The four horseman of the apocalypse, now

[Tamme 0]

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX:

I don't insult you like you insult me. I have nothing against the fact that you don't believe in God or Jesus. So why do you keep insulting me for the fact that I do? I only participated in this debate for the reason that you insulted christians. Just because I think that there could be a higher power, that there is more to this world than what we see, hear, smell, or feel doesn't make me less smarter than you are.

[denoir 0]

Now, what if the sausage people were invisible and undetectable? (according to the person's beliefs)

Is it still possible to use measurements to prove they don't exist?  Or do you have to use something else to determine their existance?

No it's not possible. I can come up with any model that is not detectable through measurement and while I won't be able to prove that it exists, you won't be able to prove that it doesn't exist.

Quote[/b] ]He believed in an impersonal force ordering the universe which he referred to as god in a similar way as Hawking refers to 'the mind of god'.  Regardless, if you read my passage I atrributed religion, especially organised religion, as a symptom of lack of intelligence, not belief in a higher power.

No, no, don't try to wiggle your way out of this. We are talking about an abstract god, a general higher power. You claim that should something like that exist then should be detectable through measurement.

Quote[/b] ]We'll have to agree to disagree on that, then.  I can't see any connection at all though.  Fact/ evidence vs 'stuff an old guy made up to suit his own purposes'

Read the definitions again. I'll take Christianity as an example here:

Quote[/b] ]1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena

Statement: God created the world in seven days.

Phenomena: The creation of the world.

Quote[/b] ]2. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment

Principle: Thou shalt not steal

Purpose: Guidance of action and it assists judgement

Quote[/b] ]3. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Assumption: God created man

Limited information: Man exists.

Quote[/b] ]300 years of scientific development? You want me to list it all?

Yes. I want you to highlight any discovery that has been made since Newton that would eliminate the possibility of a higher power.

Quote[/b] ]You can solve any problem with rationality.

Ok, solve these two questions for me by scientific method:

"Which color is better, blue or red?"

"What did Goethe mean when he said "Passions are vices or virtues to their highest powers." ?"

[Bernadotte 0]

Until there is any sort of evidence for these delusions that affect people, they should not be taken seriously.

Rather than wait for you to deal with the explanation for God that I offered on the previous page, I'll just go ahead and offer you an insight on faith:

Anyone can walk the 5-meter length of a 20 cm wide beam sitting on the flat ground.  The chances of falling off are very small.

Question:  Why is it so much more difficult when the beam connects 2 skyscrapers 100 meters above the ground?

Answer:  The consequences of falling are very different.

And even though the chances of falling should be equally remote in each case, they aren't.  The chances of falling off the high beam are much greater because the dire consequences of falling will affect your ability to walk and steady yourself.  It's much easier to get to the other end of the beam if there is a safety net.  In fact, the net doesn't even have to exist.  It's enough just to believe that it exists.

This is where faith and religion step in.  Life can be compared to traversing the 20 cm wide beam, except that for each of us that beam is a different distance from the ground.  For you, me and many others the beam may be on the ground.  We don't need to believe that a net exists to get across safely.  But it's not like that for everyone.

Regarding your comment above, I agree that the safety net may be a "delusion.  I also agree that they "affect people."  However, I very strongly disagree with your opinion that "they should not be taken seriously."

[Bernadotte 0]

"Which color is better, blue or red?"

Red is better, but blonde is best.  

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX-

Quote[/b] ](on religion)-"Because its a complete waste of time and causes a lot more problems than it 'solves,' causes division, hatred and prejudice and is intrumental in creating a lot of problems."

That it is a waste of time is an entirely subjective judgement. To a religious believer religion is certainly not a 'complete waste of time' and as Denoir has ably demonstrated there are plenty of intelligent believers. In fact your total contempt for religion comes across as rather selfish. Has it occured to you that religion may for some people anwser all (or most of) the questions that they most urgently want answered and that science often scarcely attempts to answer? The fact that you care not for these questions (let alone the answers) is in no way a religious persons fault.

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX-

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]'That's not a why, that's a how.'  

The why needs to be no more than 'because thats how they work.

Oh wonderful. Well im sure that will convince everyone (except stupid useless people).

Also as to religions 'problem causing' perhaps i should mention that people are perfectly capable of acting despicably after getting carried away by (usually faulty) scientific theories and acting divisively, prejudicially and hatefully. Marxism is not a religious movement but rather tends to promote atheism and yet has been responsible for foul dictatorships and tens of millions of deaths, and then what of good old Darwin fan Adolph and his 'survival of the fascist' ?

Do you think people will never again get carried to extreme behaviour by scientific theories? I doubt it. Yet im not calling for an end to science and a reversion to peaceful subsistence cave dwelling.

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX-

Quote[/b] ]You can solve any problem with rationality.

No. No you cant.

(see now im getting the hang of 'thrumboising-answering a question whilst adding as little additional knowledge as possible..)

How does one even judge when a problem has been 'solved'? In many many instances this is not clear and there is no one 'right' solution.

You also seem to think there is an absolute division between religion and philosophy. There is no such absolute division. In fact can you name a religion that does not contain a philosophy (comprising for instance a system of values for living)?

...Anyway i think the situation has been reversed since i started arguing with the Baron so now ill leave off (maybe).

I certainly concede that organised religion has often been

very unhelpful to the advancement of human kind. The problem though tends to be not 'religion' but, just as with science, its organised use by society for particular ends.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

.

You insulted me repeatedly over the course of your post. I think you are silly to believe in something for which there is no evidence and which would be the most evil creature imaginable if it did.

Quote[/b] ]Just because I think that there could be a higher power, that there is more to this world than what we see, hear, smell, or feel doesn't make me less smarter than you are

Yes, it does. Sorry, the truth hurts. There is no difference in believing in invisible sausage people vs a giant fairy in the sky.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]

No it's not possible. I can come up with any model that is not detectable through measurement and while I won't be able to prove that it exists, you won't be able to prove that it doesn't exist.

Hooray. Now we only have to get you to realise that the burden of proof lies with the people making the assertion. In other words, its not up to me or anyone else to prove that invisible sausage people do exist, its up to those who believe they do, to prove it. And until they do, there is *NO REASON* for anyone to take anything they say seriously. You cannot have a double standard here. If the christian god can exist without proof, so can gravity fairies, invisible pink unicorns, etc etc.

Please, check out the burden of proof. You will learn, which is good.

Quote[/b] ]

No, no, don't try to wiggle your way out of this. We are talking about an abstract god, a general higher power. You claim that should something like that exist then should be detectable through measurement.

I'm not trying to wiggle out of it. A god like that *should* be measurable in some form, unless it does nothing but watch. Which is IMO what they think happens; it just watches.

Quote[/b] ]

Read the definitions again. I'll take Christianity as an example here:

Quote[/b] ]1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena

Statement: God created the world in seven days.

Phenomena: The creation of the world.

Problem= they don't explain facts nor phenomena.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]2. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment

Principle: Thou shalt not steal

Purpose: Guidance of action and it assists judgement

Problem = thats an order, not a guide, not an assistant to judgement.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]3. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Assumption: God created man

Limited information: Man exists.

I suppose it counts under that category. But thats not the way its used as a scientific term; thats a laymans term

Quote[/b] ]

Yes. I want you to highlight any discovery that has been made since Newton that would eliminate the possibility of a higher power.

Lets try this: anything that led to new understanding of how the universe actually works, as opposed to 'god did it'.

Quote[/b] ]You can solve any problem with rationality.

Ok, solve these two questions for me by scientific method:

"Which color is better, blue or red?"

"What did Goethe mean when he said "Passions are vices or virtues to their highest powers." ?"

P R O B L E M != question

[FSPilot 0]

Quote[/b] ]Not without raising more questions than it solves, and not by answering those questions in a meaningful/ userful way.

It doesn't raise any more questions if you read the Bible.  The answers as useful as the questions.

Quote[/b] ]Who created god?  Why?  Why did god create the world?  Which god?  Why that god and not another god?

God has always existed.

Why does it matter that God created the world?

The Christian God.

Because there's only one God.

See, if you just sat down and read the Bible you'd know these things.

Quote[/b] ]Why?  Who gets to go?  What is this place like?  Where is it?

Because we have an immortal soul, it has to go somewhere.

Everyone goes somewhere.

Heaven = good, hell = bad.

It doesn't necessarilly have a physical location, as it's for your soul.  Then again there are lots of theorys on this.

Quote[/b] ]So if I lead a completely sin free, blameless life, but it was on some isolated island and I never heard of Jesus (and never had that 'opportunity') -I'd go to hell?  forever?  You think this a good ethos?  

There's no such thing as a compeltely sin free, blameless life. Also, I believe in a fair and just God. If you never heard of Jesus I don't believe he would send you to hell.

Quote[/b] ]Millions of people who follow the same religion as you disagree on these points, who is right?  They all have the same amount of evidence on their side (ie none).  matter of fact, all religions claim the others are wrong, how can you tell which is right?  Most people simply go with the religion they were brought up with.  How in Zeus's butthole can that possibly be a guide to whats right?

It depends on what you believe.  If you believe in reincarnation and more than one god, buddhism is for you.

Quote[/b] ]very very very ambiguously, not enough to be an answer.

LOL!  You ever read revelations?

Quote[/b] ]You'd just get more wrong as time goes on.

And so do you.  By posting this response you've proven to me that you just don't like God for some wierd reason.  You obviously haven't read the Bible.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Rather than wait for you to deal with the explanation for God that I offered on the previous page, I'll just go ahead and offer you an insight on faith:

Oh yes, your 'explanation.'

I'm sorry, I thought you were just explaining why some people felt the need to make things up.

The fact that people like making things up to make themselves feel better has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not thats true.

Quote[/b] ]

Anyone can walk the 5-meter length of a 20 cm wide beam sitting on the flat ground. The chances of falling off are very small.

Question: Why is it so much more difficult when the beam connects 2 skyscrapers 100 meters above the ground?

Answer: The consequences of falling are very different.

No, its not any harder, people are just scared. The actual task isn't any harder. People with no fear of heights can do both equally easily (apart from the wind which would actually make it harder)

Quote[/b] ]

And even though the chances of falling should be equally remote in each case, they aren't. The chances of falling off the high beam are much greater because the dire consequences of falling will affect your ability to walk and steady yourself. It's much easier to get to the other end of the beam if there is a safety net. In fact, the net doesn't even have to exist. It's enough just to believe that it exists.

Rubbish. Nobody is that stupid to believe theres a net they can't see when they are risking their life.

*thinks*

OK, noone apart from extremely religious people are that stupid.

Quote[/b] ]

This is where faith and religion step in. Life can be compared to traversing the 20 cm wide beam, except that for each of us that beam is a different distance from the ground. For you, me and many others the beam may be on the ground. We don't need to believe that a net exists to get across safely. But it's not like that for everyone.

I disagree. Religion doesn't make the net. A more apt analogy would be making people think that falling off the beam wouldn't actually hurt them, while not making the actual passage any easier.

Quote[/b] ]

Regarding your comment above, I agree that the safety net may be a "delusion. I also agree that they "affect people." However, I very strongly disagree with your opinion that "they should not be taken seriously."

A real safety net is not a delusion and it does affect people. An invisible safety net that doesn't catch you (since we've already established that gods cannot be detected) is the same as no net at all.

Thank you, your post made some of my points a lot easier to make.

[Placebo 29]

OK, noone apart from extremely religious people are that stupid.

Ok so obviously I haven't been getting through to you, next comment like that and you'll be post restricted.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]That it is a waste of time is an entirely subjective judgement. To a religious believer religion is certainly not a 'complete waste of time'

And to the crazy man, the Invisible sausage people and his quest to test everyone by mincing them up are not a waste of time.  I don't care how much they like it, the fact is that it doesn't help anyone, especially themselves, it squanders resources (on a recent aid trip to Malawi, I noticed far more money going into building churches than building hospitals - and thats one of the tenth poorest countries in the world), it hinders scientific progress immensely, it encourages overpopulation, and far more.  It *is* a collosal waste of time, whether they like it or not.

Quote[/b] ]

and as Denoir has ably demonstrated there are plenty of intelligent believers.

AFAIK denoir isn't a believer.  Not that there aren't otherwise intelligent believers out there.  Not many, though.

Quote[/b] ]In fact your total contempt for religion comes across as rather selfish. Has it occured to you that religion may for some people anwser all (or most of) the questions that they most urgently want answered and that science often scarcely attempts to answer?

Well no, because it doesn't answer these questions at all; it just submits more questions.  A simple assertion with nothing to back it up isn't a good answer.

Quote[/b] ]

The fact that you care not for these questions (let alone the answers) is in no way a religious persons fault.

I care not for lies, nor for half truths, and especially not for 'answers' which are nothing of the kind.  

Quote[/b] ]Oh wonderful. Well im sure that will convince everyone (except stupid useless people).

I'm not claiming that as an answer, I'm saying that its an invalid question.  If you want answers to questions like that, try rational philosophy.

Quote[/b] ]

Also as to religions 'problem causing' perhaps i should mention that people are perfectly capable of acting despicably after getting carried away by (usually faulty) scientific theories and acting divisively, prejudicially and hatefully.

People are capable of killing each other without using nukes,  Does that mean nukes are ok?  Just because there are other, (lesser) sources of conflict doesn't mean religion isn't one.

Quote[/b] ]

Marxism is not a religious movement but rather tends to promote atheism and yet has been responsible for foul dictatorships and tens of millions of deaths,

Did I say religion was the sole cause of conflict? No.  So take down that ridiculous straw man.

Quote[/b] ] and then what of good old Darwin fan Adolph and his 'survival of the fascist' ?

thats just a lie.  

1) Hitler said on many occasions that he considered himself a christian

2) he essentially made a new religion from half cut scandinavian myths which he twisted in to other christian beliefs, and then blamed the jews, gypsies, communists etc for all of germany's problems.

3) In a similar way to how he twisted Xian and nordic myths, he twisted Darwin's ideas.

Quote[/b] ]

Do you think people will never again get carried to extreme behaviour by scientific theories? I doubt it.

yet to see an example of a scientific theory causing something like this.  Science is Amoral.  There is no code of ethics, bad or good, inherent within it.  It can be used for bad or for good, but that has nothing to do with science; it is morally neutral.

Quote[/b] ]

Yet im not calling for an end to science and a reversion to peaceful subsistence cave dwelling.

Supporting religion = that.

Quote[/b] ]

No. No you cant.

(see now im getting the hang of 'thrumboising-answering a question whilst adding as little additional knowledge as possible..)

Funny, because I started doing that when people made assertions with nothing to back them up.  Give me some evidence, I'll give some back.  Make a stupid assertion with no evidence and I'll simply reply with the same.  I'm typing enough here without having to constantly restate the same thing again and again until it sinks in anyway.

Quote[/b] ]

How does one even judge when a problem has been 'solved'? In many many instances this is not clear and there is no one 'right' solution.

Anything that works is a solution of some kind.  There may be better solutions - thats the whole point of science (here's me repeating myself again).

And no, religion doesn't work.

Quote[/b] ]

You also seem to think there is an absolute division between religion and philosophy. There is no such absolute division. In fact can you name a religion that does not contain a philosophy (comprising for instance a system of values for living)?

Another thing I've already said: just because religion steals things from philosophy, doesn't mean that you need religion to have philosophy.  I know religion often incorporates philosophy into it.

Quote[/b] ]

I certainly concede that organised religion has often been

very unhelpful to the advancement of human kind. The problem though tends to be not 'religion' but, just as with science, its organised use by society for particular ends.

Any problems we can eliminate help.  And since we wouldn't be losing anything, why not try it?  The world already tried all being religious with no science, and that was a steaming disaster, so why not try things the other way round?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]Who created god?  Why?  Why did god create the world?  Which god?  Why that god and not another god?

God has always existed.

Why does it matter that God created the world?

The Christian God.

Because there's only one God.

See, if you just sat down and read the Bible you'd know these things.

I have read it.  It provided a sum total of zero answers.  As have thousands of other people.  In fact, apparently what makes most people stop being so religious is actually reading the bible.

Quote[/b] ] some very old tired arguements I've debated hundreds of times before which are like speaking to a brick wall so I'll just leave just now with the remark 'Try looking these questions up on some online source, www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

www.infidels.org, or something.'

Quote[/b] ]If you never heard of Jesus I don't believe he would send you to hell.

Well, your bible says I would actually go to hell, and a lot of christian sects agree with that.  Again, more things that are interpreted VERY differently by different groups.

Quote[/b] ]It depends on what you believe.  If you believe in reincarnation and more than one god, buddhism is for you.

Are you not reading this?  Could I be any clearer?

Quote[/b] ]matter of fact, all religions claim the others are wrong, how can you tell which is right?  Most people simply go with the religion they were brought up with.

HOW can that be a guide to what is right?

Quote[/b] ]LOL!  You ever read revelations?

Yes.  Very ambiguous.

Quote[/b] ]You obviously haven't read the Bible.

It is precisely because I *HAVE* read the bible that I would not like god, should he exist.  Its a case story of a murdering, babykilling, psychopathic, xenophobic (favoured race, remember), sexist, carnivorous evil evil evil entity.

[denoir 0]

Now we only have to get you to realise that the burden of proof lies with the people making the assertion.  In other words, its not up to me or anyone else to prove that invisible sausage people do exist, its up to those who believe they do, to prove it.  And until they do, there is *NO REASON* for anyone to take anything they say seriously.  You cannot have a double standard here.  

They are not interested in proving it. They're just saying its their belief. You are the one attacking it, claiming it to be false. So since your theory has the initiative (i.e the theory that the sausage people do not exist), it's up to you to prove it.

Quote[/b] ]If the christian god can exist without proof, so can gravity fairies, invisible pink unicorns, etc etc.

Good boy. Now you are getting it.

Quote[/b] ]I'm not trying to wiggle out of it. A god like that *should* be measurable in some form, unless it does nothing but watch. Which is IMO what they think happens; it just watches.

So you do dispute Einstein's beliefs of a God that organized the universe. And you do consider him being stupid.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Read the definitions again. I'll take Christianity as an example here:

Quote[/b] ]1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena

Statement: God created the world in seven days.

Phenomena: The creation of the world.

Problem= they don't explain facts nor phenomena.

*sigh* I see that FSPilot has a competitor. Read it again. Read it slower. "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena."

Quote[/b] ]Lets try this: anything that led to new understanding of how the universe actually works, as opposed to 'god did it'.

And exactly what would that be? You know who the biggest supporter of the Big Bang theory is? The Catholic church.

Quote[/b] ]P R O B L E M != question

Of course it is. It's just a question of formulation. I'll help you if you can't do it yourself:

"How do I decide which color is better, blue or red?"

"How much is 0/0?"

Determine the truth of the following statement :

"This statement is false."

[bn880 5]

Im going to be simple:

(Rev 6:1,2) Now I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures say, as with a voice of thunder, "Come!" And I saw, and behold, a white horse, and its rider had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.

The United States of America, easily. He uses a bow, a long range weapon, sets forth to conquer wears a crown of victory.

(Rev 6:3,4) When he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, "Come!" And out came another horse, bright red; its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that men should slay one another; and he was given a great sword.

Al Quada/terrorism. Further cross referencing would show that the sword is a sacrificial sword. Note that its rider was given power to make men kill each other, 'was given' indicates God's permissive approval....."Allah Ackbar"....God Willing. This red horse shows up where the white horse has been.

(Rev 6: 5,6) When he opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, "Come!" And I saw, and behold, a black horse, and its rider had a balance in his hand; and I heard what seemed to be a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, "A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; but do not harm oil and wine!"

To make more sense of this.....A quart of wheat for a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!

Communism, OBVIOUSLY.

(Rev 6:7,8)When he opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, "Come!" And I saw, and behold, a pale horse, and its rider's name was Death, and Hades followed him; and they were given power over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth.

The Baath Party. They killed for no real reason, with their weapons, which they had to aqquire by making their people starve, famine and sickness, and by pestilince, sicknes and plague, ANTHRAX and even to the wild animals that they owned.

The cast?

George W. Bush

Usama bin Laden

Kim Jong II

Saddam Hussein

The Apocolypse means The Revelation. Some people confuse The Apocolypse with Armegeddon but they are not the same.

I am not religious or anything although I have been, thats how I knew to relate all of this. I could go alot more in depth but....Ill let people who really want to know whats going on do the work just to make the cross references themselves. I could easily be wrong but what if I were to be right?

What do you mean? This apocalypse stuff is a recording of past events isn't it? Why not read that book a little more closely. It's not what's to come, it is what already happened. No? (well if it's true)

EDIT: All these people looking at the Bible seem to overlook how "God" would have made it clear what WOULD happen and how it would be presented, not as something that already was taking place. It is jumping to unlikely conclusions at best.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

OK, noone apart from extremely religious people are that stupid.

Ok so obviously I haven't been getting through to you, next comment like that and you'll be post restricted.

Look, the fact is that you will accept some things as stupid because they 'obviously are' - the King's glass anus, for example. But something else which is equally stupid you won't because... why? Because thats what someone believes? Why is that so special? The king believed his arse was made of glass! He really, truly, believed that! But its still a stupid belief!

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not trying to wiggle out of it. A god like that *should* be measurable in some form, unless it does nothing but watch. Which is IMO what they think happens; it just watches.

So you do dispute Einstein's beliefs of a God that organized the universe. And you do consider him being stupid.

Well actually Einstein did not believe in that kind of God, or any God, he beleived in the Religion of the Universe, and not even Judaism.

Well you are maybe technically correct when he was 5 years old. Anyway, I understand the point you are making.

EDIT: I assure you Einstein was not all open about his thoughts and beleifs, he would probably have been burnt like an evil witch.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]They are not interested in proving it. They're just saying its their belief. You are the one attacking it, claiming it to be false. So since your theory has the initiative (i.e the theory that the sausage people do not exist), it's up to you to prove it.

No, wrong. Their belief, if they want it to be accepted, they have to prove it. Saying 'prove it' isn't attacking it. Look this up too.

Quote[/b] ]Good boy. Now you are getting it.

And do you believe in invisible pink unicorns, gravity fairies, etc? Do you? Good boy.

Quote[/b] ]So you do dispute Einstein's beliefs of a God that organized the universe. And you do consider him being stupid.

Nope. Re-read my post.

I'm fed up repeating the same thing again and again.

Quote[/b] ]And exactly what would that be? You know who the biggest supporter of the Big Bang theory is? The Catholic church.

The catholic church only admitted it was wrong to persecute Galileo and that the world did in fact go round the sun, not the other way around, a couple of decades ago.

The biggest supporter? Pfffft.

Quote[/b] ]"How do I decide which color is better, blue or red?"

insufficent data - define term 'better'

Quote[/b] ]"How much is 0/0?"

Invalid question; impossible.

Quote[/b] ]Determine the truth of the following statement :

"This statement is false."

paradox.

Answered.

Please tell me how you would attempt to answer these questions without using rational thinking, by the way.

[denoir 0]

No, wrong.  Their belief, if they want it to be accepted, they have to prove it.  Saying 'prove it' isn't attacking it.  Look this up too.

They're not trying to prove it. They don't want to prove it. You are the one trying to make a scientific evaluation, so it's your problem. And by the way, if I was you I would not talk too loudly about the "burden of proof". People will laugh at you. It's a legal term, not a scientific term.

Quote[/b] ]I'm fed up repeating the same thing again and again.

Ok, let me recap your statements for you:

On religion

Quote[/b] ]Your beliefs are simply stupid and useless.

(I can dig up a dozen more where you condemn people for following a religion that isn't scientifically measurable)

(On Einstein)

Quote[/b] ]He believed in an impersonal force ordering the universe which he referred to as god in a similar way as Hawking refers to 'the mind of god'. Regardless, if you read my passage I atrributed religion, especially organised religion, as a symptom of lack of intelligence, not belief in a higher power.

Quote[/b] ]A god like that *should* be measurable in some form, unless it does nothing but watch.

So, to conclude your reasoning:

1) People who believe in stuff without being able to prove it through measurements are stupid.

2) Einstein believed in a higher power, a "God".

3) His God, which is not a passive God should be measurable.

Hence Einstein was stupid because he believed in something he could not prove through measurements.

Quote[/b] ]The catholic church only admitted it was wrong to persecute Galileo and that the world did in fact go round the sun, not the other way around, a couple of decades ago.

The biggest supporter? Pfffft.

Read and weep. The Catholic chuch accepted the Big Bang theroy in 1951 which was far before most scientists did.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]"How do I decide which color is better, blue or red?"

insufficent data - define term 'better'

Quote[/b] ]"How much is 0/0?"

Invalid question; impossible.

Quote[/b] ]Determine the truth of the following statement :

"This statement is false."

paradox.

Quote[/b] ]Answered.

No, you did not answer any of the questions. You only stated why you could not solve them (and hence proving my point). The two last ( 0/0 and the Eubulides paradox) give good example of limitations of mathematics and logic. There are very correct questions, but math and logic can't answer them. Just as physics can't answer what happens in a singularty in space-time where the laws of physics break down.

The first example was also educational. As you correctly stated "not enough information; define better". Science can't resolve it. I can. The answer is blue. Proof? Sorry, this ain't science, I don't have to prove anything. As I said, science can't deal with it so to expect a scientific explanation of it is plain silly.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]Please tell me how you would attempt to answer these questions without using rational thinking, by the way.

How.

many.

times.

Science may not be perfect but it is better than any alternative.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

And Einsteins god was a passive god, I said so right there in the post.

[Major Fubar 0]

Quote[/b] ]

and as Denoir has ably demonstrated there are plenty of intelligent believers.

AFAIK denoir isn't a believer.  Not that there aren't otherwise intelligent believers out there.  Not many, though.

This is a ridiculous statement based on personal bias...do you have any data to prove that on average religious people are less intelligent than atheists? Just because a person has a belief you do not agree with does not make them less intelligent - in your opinion, they are more "gullible", but that does not direct reflect on intelligence per se, more on character. It's like saying Socialists are less intelligent, or Fascists - you can't directly equate a person's beliefs, political, religious or otherwise - with the level of their intellect. There are serial killers (who in many cases believe things far more abstract and "silly" than religion) whose IQs are extremely high.

If you can show me a chart of a significant number of people tested, and compare the IQs of religious types with atheists, then I might concede this point to you.

As far as the warnings you are getting about describing people's beliefs as stupid, it's simple: you can't attack or flame members of this board. That's the difference between calling the beliefs of people here stupid and the King's glass anus stupid - if the King was a forum member, it would be a different story.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Please tell me how you would attempt to answer these questions without using rational thinking, by the way.

For example:

Random method: Blue, 5, true

Democratic method: Most people voted for red, 10 and false, so it has to be correct.

Dogmatic method: It has always been blue, 0 and false

Authoritative method: It's red, 8 and true because I say so.

Religious method: Blue, 7 and true are the holy signs of God, so it has to be them.

Do you need me to continue or have you understood it?

[denoir 0]

And Einsteins god was a passive god, I said so right there in the post.

Some Einstein quotes that show his belief in an active God. Not a god that answers people's prayers etc, but as the ultimate organizer of the universe.

"God does not play dice"

"God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean. "

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation [and] is but a reflection of human frailty. "

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. "

"Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity own to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the of the inquiring constructive mind. "

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. "

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. "

"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. "

"I assert that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and the noblest driving force behind scientific research. "

[Bernadotte 0]

No, its not any harder, people are just scared.  The actual task isn't any harder.  People with no fear of heights can do both equally easily.

You are contradicting yourself.

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]"How do I decide which color is better, blue or red?"

insufficent data - define term 'better'

Quote[/b] ]"How much is 0/0?"

Invalid question; impossible.

Quote[/b] ]Determine the truth of the following statement :

"This statement is false."

paradox.

Quote[/b] ]Answered.

No, you did not answer any of the questions. You only stated why you could not solve them (and hence proving my point). The two last ( 0/0 and the Eubulides paradox) give good example of limitations of mathematics and logic. There are very correct questions, but math and logic can't answer them. Just as physics can't answer what happens in a singularty in space-time where the laws of physics break down.

The first example was also educational. As you correctly stated "not enough information; define better". Science can't resolve it. I can. The answer is blue. Proof? Sorry, this ain't science, I don't have to prove anything. As I said, science can't deal with it so to expect a scientific explanation of it is plain silly.

Deciding with color is 'better' is argumentative opinion. There is no right or wrong answer for that matter. It's not a limit of logic, it's a different subject.

0/0 isn't a limit of mathematics. According to mathematics, it's impossible/no answer. It's not a limit to mathematics, it's how it works.

"This statement is false." is a paradox. It's not outside logic and reasoning. It's a paradox, which is explained through logic and reasoning. There is no possible end or it's contradictory to itself.

I get the feeling you're going to tell me I've missed the point entirely