my sock

[shh!]

i have a hole in my sock

All this time I wait for your response, and that is all I get??

[indigosoul]

Wow, I've never seen anyone write so many words without actually explaining or saying anything. You must be a queen of evasivism. Unlike you I am not cliaming to be an "Expert" of any kind, I'm just trying to understand your "mysterious" way of thinking and I'm finding it harder by the minute.

Look, turn ON your most basic components of logic inside of your brain here for a minute. We have a theory, called a big bang theory the author of which claims that no time, no energy, no space, no universe, in fact NOTHING existed before the Bang Bang occured. Now you come in with a theory of your own saying that energy IS nothing (Which it is not, but let's for a second pretend that it is). So even if energy is NOTHING, you are suggesting that it existed PRIOR to Big Bang occurence and it was this energy that caused the big bang to occur, THUS this energy occupied a certain amount of space AND had a development timeline for the Big Explosion to occur. SO, what you are saying is that time, space and energy DID exist prior to Big Bang, and THUS you are directly contradicting the whole Big Bang theory, which clearly states that these components did not exist and were in fact created by a giant explosion which simply came out of nowhere. Do you have anything more to say, huh? Huh?

Because if you want to continue arguing on this, you will have to do the following:

1. Prove that energy and mass are NOT interelated (This goes against the theory of relativity and most theories in quantum physics that you speak so highly off)
2. Explain how you can believe that time, space and energy were created by Big Bang and yet at the same time space, time and energy existed before the Big Bang occured???

Please give me something to learn Ms. "Expert" because at the moment your defense for you pretense has zero amount of backup...

P.S. Did you know that the keyboard that you are typing on is made up of atoms that are more than 80% nothing? Perhaps now you will try to argue that your keyboard is a NOTHING as well

I'm guessing you must be a physics or chemistry undergrad or grad student. Terrific!
As I said, I'm not arguing. YOU are. But at least now I see you're thinking. Congratulations! If you are serious about wanting to understand this concept try REALLY thinking about Hugos post "Cogito Ergo Sum" and what it might actually mean.

As to MY interest in this thread, see my previous post, which is a little larger than this microargument.

[indigosoul]

i have a hole in my sock

No you don't. Prove it!

[RSK]

No you don't. Prove it!

i shall now prove that i have a hole in my sock.

a hole can be anything that 'space' exists withing a circumfrential domain, wherin lies..............the hole...

...if is in this viscinity, where ojects can travel through, in space, and indefinately, without changing it's form or function, travel 'through'...

...the hole is merely defined as the aforementioned, space...



the sock on my left foot has threaded stitches, that weave in and out, in the pertanoniom configuration, using the MACb-20 sewing machine...

...the company producing the 'sock', uses the thread type a-20.

with the slightest bit of pressure, and over a long time, the toe (experimentally) has shown to create a 'starting point' where the type a-20 expands in diameter through torsional stress (see Jung 1978).

and this stress has increased the thread type a-20 diameter by 120% in length...

...it has been proven (see Okari 1980) that a thresshold value that marks 110% lenght is required for the initiation of the 'detatchment phase' of the initial hole...

the sock has been subsequently washed and dried, and over a period of six months (independed variable), it has therefore, increased in size, according to Jungs 'relative dimension expansion' equation, which is described in his classic paper, on 'predicting hole size' (Jung 1979)...

...accoding to this equation:

P(alpha) = Tw (9.00234) / constand squared x Rt squared

using the above formulations, it has been found that the hole is now 3cm in diameter.

I REST MY CASE

[indigosoul]

i shall now prove that i have a hole in my sock.

a hole can be anything that 'space' exists withing a circumfrential domain, wherin lies..............the hole...

...if is in this viscinity, where ojects can travel through, in space, and indefinately, without changing it's form or function, travel 'through'...

...the hole is merely defined as the aforementioned, space...



the sock on my left foot has threaded stitches, that weave in and out, in the pertanoniom configuration, using the MACb-20 sewing machine...

...the company producing the 'sock', uses the thread type a-20.

with the slightest bit of pressure, and over a long time, the toe (experimentally) has shown to create a 'starting point' where the type a-20 expands in diameter through torsional stress (see Jung 1978).

and this stress has increased the thread type a-20 diameter by 120% in length...

...it has been proven (see Okari 1980) that a thresshold value that marks 110% lenght is required for the initiation of the 'detatchment phase' of the initial hole...

the sock has been subsequently washed and dried, and over a period of six months (independed variable), it has therefore, increased in size, according to Jungs 'relative dimension expansion' equation, which is described in his classic paper, on 'predicting hole size' (Jung 1979)...

...accoding to this equation:

P(alpha) = Tw (9.00234) / constand squared x Rt squared

using the above formulations, it has been found that the hole is now 3cm in diameter.

I REST MY CASE

Wow!!! All those facts. THAT is an awesome hole! OK, RK...


I believe....

[Mish]

I'm guessing you must be a physics or chemistry undergrad or grad student. Terrific!
As I said, I'm not arguing. YOU are. But at least now I see you're thinking. Congratulations! If you are serious about wanting to understand this concept try REALLY thinking about Hugos post "Cogito Ergo Sum" and what it might actually mean.

I am arguing against your theory, which you are not making a slightest bit of effort to prove or even explain the logic behind such pardoxicaly flawed thinking. Thus an unproven hyptheses is zero to none and void.

If you now acknowledge that you have lost and that you "Theory" does NOT make any sense whatsoever, at least loose with style and not by saying 'I'm right and you're wrong because i'm an "Expert"'

[RSK]

ok, i'm gonna break this up...

you are BOTH wrong...

and guess what: two wongs, make a wight )

[indigosoul]

I am arguing against your theory, which you are not making a slightest bit of effort to prove or even explain the logic behind such pardoxicaly flawed thinking. Thus an unproven hyptheses is zero to none and void.

If you now acknowledge that you have lost and that you "Theory" does NOT make any sense whatsoever, at least loose with style and not by saying 'I'm right and you're wrong because i'm an "Expert"'

What theory?? Grow up and learn to let go.

But if your ego requires, sure. You're right. I'm wrong.

Feel better?? I didn't think so.



PS, please read my posts more carefully. I never said I was expert at anything. (I used the term "so called"). Only called one (by others) b/c of certain "qualifications" I have gathered throughout my years. Having acheived such makes one realize the relative meaningless of such if you don't actually THINK about what it is one does and what it might actually mean. There ARE no experts; only those w/more experience, which doesn't make them right, BTW. We are all on a continuum. Likewise theories are only good theories until something better comes along. Which requires thinking about those theories, rather than blindly believing them as "truth". Truth is also a continuum.

I say this generally, not to continue an "argument". Agree or disagree as you will by and for yourself. This is now boring and we should move on.