Karma
- Thread starter china
- Start date
But you swore that tolerance of other ideas meant that they were valid ideas! You not tolerating me! How can you single me out! HATE CRIME!!
No, tolerance means that all the ideas must get a hearing, it does not mean that all the ideas are equally valid. So in the field of science, all the scientific theories get a hearing. That does not mean that all scientific theories are valid. The Steady State Theory lost out to the Big Bang Theory.
And what you are espousing is not a scientific theory, it is a religious viewpoint and as such, does not deserve a hearing in scientific arena. In a religious arena, maybe, but not in the scientific.
That's right, so why won't you let ID scientists into the club, they're open to all causes, not just natural ones. I tells ya why, its because your department wants to remove God from the picture, that's why.
ID scientist is an oxymoron, alley. ID is not a scientific theory, it is just a souped up version of Creationism, or Book of Genesis.
As to my department wanting to remove God from the picture, did you realize that just now? You are quite correct, we don’t want any God in science. Any explanation which involves God or any supernatural deity is not a scientific explanation.
If there are no absolute morals then is it ABSOLUTELY wrong for me to suppress SirJosephPorter's freedom of speech? Is is ABSOLUTELY wrong for me to hurt SJP's family?
Here you are talking of doing something illegal, alley, how does that pertain to moral absolutes? You should not hurt SJP’s family because it is illegal, you will pay for it by a long term of imprisonment. It has nothing to do with moral absolutes.
No, tolerance means that all the ideas must get a hearing, it does not mean that all the ideas are equally valid. So in the field of science, all the scientific theories get a hearing. That does not mean that all scientific theories are valid. The Steady State Theory lost out to the Big Bang Theory.
And what you are espousing is not a scientific theory, it is a religious viewpoint and as such, does not deserve a hearing in scientific arena. In a religious arena, maybe, but not in the scientific.
That's right, so why won't you let ID scientists into the club, they're open to all causes, not just natural ones. I tells ya why, its because your department wants to remove God from the picture, that's why.
ID scientist is an oxymoron, alley. ID is not a scientific theory, it is just a souped up version of Creationism, or Book of Genesis.
As to my department wanting to remove God from the picture, did you realize that just now? You are quite correct, we don’t want any God in science. Any explanation which involves God or any supernatural deity is not a scientific explanation.
If there are no absolute morals then is it ABSOLUTELY wrong for me to suppress SirJosephPorter's freedom of speech? Is is ABSOLUTELY wrong for me to hurt SJP's family?
Here you are talking of doing something illegal, alley, how does that pertain to moral absolutes? You should not hurt SJP’s family because it is illegal, you will pay for it by a long term of imprisonment. It has nothing to do with moral absolutes.
I believe in this life, that "what goes around, comes around" before you die! I guess it's Karma. Just my opinion, nothing to do with religion or science!
"what goes around, comes around" and "for every action is an equal and opposite reaction" are the same thing, aren't they?
No, they're not. If you study what the East believes, karma is more about balance and really they just consider karma to be "luck". Because it needs to be balanced, too much "good luck" means that your fair share of "bad luck" from the universe is coming your way. And vice versa if you endure "bad luck" for a long time it only means your "good luck" is ahead of you.
But here in the west we've twisted karma into "What goes around comes around." Good actions produce good things etc.
So which is it? Sounds to me like this "karma" thing and its followers can't get its story straight. Big surprise.:roll:
Yes, perfectly reasonable answer. But at some point even atheists have to speculate what "was" before the big bang. Nothing makes no sense.
I'm surprised. Scholars and historians virtually agree that he existed. Whether or not he was God is the true debate. Denying his existence when you have nothing to fear about the claims of Jesus due to the fact you don't believe in God anyway, only shows weakness. If there is no God why deny the man's whole physical existence? Why not just call him a crazy, charismatic lunatic???
"ABSOLUTELY" no secular evidence?
Some absolute truths? Again, I'm surprised. All truth is absolute. Allow me to demonstrate:
We've agreed that both theists and atheist both can't be right. Either God exists, or he doesn't. (Either-or, aka the law of non-contradiction argument here)
And for any one of us to have knowledge of that absolute truth, Gods existence or non-existence, we would have to have knowledge of all things. Everything about biology, chemistry, physics, all which leads to the ultimate forensic question about the origin of the universe. To know the ultimate absolute truth, one would have to know all absolute truth.
(Remember, I'm talking about absolute truth, not absolute morals, that's different. Its okay to admit that all truth is absolute. If God doesn't exist, that would be true for all people, in all cultures, throughout all of history regardless of what they believed.)
Checkmate. ;-):lol:
Then I hold atheism as invalid because it fails to make a reasonable assumption to the cause of the big bang.
Why? Why can't my view be welcome in your lab? We recognize the flawed reasoning your prideful bunch have, and offer a logical thesis to the question.
That's right, so why won't you let ID scientists into the club, they're open to all causes, not just natural ones. I tells ya why, its because your department wants to remove God from the picture, that's why.
Whose talking about Adam and Eve?? ID scientist propose what was prior to the big bang, and their logic makes sense, while your department shrugs its shoulders and says "We don't know", but secretly in their hearts they say "I hate God! If he did exist, I can't be the god of my own world so eff him!".
Case in point. You hate God. If I caught you on a good day, as several atheists will, you'd admit that there is a 0.00000000000000001% chance that the universe came from some distant, un comprehensible, ultra higher intelligent being. Basically, not against the idea of God, just the Christian God.
Richard Dawkins softens up.
Think about what your saying. When the cops show up to arrest someone for hurting your family, the cops aren't thinking "arrest him because his actions are entitled to imprisonment" instead its "arrest him because his actions were WRONG."
The point is, you can claim that there is no moral absolutes, but once I tread on you, your REACTION PROVES you believe in absolutes. Your MORAL outrage PROVES you feel truly wronged when someone suppresses your freedom of speech.
Last edited:
Actually, the second bit is Newton's Law of Motion. There's no philosophy involved.
Wrong, Alley. I posted what karma means to the people that came up with the idea of it; a direct translation from Sanskrit.
Perhaps this one you will find less offensive and maybe jog that famous sense of humor you have.:lol:
http://www.43chan.org/rel/src/124345602523.jpg
:lol:
I agree. Nothing can come from nothing. Something cannot create itself from nothing.
It's got nothing to do with emotions, you know. It's simply a matter of lack of evidence. There are mentions of some 20 odd people named Jesus around the time this "Christ" was supposed to have existed.
Logically, someone having a following would have left an artifact of some sort and have testimony about personal things like favorite food, favorite music, a habit of some sort, etc. This "Christ" character left not a lock of hair, a shirt, a comb, a shoe, a poem, nothing that has been claimed to be his.
Sounds about right, to me.
If there was a big bang, I am thinking that something reached some kind of critical imbalance and had to expand.
Whatever the universe does, people can keep simply saying the a god made it like this and be safe in saying that. However it does nothing to describe the whats, hows, whens, etc. of the goings on in the universe. It's like someone asking, "Why?" and getting an answer like "Just because". One might as well not even answer the question then, because it satisfies nothing.
Whatever the universe does, people can keep simply saying the a god made it like this and be safe in saying that. However it does nothing to describe the whats, hows, whens, etc. of the goings on in the universe. It's like someone asking, "Why?" and getting an answer like "Just because". One might as well not even answer the question then, because it satisfies nothing.
Perhaps this one you will find less offensive and maybe jog that famous sense of humor you have.:lol:
:lol:
....or maybe one of these?
The Universe started out as a very dense lump of matter that had a brain fart and expanded and is still expanding. We are living in the greatest fart that ever has and ever will exist. We are just one tiny quark living on one tiny proton of this gigantic fart bomb. If there is a god, it must have eaten some cosmic garbanzo beans.
"What goes around, comes around"/Karma can be meant for the next life and not necessarily this one (if there's such a thing as another life).
None. Those are not evidence that Jesus existed, they're evidence that people claiming to be followers of Jesus existed a century and more after his supposed existence.
That doesn't make sense to me. I'm sure you'd agree that we cannot have knowledge of all things, which by your logic means we cannot determine the absolute truth or otherwise of god's existence. Would that not then extend to all absolute truths, that unless we have knowledge of all things we cannot know what any of them are? And thus from our perspective they effectively don't exist. It's not necessary to know everything in order to determine whether something exists or not.
It sounds like the old "If god smoked pot would he see humans?" Alley's pot addled brain sees god everywhere. Now he has to justify himself with this strange logic to continue his habit.
Play Norman Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky" backwards. It will literally straiten out your short and curlies!:lol: