Kimi's Potty Mouth

[Max Mosley 2]

Have a good holiday Schumikonen!

[Autumnpuma 0]

Cheers Mike. Oblivion ain't so bad!

Indeed, my friend. Years ago, when searching the religions on offer, I almost became shinto. That basic 'oneness' still has attraction for me. If it turns out that all religion is false, and only dark oblivion will greet me after my last breath, I doubt that would be a worrysome thought.

More worrisome to me is the possibility of reincarnation being true. I would hate to repeat this thing called 'life' over and over and over...ugh, give me oblivion, please...

EDIT: I need a new keyboard..it keeps dropping letters.

[monza gorilla 1]

Now that's just bad karma......................

the idea of ceasing to exist just doesn't bother me that much, if at all, even if it gives the willies to most folk. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, but I've made my choice and it's something I can live with.

[Max Mosley 2]

"something you can live with eh?" I assume that was another deliberate pun.

[Player(1) 0]

the idea of ceasing to exist just doesn't bother me that much, if at all, even if it gives the willies to most folk. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, but I've made my choice and it's something I can live with.

Same here, proberly makes you appreciate things more when you believe in that anyway..unless your insane

[Max Mosley 2]

Now that's just bad karma......................

the idea of ceasing to exist just doesn't bother me that much, if at all, even if it gives the willies to most folk. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, but I've made my choice and it's something I can live with.

Remember, we don't know for sure whats in store for us. Things could be pretty bad: (Sorry I can't remember where I heard this first, so it might have been posted here already)

One day in the future, Bill Clinton has a heart attack and dies. He immediately goes to hell, where the devil is waiting for him. "I don't know what to do here," says the devil. "You are on my list, but I have no room for you. You definitely have to stay here, so I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I've got a couple folks here who weren't quite as bad as you. I'll let one of them go, but you have to take their place. I'll even let you decide who leaves."

Clinton thought that sounded pretty good, so the devil opened the first room. In it was Ted Kennedy and a large pool of water. He kept diving in and surfacing empty handed. Over and over and over. Such was his fate in hell. "No," Bill said. "I don't think so. I'm not a good swimmer and I don't think I could do that all day long."

So the devil led him to the next room. In it was Newt Gingrich with a sledgehammer and a room full of rocks. All he did was swing that hammer, time after time after time. "No, I've got this problem with my shoulder. I would be in constant agony if all I could do was break rocks all day," commented Bill.

The devil opened a third door. In it, Clinton saw Jesse Jackson lying on the floor with his arms staked over his head, and his legs staked in a spread eagle pose. Bent over him was Monica Lewinsky, doing what she does best. Clinton took this in in disbelief and finally said, "Yea, I can handle this."

The devil smiled and said "OK, Monica, you're free to go!"

[goferrarigo 0]

Remember, we don't know for sure whats in store for us. Things could be pretty bad: (Sorry I can't remember where I heard this first, so it might have been posted here already)

One day in the future, Bill Clinton has a heart attack and dies. He immediately goes to hell, where the devil is waiting for him. "I don't know what to do here," says the devil. "You are on my list, but I have no room for you. You definitely have to stay here, so I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I've got a couple folks here who weren't quite as bad as you. I'll let one of them go, but you have to take their place. I'll even let you decide who leaves."

Clinton thought that sounded pretty good, so the devil opened the first room. In it was Ted Kennedy and a large pool of water. He kept diving in and surfacing empty handed. Over and over and over. Such was his fate in hell. "No," Bill said. "I don't think so. I'm not a good swimmer and I don't think I could do that all day long."

So the devil led him to the next room. In it was Newt Gingrich with a sledgehammer and a room full of rocks. All he did was swing that hammer, time after time after time. "No, I've got this problem with my shoulder. I would be in constant agony if all I could do was break rocks all day," commented Bill.

The devil opened a third door. In it, Clinton saw Jesse Jackson lying on the floor with his arms staked over his head, and his legs staked in a spread eagle pose. Bent over him was Monica Lewinsky, doing what she does best. Clinton took this in in disbelief and finally said, "Yea, I can handle this."

The devil smiled and said "OK, Monica, you're free to go!"

Clinton will not be having a fun time in hell.

[cavallino 2]

*pokes head in* still talking about science vs. religion...

Aww sorry to hijack you Kimi bashing thread

Actually they do, htey believe in unexpalined thing aas the big bang and evolution, they say I know that God didn't do it but then they can't explain how those thing came to be.

Science doesn't claim to explain everything, we just try to. And what cannot be explained is left open to question, and those question remain questions until we have something to go on - the questions are not answered by baseless fiction - that is not science.

We don't need to debate this you can see them with your own eyes if you want, I know that some religions fake them to atract people and to sustain their believes but I have seen them in my family (My Doughter, My wife, My mother, an uncle twice, some friends, a niece) some of them just waiting for the time to die and they are still alive, I am not talking about miracle that poeple told me about it I am talking about miracles that I have seen happening in front of me so, no doubt about it.

You believe because you want to, you don't want to wake up one day and stare at the sheer insignificance of our lives and how purposeless it is. Because of that, I'm afraid I am not inclined to attach any credibility, unless you come up a way of showing a verifiable miracle - something that violates existing laws of science. We are not afraid of knowing I assure you, we'd love to. Scientists love their mysteries and unexplained questions, if there is something in nature we don't know about, we'd love to find out and study it.

There are two reasons for this:

Bible doesn't try to demonstrate that God exist and that he made everything, bible just acept this as a fact, so you can not use for this.

Which brings you back to square one, what does demonstrate that god exists, and exists in the form you imagine?

If you go back far enough, many of earth's religions have the same themes, hence the same origin. Cav, the current diverse religions we have are a result of many centuries of regional 'expanding'. I'm talking the very concept of 'god', not a particular religion's view of that 'god'.

Religions have a conflicting view of god and what you have to do to keep god happy. There are no two ways around that.

Until we establish the cause of the big bang, would it hurt anyone to give the idea of a 'god' the same respect as any other idea?

Not in science or anything to do with it, not outside faith institutions or topics of learning explicitly about religion. You can't answer a question based on your imagination and not evidence just because there is no answer yet, that is not science.

That's a stretch. The Upinishads quite clearly deal with the concepts of multiple universes, and universal physical laws. My conclusion of this is that, as science now is exploring, there are indeed multiple universes and that truth was known by the Indians centuries ago, not because of science, but because of the 'divine' creator that, somehow, let those primitive peoples glimpse a truth of the creation.

The divine creator would have been better off giving them some rudimentary medical knowledge (for example), and most, almost all of what the divine creator told them is now known to be wrong.

I never said it was the same as religious faith - I said ultimately both require a leap of faith, maybe I should have put it like 'leap of faith', but I was just coining a popular expression, maybe not a good idea in the current context. However, again my point is that scientists cannot actually prove the big bang theory, nor the universe expanding, yet you choose to believe in what they say, even though you know they cannot actually prove it to you - why? Because you choose to believe in what you perceive to be the most rational explanation.

No that statement rather contradicts itself, I believe it is the most rational explanation that I know of and I and scientists are forever open to any equally rational edplanations (something always excluded by faith and religion, by the very definition). That science is routinely oveturned is a myth - well established scientific theories are rarely overturned, they are usually added to, or found to not work in preeviously unobservable circumstances. Classical physics doesn't work at quantum levels, that does not meean it doesn't still apply to evrything it was measured against, it still does - which is why we still bother learning it, and it underlies just about everything around us.

Yes and no, I am certain about things that as a God's believer I have good reasons to be certain about, I have seen a lot of prophecys becoming reallity ( if I can say it this way) not only porphecy in the bible we got actual prophets today I what they speak in hte name of God ot Jesus become true or happend what ever the case is, so like you do in science we in church taste and probe prophets to make sure if they really speak in the name of God Deuteronomy 18:

I want proof then, you talk of prophecies and miracles yet all you do to prove it is to quote an unverifiable (and mostly proven false) document. Make a prophecy then, one that is so statistically improbable that people can accept it as a prophecy when it finally happens.

Maybe that's because you were following a religion enstead of following Jesus, try to find your reasons in him and in the bible not in any religion and maybe you will have a different experience like I did,

You have neither proven why your religion is better than any other, nor why it is for want of a better word, true.

How can you say this or be sure of this?

You can live as an atheist but you can be wrong and then you will have to face the truth that youwasted your life in a lie that for you looked like true (like some other in history) than you can face your eternity in hell just for not believing in God, what I mean with this is if you believe in God and he doesn't exist you have nothing to loose but if you are an atheist and he really exist then you have everything to loose and nothing to gain.

Again if God exists:

Atheist loose everything and win nothing.

Believers wins everything and loose nothing

If God doesn't exist:

Atheist win nothing and loose nothing.

Believers loose nothing and win nothing.

And what if you chose the wrong god? What if the god is a Flying Spaghetti Monster? How do I know who has chosen the right god, how do I know that someone who has chosen to believe that they should kill as many people as possible to go to heaven (or its equivalent in that religion), how do I know they are wrong and you are right?

Oh men this is real, believe it

No. Possibly a pwoerful piece of literature, but then I think I've read better. What it does seem to be is a clear attempt to preach through fear, that if you don't believe us, you are damned. Intimidation at its finest, again far from the first time I have seen it, and hardly the most persuasive. If your sole reason to believe is to save yourself from that evil place, it is an empty belief, driven by fear more than anything else.

More worrisome to me is the possibility of reincarnation being true. I would hate to repeat this thing called 'life' over and over and over...ugh, give me oblivion, please...

If any of the people I have met in my life are reincarnations, they seem blissfully unaware of it, so effectively they have nothing to do with their previous incarnation. A bit of a stretch to believe that

[Autumnpuma 0]

Religions have a conflicting view of god and what you have to do to keep god happy. There are no two ways around that.

Current religions? I'll grant you that one, but only on the surface. Again, go back far enough and you will find more similarities than differences. The archetypes are all the same, however. I'm arguing the existence of the concept of 'god', not the different variations mankind have evolved that concept into, or the regional practices of religion.

[cavallino 2]

Some religions have multiple gods.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Some religions have multiple gods.

I'm not sure we're on the same page....

[cavallino 2]

Until we establish the cause of the big bang, would it hurt anyone to give the idea of a 'god' the same respect as any other idea?

Yes it would cause untold harm. The minute ideas begin to be accepted based on anything other than a solid sicentific basis, you leave the barn door open for anything to get in. It is a point of principle - it is irrelevant whether it matters in our lifetime. So there is no way any religious ideal should be in any way equated with or accepted as an alternative to science. Anything that is must be evaluated o nthe same principles.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Yes it would cause untold harm. The minute ideas begin to be accepted based on anything other than a solid sicentific basis, you leave the barn door open for anything to get in. It is a point of principle - it is irrelevant whether it matters in our lifetime. So there is no way any religious ideal should be in any way equated with or accepted as an alternative to science. Anything that is must be evaluated o nthe same principles.

Says you. I maintain religion and a belief in the divine speaks to a part of our soul, and grants us humanity.

[pabloh20 1]

No that statement rather contradicts itself, I believe it is the most rational explanation that I know of and I and scientists are forever open to any equally rational edplanations (something always excluded by faith and religion, by the very definition). That science is routinely oveturned is a myth - well established scientific theories are rarely overturned, they are usually added to, or found to not work in preeviously unobservable circumstances. Classical physics doesn't work at quantum levels, that does not meean it doesn't still apply to evrything it was measured against, it still does - which is why we still bother learning it, and it underlies just about everything around us.

How does my statement contradict itself? Can you prove the big bang theory or not? Can you prove the universe is expanding or not? So how come you believe scientists when they say they believe it to be true?

I want proof then, you talk of prophecies and miracles yet all you do to prove it is to quote an unverifiable (and mostly proven false) document. Make a prophecy then, one that is so statistically improbable that people can accept it as a prophecy when it finally happens.

You talk of wanting proof, yet in the examples that we are referring to in this thread, you can offer no proof yourself. I am curious, though - how is the Bible an unverifiable and mostly proven false document?

[Jem of the Shire 0]

what the hell is going on here

[cavallino 2]

How does my statement contradict itself? Can you prove the big bang theory or not? Can you prove the universe is expanding or not? So how come you believe scientists when they say they believe it to be true?

You talk of wanting proof, yet in the examples that we are referring to in this thread, you can offer no proof yourself.

Ok I want facts to support it then. The big bang theory is valid because it is supported by observed evidence because it is based on verified scientific theories, because it has made predictions that have been observed. As theories go it is an excellent theory which is almost indisputed today. Even 50 years ago it had a lot more evidence to support it than any biblical/ religious theory. Why are we even having this discussion, just produce a religious theory that satisfies the above criteria.

I am curious, though - how is the Bible an unverifiable and mostly proven false document?

I admit to being rather ignorant about it, so feel free to correct me but does it not speak of phenomena not explainable by known science and not seen today, does it not speak of creation for example?

[pabloh20 1]

Ok I want facts to support it then. The big bang theory is valid because it is supported by observed evidence because it is based on verified scientific theories, because it has made predictions that have been observed. As theories go it is an excellent theory which is almost indisputed today. Even 50 years ago it had a lot more evidence to support it than any biblical/ religious theory. Why are we even having this discussion, just produce a religious theory that satisfies the above criteria.

Nice try, but you have completely missed, or ignored, my points - you said my statement was contradictory, yet I don't think it was & I was reiterating that. The big bang theory, is just that, a theory and it is valid as a theory - it may be a good one, however it's not the only one, just the most popular one. If it wasn't a theory, it wouldn't be called a theory would it? It would be called big bang fact, or something. So ultimately, as I keep saying you are believing in a theory that can't be called fact in the here & now, so you are in fact believing something that can't be proven. I am not denying that to you it is the most rational explanation, but you can't just dismiss other rational people believing in God just because you don't and that's the point I'm trying to make.

I just thought it was hypocritical that you were asking for proof when you can't provide any either, but I wasn't the one asking for proof, like you were - in that I mean if I was to believe in the big bang theory then it wouldn't rest on whether it could actually be proven or not. I don't want or need proof of the big bang theory because I know I can't prove God's existence to you either. I have also not taken the cheap shot of asking you to disprove God's existence or the Biblical version of events as I know that can't be done either.

I admit to being rather ignorant about it, so feel free to correct me but does it not speak of phenomena not explainable by known science and not seen today, does it not speak of creation for example?

Here was me thinking that you had some wonderful information. It does speak of phemomenon that are not explainable by known science, what does that prove exactly? I wouldn't know if it's seen today or not because I don't know what you're referring to.

Until how recently was it that bees flying was not explainable by known science? So what you are saying then is that until science proved that the bee could fly, which was in the last few years I believe, then every time I saw a bee fly up until then, I should have said to myself that no I can't see that bee flying because science doesn't know how they do it?

I imagine there are many unexplained phenomenon in this universe, I don't see that by itself as either proving or disproving God.

[Shane2 0]

I personally thought Kimi's little sentance was highly amusing, as was Martin's reply

As for religion... i have my own very strong views, however i do not like offending people so i will not touch on that subject with a 20 foot barge pole

[cavallino 2]

Nice try, but you have completely missed, or ignored, my points - you said my statement was contradictory, yet I don't think it was & I was reiterating that. The big bang theory, is just that, a theory and it is valid as a theory - it may be a good one, however it's not the only one, just the most popular one. If it wasn't a theory, it wouldn't be called a theory would it? It would be called big bang fact, or something. So ultimately, as I keep saying you are believing in a theory that can't be called fact in the here & now, so you are in fact believing something that can't be proven. I am not denying that to you it is the most rational explanation, but you can't just dismiss other rational people believing in God just because you don't and that's the point I'm trying to make.

It is not the most popular one and I don't choose to believe it on a whim, it is the most widely supported one - and it is because of the reasons I gave in my previous post. Any alternative theory has to be proven on the same grounds. You may say it is incomplete, but you cannot, simply cannot equate it with something which has no observable evidence to support it, which is based purely on an old work which simply has no scientific basis whatsoever. You cannot rationally belibe in god, the mere belief belies rationality, and even if that you cannot rationally believe something that is baseless, something that contradicts scientific principles that are known and widely verified. That is not rational. It is faith, you are welcome to have your faith, but I have to take issue if you choose to equate it with science, I am sorry if that offends you.

I just thought it was hypocritical that you were asking for proof when you can't provide any either

Semantics - justification, evidence call it what you want, provide a shred of evidence to support it.

I have also not taken the cheap shot of asking you to disprove God's existence or the Biblical version of events as I know that can't be done either.

]

It is not a cheap shot, however it is not an argument I easily get into, but I am forced to because people are equating religion with science and evangelising - if you do either I am fully entitled to disagree in any way you want.

Here was me thinking that you had some wonderful information. It does speak of phemomenon that are not explainable by known science, what does that prove exactly?

That contradict the laws of nature as we have seen and observed, that have never been verified, that are contradicted by things you see and observe every single day.

Until how recently was it that bees flying was not explainable by known science? So what you are saying then is that until science proved that the bee could fly, which was in the last few years I believe, then every time I saw a bee fly up until then, I should have said to myself that no I can't see that bee flying because science doesn't know how they do it?

Is there any credible recorded evidence of biblical phenomena or antyhng resembling them ever recorded in the recent past?

[Shane2 0]

^^ Agrees with him. I personally feel most religion is a load of shash. I am openminded, and will remain so until someone provides me with proof 1 way or the other.

The funniest is muslims

When asked what happens when science proves something that goes against their belief, a muslim cleric said:

"If this goes against qu'ran we cannot accept this"

[pabloh20 1]

It is not the most popular one and I don't choose to believe it on a whim, it is the most widely supported one - and it is because of the reasons I gave in my previous post. Any alternative theory has to be proven on the same grounds. You may say it is incomplete, but you cannot, simply cannot equate it with something which has no observable evidence to support it, which is based purely on an old work which simply has no scientific basis whatsoever. You cannot rationally belibe in god, the mere belief belies rationality, and even if that you cannot rationally believe something that is baseless, something that contradicts scientific principles that are known and widely verified. That is not rational. It is faith, you are welcome to have your faith, but I have to take issue if you choose to equate it with science, I am sorry if that offends you.

Wouldn't the most widely-supported one be the most popular one? Or are you saying there are no other theories? Take a look at this, for example http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/0506/05...licuniverse.htm. It's not my area of speciality, but is this one of the alternative theories or has it been disproved?

I did not equate them in the sense that you are trying to say, not once. I said both ultimately require a leap of faith, meaning that with the current big bang theory you ultimately have to believe in something that cannot be proven. I am sorry if this offends you, but it's true.

Semantics - justification, evidence call it what you want, provide a shred of evidence to support it.

I have already answered this the first time round. I have never needed or asked for evidence from you as to why you believe in the big bang theory, because I know that you can't provide any - if you could, you would have done so by now and vice versa.

It is not a cheap shot, however it is not an argument I easily get into, but I am forced to because people are equating religion with science and evangelising - if you do either I am fully entitled to disagree in any way you want.

I never said you couldn't disagree. If science could prove that God does not exist, then it would have done, we all know that and we wouldn't be having this conversation now, quoting you from earlier

That contradict the laws of nature as we have seen and observed, that have never been verified, that are contradicted by things you see and observe every single day.

Is there any credible recorded evidence of biblical phenomena or antyhng resembling them ever recorded in the recent past?

I am not being funny, Cav, but I truthfully don't know what you are trying to say with these statements - can you explain them again? Cheers.

I really don't think we're going to convince each other, Cav!! I don't think I really have a biased one-sided view of the world, like you think I have!!

[Max Mosley 2]

Pabloh, what do you actually believe? Also, I still think this chat is confusing due to the use of the word "proof". Few things can ever be proven. I can't even prove that you exist. Much better is to talk about what is "rational", or "sensible", or "justifiable", to believe. What scientists say is not that any scientific fact or theory can be proven - they can't - but that they are the most rational beliefs at the current time. I have yet to see any good reasons to doubt they are correct to say that, despite the protestations that scientists shouldn't dismiss other beliefs as irrational.

[narain fan 0]

what the hell is going on here

i am kere after 48 hrs and after reading this Sh#t i am having a bad headache

bring it on bajo ur NK threads are much better

[Shane2 0]

Its what, on my own forum, i call a major bout of off-topicness

[pabloh20 1]

Pabloh, what do you actually believe? Also, I still think this chat is confusing due to the use of the word "proof". Few things can ever be proven. I can't even prove that you exist. Much better is to talk about what is "rational", or "sensible", or "justifiable", to believe. What scientists say is not that any scientific fact or theory can be proven - they can't - but that they are the most rational beliefs at the current time. I have yet to see any good reasons to doubt they are correct to say that, despite the protestations that scientists shouldn't dismiss other beliefs as irrational.

I believe in God, though I haven't been to Church for a good few years now - what's know in the trade as a backslider!! However, the bit in bold is what I try not to do, otherwise I would be dismissive of science, dismissive of other religions that didn't agree with mine, etc and personally I don't think that is the way to be.

Its what, on my own forum, i call a major bout of off-topicness

Yep it is, but a few of us agreed earlier that we would continue to go off topic, but it's all civil so it's ok!!