NATION

PASSWORD

Is There a God?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Salandriagado
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22831
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Salandriagado » Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:35 pm

Grand Britannia wrote:
Nordengrund wrote:
Most Christians believe in only one God. Actually all Christians believe in one God except the Witnesses. They believe that the Holy Trinity is three different gods instead of one God. Even their bible says: "In the beginning was the Word. The word was with God, and the Word was a God"


Can't recall seeing any of that back in my days as a Jehovah's Witness.

Interestingly, it's probably a better translation of the Hebrew with the "a" there.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Grand Britannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14615
Founded: Apr 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Grand Britannia » Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:37 pm

Salandriagado wrote:
Grand Britannia wrote:
Can't recall seeing any of that back in my days as a Jehovah's Witness.

Interestingly, it's probably a better translation of the Hebrew with the "a" there.


Well, to be honest, the auto-correct didn't say anything. So I won't change it if it won't :p
Member of laissez-fair right-wing worker-mistreatment brigade
Why Britannians are always late
Please help a family in need, every penny counts.
Mainland Map | "Weebs must secure the existence of anime and a future for cute aryan waifus"| IIwiki
I Identify as a Graf Zeppelin class aircraft carrier, please refer to me as she.
Economic Left/Right: 2.25 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 6.72

User avatar
Salandriagado
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22831
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Salandriagado » Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:43 pm

Grand Britannia wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:Interestingly, it's probably a better translation of the Hebrew with the "a" there.


Well, to be honest, the auto-correct didn't say anything. So I won't change it if it won't :p


Sorry if that wasn't clear, I'm talking about the "a" in ""In the beginning was the Word. The word was with God, and the Word was a God".
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Person012345
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16783
Founded: Feb 16, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Person012345 » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:16 pm

To clarify, other denominations read "the word was with god and the word was god", without the "a" before the second "god".

User avatar
Sociobiology
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18396
Founded: Aug 18, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Sociobiology » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:27 pm

Leepaidamba wrote:
North Suran wrote:If something is subject to change based on consensus, then it is not constant and infallible. As such, it would be ill-advised to treat physical laws as such, since what we term laws are rather our understanding of laws, which shifts and varies as new evidence comes to light and old assertions are discredited.

Just because we review our understanding of the laws of nature constantly to reflect our newest finding doesn't mean the laws of nature are themselves not constant either. They are, by definition, because if they're not constant, they're not laws.

No I have to correct you there they are treated as constant only because all evidence points towards them being constant. being constant has nothing to do with being a law.
infallibility, like most totalities, does not exist. Any system that relies on the assumption of infallibility is doomed to failure, because it will be less able to correct errors.
Science works because it IS fallible, is known to be such, but also self-correcting, so it always tends towards more accuracy. Because everything in science must have evidence it makes no baseless assumptions.
Science is however the MOST accurate base of knowledge in existence, which is why many people treat it as the default right answer in any disagreement.
I think we risk becoming the best informed society that has ever died of ignorance. ~Reuben Blades

I got quite annoyed after the Haiti earthquake. A baby was taken from the wreckage and people said it was a miracle. It would have been a miracle had God stopped the earthquake. More wonderful was that a load of evolved monkeys got together to save the life of a child that wasn't theirs. ~Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Person012345
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16783
Founded: Feb 16, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Person012345 » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:41 pm

You can't really make a law about something that isn't consistent. If it isn't, you can make a law about how it isn't consistent, how it changes, but only if the changes are themselves consistent.

I mean, do you have an example of how we could theoretically define a law about something that is inconsistent?

User avatar
Sociobiology
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18396
Founded: Aug 18, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Sociobiology » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:44 pm

Person012345 wrote:You can't really make a law about something that isn't consistent. If it isn't, you can make a law about how it isn't consistent, how it changes, but only if the changes are themselves consistent.

I mean, do you have an example of how we could theoretically define a law about something that is inconsistent?

are you talking to me?
sorry I'm used to quoting.
consistent =/= constant
Last edited by Sociobiology on Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think we risk becoming the best informed society that has ever died of ignorance. ~Reuben Blades

I got quite annoyed after the Haiti earthquake. A baby was taken from the wreckage and people said it was a miracle. It would have been a miracle had God stopped the earthquake. More wonderful was that a load of evolved monkeys got together to save the life of a child that wasn't theirs. ~Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Person012345
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16783
Founded: Feb 16, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Person012345 » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:51 pm

Sociobiology wrote:
Person012345 wrote:You can't really make a law about something that isn't consistent. If it isn't, you can make a law about how it isn't consistent, how it changes, but only if the changes are themselves consistent.

I mean, do you have an example of how we could theoretically define a law about something that is inconsistent?

are you talking to me?
sorry I'm used to quoting.
consistent =/= constant

I was, and I know what the words mean, or at least I think I do.

An example might be useful.

User avatar
Person012345
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16783
Founded: Feb 16, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Person012345 » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:53 pm

Oh wait, I read... both posts wrong... at least twice. :palm:

User avatar
Sheren
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Aug 25, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Sheren » Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:51 pm

What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?

User avatar
Norstal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41465
Founded: Mar 07, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Norstal » Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:53 pm

Sheren wrote:What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?

It's an exercise for us.

What is it about theists being so sensitive, saying they don't care, then post more showing that they do care, and then leave in a huff?
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★


New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.


IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10


NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.



Supreme Chairman for Life of the Itty Bitty Kitty Committee

User avatar
Socialdemokraterne
Minister
 
Posts: 3448
Founded: Dec 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Socialdemokraterne » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:25 am

So have we reached a consensus on the existence or non-existence of deities yet? No? Alright, I'll recalculate.

The current jackpot for the final word ever on this subject currently stands at: 8,817,347,472,996,329,019,362 USD. Keep playing, someone's bound to win eventually! :lol:
A social democracy following a variant of the Nordic model of the European welfare state composed of a union of Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Greenland, Denmark, Sleswig-Holstein, and a bit of Estonia.

Leder du måske efter en dansk region? Dansk!

User avatar
Mr Bananagrabber
Minister
 
Posts: 2890
Founded: Feb 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mr Bananagrabber » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:28 am

Socialdemokraterne wrote:So have we reached a consensus on the existence or non-existence of deities yet? No? Alright, I'll recalculate.

The current jackpot for the final word ever on this subject currently stands at: 8,817,347,472,996,329,019,362 USD. Keep playing, someone's bound to win eventually! :lol:


Hmm. Looks like we've got better odds of solving the Riemann hypothesis. :eyebrow:
"I guess it would just be a guy who, you know, grabs bananas and runs. Or a banana that grabs things. I don't know. Why would a banana grab another banana? I mean those are the kind of questions I don't want to answer."

User avatar
Mr Bananagrabber
Minister
 
Posts: 2890
Founded: Feb 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mr Bananagrabber » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:30 am

Sheren wrote:What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?


I don't personally, but I completely understand why. It's because it's annoying when other people are stupid.
"I guess it would just be a guy who, you know, grabs bananas and runs. Or a banana that grabs things. I don't know. Why would a banana grab another banana? I mean those are the kind of questions I don't want to answer."

User avatar
Socialdemokraterne
Minister
 
Posts: 3448
Founded: Dec 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Socialdemokraterne » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:34 am

Mr Bananagrabber wrote:Hmm. Looks like we've got better odds of solving the Riemann hypothesis. :eyebrow:


Pretty much anything has better odds than the entire world coming to an agreement on the existence and nature of supernatural elements.
A social democracy following a variant of the Nordic model of the European welfare state composed of a union of Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Greenland, Denmark, Sleswig-Holstein, and a bit of Estonia.

Leder du måske efter en dansk region? Dansk!

User avatar
Mr Bananagrabber
Minister
 
Posts: 2890
Founded: Feb 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mr Bananagrabber » Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:09 am

Socialdemokraterne wrote:
Mr Bananagrabber wrote:Hmm. Looks like we've got better odds of solving the Riemann hypothesis. :eyebrow:


Pretty much anything has better odds than the entire world coming to an agreement on the existence and nature of supernatural elements.


I don't know about that. I think we can all agree that Dean is the cool one, Sam is too whiny, and Castiel is the most awesome.
"I guess it would just be a guy who, you know, grabs bananas and runs. Or a banana that grabs things. I don't know. Why would a banana grab another banana? I mean those are the kind of questions I don't want to answer."

User avatar
Socialdemokraterne
Minister
 
Posts: 3448
Founded: Dec 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Socialdemokraterne » Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:20 am

Mr Bananagrabber wrote:I don't know about that. I think we can all agree that Dean is the cool one, Sam is too whiny, and Castiel is the most awesome.


Mreow? To Google!!!!

Ah. TV characters. I gotcha. :lol:
A social democracy following a variant of the Nordic model of the European welfare state composed of a union of Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Greenland, Denmark, Sleswig-Holstein, and a bit of Estonia.

Leder du måske efter en dansk region? Dansk!

User avatar
Mr Bananagrabber
Minister
 
Posts: 2890
Founded: Feb 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mr Bananagrabber » Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:21 am

Socialdemokraterne wrote:
Mr Bananagrabber wrote:I don't know about that. I think we can all agree that Dean is the cool one, Sam is too whiny, and Castiel is the most awesome.


Mreow? To Google!!!!

Ah. TV characters. I gotcha. :lol:


You never saw Supernatural? Where do you live, under a rock? :eyebrow:
"I guess it would just be a guy who, you know, grabs bananas and runs. Or a banana that grabs things. I don't know. Why would a banana grab another banana? I mean those are the kind of questions I don't want to answer."

User avatar
Socialdemokraterne
Minister
 
Posts: 3448
Founded: Dec 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Socialdemokraterne » Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:50 am

Mr Bananagrabber wrote:You never saw Supernatural? Where do you live, under a rock? :eyebrow:


When I do watch television I'm typically watching anime.
A social democracy following a variant of the Nordic model of the European welfare state composed of a union of Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Greenland, Denmark, Sleswig-Holstein, and a bit of Estonia.

Leder du måske efter en dansk region? Dansk!

User avatar
Mr Bananagrabber
Minister
 
Posts: 2890
Founded: Feb 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mr Bananagrabber » Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:53 am

Socialdemokraterne wrote:
Mr Bananagrabber wrote:You never saw Supernatural? Where do you live, under a rock? :eyebrow:


When I do watch television I'm typically watching anime.


You're missing out on some quality stuff.
"I guess it would just be a guy who, you know, grabs bananas and runs. Or a banana that grabs things. I don't know. Why would a banana grab another banana? I mean those are the kind of questions I don't want to answer."

User avatar
Person012345
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16783
Founded: Feb 16, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Person012345 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:30 am

Sheren wrote:What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?

I care about people and I don't want them being sucked into a horrible thing such as religion. I also don't want them adding to the weight of people who force their religion on everyone else.

Which is why I'm not too concerned with people who only believe the nice bits and keep it to themselves.

User avatar
The De Danann Nation
Diplomat
 
Posts: 917
Founded: Jan 09, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The De Danann Nation » Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:32 am

Mr Bananagrabber wrote:
Mr Bananagrabber wrote:I don't know about that. I think we can all agree that Dean is the cool one, Sam is too whiny, and Castiel is the most awesome.


You wash your mouth out with soap!Everyone knows Crowley's the best. :lol:
Last edited by The De Danann Nation on Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
De Dana is an island nation off the coast of Asia settled by Celts around 100 B.C. and containing a mix of Eurasian culture.

User avatar
Mr Bananagrabber
Minister
 
Posts: 2890
Founded: Feb 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mr Bananagrabber » Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:35 am

The De Danann Nation wrote:
Mr Bananagrabber wrote:


You wash your mouth out with soap!Everyone knows Crowley's the best. :lol:


Oh shit I forgot about Crowley! You're absolutely right. Mark Sheppard is amazing in everything he's in.
Last edited by Mr Bananagrabber on Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I guess it would just be a guy who, you know, grabs bananas and runs. Or a banana that grabs things. I don't know. Why would a banana grab another banana? I mean those are the kind of questions I don't want to answer."

User avatar
Salandriagado
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22831
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Salandriagado » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:29 am

Sheren wrote:What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?


Because it is a challenge to our beliefs, and therefore deserves to be challenged in order to test the validity of those beliefs (as in, if I can't refute it, my beliefs need reviewing).
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Divair
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63434
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Divair » Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:24 am

Sheren wrote:What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?

When religion stops affecting the world, get back to me.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arin Graliandre, Chernobyl and Pripyat, Cratersti, Eternal Algerstonia, Hauthamatra, Kenmoria, Northern Socialist Council Republics, Port Caverton, The Pirateariat

Advertisement

Remove ads