I'm in the wrong job! £60 an hour for playing make believe!

[mrk]

Agreed, race and religion is irrelevant isn't it?

Indeed, race or religion has nothing to do with this.

 

[spoffle]

Agreed, race and religion is irrelevant isn't it?

You'd think so, but for a lot of people it seems to bother them.

 

[realBabelfish]

I would imagine you do the very same for scientific theories.



You are choosing to accept the "proof" as proof.



I find a lot of people don't really understand what "logical" really means.

Scientists can't even completely agree on these matters, for all intents and purposes you are just observing from the outside.



Based on what you deem as proof. Some people believe certain things prove the existence of god, as I said proof is subjective when you're talking about things like this.

Religion isn't doing this, people are. Scientific people do the very same thing, the only difference is that you don't mind when it's pushed on you because it's what you want to accept.



That's the point I'm trying to make. What makes you think you are qualified to claim people who believe in such things are weak minded? Is it because they have a belief system that contrasts your own?



Well if you go and look up the definition of fraud you'd realise why it isn't fraud.

What I don't get is why people like you feel the need to respond to people's beliefs like this, derisory comments simply because they believe in something you do not.

Just because you don't believe in it, or it might not be true doesn't necessarily mean that it's a con or fraud.



No they don't, I completely agree with that but it doesn't mean you can label things as frauds and cons just because you don't believe it.



I agree with that too, but I don't think that's the issue here.



Why would you say that they are frauds?

evolution is proved. we can see it at work. anyway, i guess we will never agree on our stances here.

i have my beliefs and you have yours but im more concerned with people who are being conned by the likes of this guy in the OP.

 

[Cosimo]

Agreed, race and religion is irrelevant isn't it?

So what does he use his copies of the Koran for?

 

[MrMarvelous]

So what does he use his copies of the Koran for?

Can't wait for the replies to this.

 

[Gackt]

Well if you go and look up the definition of fraud you'd realise why it isn't fraud.

You don't think that there are people who knowingly and willingly deceive people? I bet you there's millions of people, rubbing their fat bellies and thinking "I've got away with it again." Chaucerian frauds.

What I don't get is why people like you feel the need to respond to people's beliefs like this, derisory comments simply because they believe in something you do not.

Years of oppression for having no belief, having to watch in disgust at the heinous crimes people regularly commit in the name of faith and religion would give you some idea as to why. But don't misunderstand, I have the same vinegar for any kind of argument that I'm in.

Just because you don't believe in it, or it might not be true doesn't necessarily mean that it's a con or fraud.

Of course not. There are many things about the Universe that we don't understand. But faith, and religion supposes a position of complete understanding. It is there which it becomes fraudulent.

Science has shown us enough of the Universe to realise that at the religious traditions are cons in their fundamental core beliefs. Evolution, the Origin of the Cosmos, the debunking of myths, etc.

No they don't, I completely agree with that but it doesn't mean you can label things as frauds and cons just because you don't believe it.

The labels apply, not because I don't believe in them, but because there isn't a single shred of evidence to suggest that they are true. Not a single shred. And they are sold as truths. Absolute truths. Things that they cannot, or refuse to prove.

If they can prove that they are true, then fair enough. But I have yet to see a single one do so. As such, the only logical stance is to say "Until proven otherwise, it is false".

 

[SkodaMart]

So what does he use his copies of the Koran for?

He is a loon, his religion or book collection is irrelevant.

I suspect he keeps copies of the Koran because he is a Muslim.

 

[Gackt]

He is a loon, his relgion or book collection is irrelevant.

I suspect he keeps copies of the Koran because he is a Muslim.

Unfortunately 'loons' and 'religion' and even their book collections often go hand-in-hand.

 

[SkodaMart]

Unfortunately 'loons' and 'religion' and even their book collections often go hand-in-hand.

Maybe, but I never said that did I.

Derek Acorah, is he a loon?

Or is he a talented money maker?

 

[spoffle]

evolution is proved. we can see it at work. anyway, i guess we will never agree on our stances here.

As I said, the proof of that is "subjective" depending on your viewpoint.

i have my beliefs and you have yours but im more concerned with people who are being conned by the likes of this guy in the OP.

What do you believe my beliefs are?

You don't think that there are people who knowingly and willingly deceive people? I bet you there's millions of people, rubbing their fat bellies and thinking "I've got away with it again." Chaucerian frauds.

When did I say that there aren't people who con people? Are we partaking in the same discussion here?

Years of oppression for having no belief, having to watch in disgust at the heinous crimes people regularly commit in the name of faith and religion would give you some idea as to why. But don't misunderstand, I have the same vinegar for any kind of argument that I'm in.

The bottom line of it is that people have done bad things to others forever, they use things as excuses to justify their actions forever too, it's what people do.

Of course not. There are many things about the Universe that we don't understand. But faith, and religion supposes a position of complete understanding. It is there which it becomes fraudulent.

That doesn't say why it's fraudulent, other than you insisting that it is.

Science has shown us enough of the Universe to realise that at the religious traditions are cons in their fundamental core beliefs. Evolution, the Origin of the Cosmos, the debunking of myths, etc.

No it hasn't, I think people ascribe too much understand to science. Proof is only proof to those who accept it as proof.

The labels apply, not because I don't believe in them, but because there isn't a single shred of evidence to suggest that they are true. Not a single shred. And they are sold as truths. Absolute truths. Things that they cannot, or refuse to prove.

That doesn't mean it's fraud, I don't think you understand what fraud means.

If they can prove that they are true, then fair enough. But I have yet to see a single one do so. As such, the only logical stance is to say "Until proven otherwise, it is false".

As above. Whether you believe in something or not, it doesn't mean it's fraudulent or true. You are using fraud as a synonym with false or "I don't believe", additionally, many people abuse the word "logic" and have little understanding on what it actually means.

 

[spoffle]

Unfortunately 'loons' and 'religion' and even their book collections often go hand-in-hand.

Richard Dawkins qualifies as a loon, his religion is atheism.

 

[Gackt]

No it hasn't, I think people ascribe too much understand to science. Proof is only proof to those who accept it as proof.

Babble.

That doesn't mean it's fraud, I don't think you understand what fraud means.

Intentional deception.

As above. Whether you believe in something or not, it doesn't mean it's fraudulent or true. You are using fraud as a synonym with false or "I don't believe", additionally, many people abuse the word "logic" and have little understanding on what it actually means.

More babble.

See above.

Richard Dawkins qualifies as a loon, his religion is atheism.

You have no clue.

 

[spoffle]

Babble.

It's not babble, you're just making it clear why you're talking nonsense, because you have a hard time accepting that people have different views to you.

How can you not understand that proof is only proof if you accept it as such?

Religious people accept certain things as proof of god, therefore that to them is "proof" that god exists.

You do not accept these things as proof, therefore it isn't proof to you that god exists.

This is all basic theological stuff.

Intentional deception.

Okay, so you kinda understand fraud yet you are constantly misusing the word "fraud".

If some one performing an exorcism believes that they are genuinely ridding some one of an evil spirit, what is fraudulent about that? Are you suggesting (or trying to force your opinion) that people who perform such things never ever believe in it and are doing so purely for some sort of personal gain?

More babble.

See above.

I think you think you're saying things that you aren't. You haven't said much at all but some how believe you have.

What exactly about "seeing above" disproves what I've said? I feel like you're making assumptions of my standpoint and that's getting in the way of you reading what I'm actually saying.

You have no clue.

Why?

 

[Woden]

Have to say this, "proof" is not subjective.

Proof is evidence. Scientific theory, becomes theory because of evidence that seems to back it up. Evolution, mavity, Reletivism, all have evidence that suggest they are true.

Jinn? Not so much.

 

[DAnDan]

Snip

Please stop, we get it, you're good at trolling. We have enough people trolling in GD already, without you joining them!

 

[spoffle]

Have to say this, "proof" is not subjective.

Proof is evidence. Scientific theory, becomes theory because of evidence that seems to back it up. Evolution, mavity, Reletivism, all have evidence that suggest they are true.

Jinn? Not so much.

Of course it's subjective. Do you accept the reasons religious people use as proof of God's existence?

Some religious people use DNA as proof that God exists, do you or would you accept this?

Scientific people have things that they bring up as proof of God not existing, religious people do not accept this as proof.

Proof is only valid in this sort of discussion if all parties involved accept it as proof.

Please stop, we get it, you're good at trolling. We have enough people trolling in GD already, without you joining them!

You have absolutely no idea what trolling means. Just because you don't understand my posts, doesn't mean I'm trolling.

 

[Woden]

Of course it's subjective. Do you accept the reasons religious people use as proof of God's existence?

Some religious people use DNA as proof that God exists, do you or would you accept this?

How on earth is it proof that god exists? That just doesn't make sense.

 

[spoffle]

How on earth is it proof that god exists? That just doesn't make sense.

Read my post again, CAREFULLY.

 

[DAnDan]

You have absolutely no idea what trolling means. Just because you don't understand my posts, doesn't mean I'm trolling.

I understand it perfectly. I was just hoping that you would actually be trolling, as otherwise you're worryingly deluded.

 

[DAnDan]

Of course it's subjective. Do you accept the reasons religious people use as proof of God's existence?

Some religious people use DNA as proof that God exists, do you or would you accept this?

Scientific people have things that they bring up as proof of God not existing, religious people do not accept this as proof.

Proof is only valid in this sort of discussion if all parties involved accept it as proof.

To actually give you a serious answer; the entire concept of proof is that it's 100% unsubjective. It is either repeatably provable, or it's not. There's not a middle ground, there's no subjectivity, and there's no opinion involved. To even argue that there is is just crazy!