Any other faithless org members here?

[Byzantine Prince]

Well well well... Looky who's winning. 20 years ago that other side would have won, but today people are finally more realistic. Well done guys.

[Ianofsmeg16]

I beleive in God, Jesus and all that....emphasis on the word Beleive, maybe we shouldnt try and find answers by science,just think of what you beleive created everything..
(this is very religios coming from a guy who's hero is Charles Darwin :))

[Viking]

Well well well... Looky who's winning. 20 years ago that other side would have won, but today people are finally more realistic. Well done guys.

More realistic? I don`t get you there. The Big Bang theory is to me almost as unbelieveable as the existence of a god.

[Soulforged]

More realistic? I don`t get you there. The Big Bang theory is to me almost as unbelieveable as the existence of a god.

That's not true the Big Bang theory has scientific work behind it, and the value of refutability. God, any god, doesn't.

[Viking]

That's not true the Big Bang theory has scientific work behind it, and the value of refutability. God, any god, doesn't.

BB is still only a theory and not something scientifically proved. And I was saying that to me, it`s almost as unbelievable. Imagine everything in the whole universe compressed to something smaller than an atom, it`s not easy; not to think about the existence of a god either. I know God hasn`t anything to do with science, if you just not view him as yet another natural force, wich doesn`t become too difficult when you read about dark energy, BB and alike. The universe is just so much more than any human being can understand.

[Byzantine Prince]

"A picture is a fact." - Wittgenstein.

HAHAHA. Show me a picture of the big bang. Can you get one? I hardly think so since not only could you not go back in time(time doesn't exist), but you would also not exist because nothing else would. Why do even need to know about the big bang. It's in the past, there's nothing we can do about that.

Everything that's in the past will not be coming back any time soon. We have to live in the today. Today the earth exists and I exist and "god is dead"(Nietzsche). There done.

BP

[Geoffrey S]

No. What I could believe now is irrelevent, as no one belief can be seen as more likely than the next; as far as I'm concerned this includes religion as well as scientific theories. If there is something larger than life, I'll see it when I get there.

[Aenlic]

I see your Wittgenstein and raise you two Chomskys:

Chomsky v. Kripke on Wittgenstein, Round 1

Chomsky v. Kripke on Wittgenstein, Round 2

[Viking]

HAHAHA. Show me a picture of the big bang. Can you get one? I hardly think so since not only could you not go back in time(time doesn't exist), but you would also not exist because nothing else would.

I can get one. Just provide me with a powerfull enough telescope and I can get one. You don`t need time-travels for that.

Why do even need to know about the big bang.

Why do we have to know anything?

Everything that's in the past will not be coming back any time soon. We have to live in the today.

That`s not the same as we don`t need to know about the past.

Today the earth exists and I exist and "god is dead"(Nietzsche).

If God ever existed, he would certainly not be dead; it`s either or.

[Hurin_Rules]

Everything that's in the past will not be coming back any time soon. We have to live in the today. Today the earth exists and I exist and "god is dead"(Nietzsche). There done.

Hmm... bad choice of philosophers to quote on that one:

http://www.wpunj.edu/wpcpages/sch-hm...TNET/RECUR.HTM

In short: Nietzsche discussed the idea of 'Eternal Recurrence', where everything that had ever happened occured in an endless loop in exactly the same way. I tend to think for him it was more just an intellectual exercise--a way of avoiding nihilism by developing a moral heuristic in the absence of the absolute--but either way, you really shouldn't quote Nietsche to defend the opposite.

Just FYI.

[Byzantine Prince]

Is there any regulation in this site that says you can't quote to support an argument they would not agree with? I'll answer for you, NO.
I think you are trying to be smart in the wrong direction.

Also even if you [Viking] had a very powerful telescope you could not possibly comprehend how the universe created, because you would have to know the coordinates of the single point, and you would hope to god that it just so hapens to be hapening in the time that it took the light to get to the earth. Pretty far fetched idea.
Also it would say nothing about god. If that was evidence, then our existence is also evidence, by that logic. But it's not. Our existence means nothing. We just are, or so I hope.

[Craterus]

Well well well... Looky who's winning. 20 years ago that other side would have won, but today people are finally more realistic. Well done guys.

You say people, but this isn't a very broad survey.

All voters are TW gamers (something to do with it? who knows?) and this forums sways toawrds rock/metal. And a lot of rock is anti-religion (people are influenced by music).

[Dâriûsh]

Well well well... Looky who's winning. 20 years ago that other side would have won, but today people are finally more realistic. Well done guys.

Explain, if you please.