Behaviour report by the London school of economics

treliac

Cleaver wrote: »

I've just realised that we're arguing about the existance of God on an internet forum. Shall we stop? I like you, Malcolm and Treliac, let's not fall out.

We won't... and I really don't have an argument, which I suppose is my argument.

To be honest, I've argued 'against' with many people, but on the basis that no god would allow the terrible atrocities and cruelty that exists. Of course, followers always have an answer. But it's never a good enough one for me.

Malcolm.

Cleaver wrote: »

Let's quit this now, I think only Hamish is certain of his own opinion enough to prove / disprove the existance of God, and he doesn't seem to be around.

I wouldn't place too much faith in Hamish. He's unable to divide two numbers together properly.
Being a bit of a pedant, I corrected him.

Cleaver

Malcolm. wrote: »

What about Really2? Don't you like him too?

Before I go to bed, let's just wheel out the classic, cliched atheist question...

...ahem...

If God made the stuff that started the universe, then who created God? And once you've found who / what created God, who created them? And if you find who / what created the thing that created God, who / what was it who created the thing that created the thing that created God who created the universe? And whilst we're thinking about that, shoudn't we really debate who / what created the thing who created the thing, who created thing, who created the thing that created God who created the universe? And who / what created that?

And yes, Really2 is lovely. Really1 was an ars*hole though, and don't get me started on Really3...

chewmylegoff

Malcolm. wrote: »

I wouldn't place too much faith in Hamish. He's unable to divide two numbers together properly.
Being a bit of a pedant, I corrected him.

If we're being pedantic, then you can't "divide two numbers together", you can only divide one by the other or vice versa.

edit: sorry, forgot the obligatory smiley

Really2

Cleaver wrote: »

You're right, and we may never know. But if I have the choice of two options:

a) some form of natural force we don't know about
b) a man in the sky made it all

then I just think that option a) is the far more logical choice.

I agree again. But would I 100 years ago or would I in 100 years time?

We could end up being a century of buffoons. That's the great thing and as been in history it is the current situation that models our current thinking.

Science in reality is most probably the biggest current religion and is founded on 100+ years of fast technological advancement.
When that stops what takes over? (AD or HSF to step in)

In the end we may think we think freely but do we really, in the end we are all educated and we all know education is one of the best ways of controlling how young people think in the future.

I do like a chance to spill out my tangled brain

Good debate, even if it was religion, would it be correct 4 non religious people just debated religion. Only on here:rotfl:

treliac

Cleaver wrote: »

Before I go to bed, let's just wheel out the classic, cliched atheist question...

...ahem...

If God made the stuff that started the universe, then who created God? And once you've found who / what created God, who created them? And if you find who / what created the thing that created God, who / what was it who created the thing that created the thing that created God who created the universe? And whilst we're thinking about that, shoudn't we really debate who / what created the thing who created the thing, who created thing, who created the thing that created God who created the universe? And who / what created that?

Just so you don't get the last word in (after asking to quit ), you can apply that 'circular' theoretical argument to however the world did start.

The one thing I am sure of - I think - is that I do exist....... ?

Cleaver

chewmylegoff wrote: »

dawkins is a bit of a retard. they took the p!ss out of him quite well in south park, i thought. i read a couple of his books, the selfish gene was ok at least it was about science, i.e. his subject. the god delusion was just an angry rant, it was all over the place, lacked cohesion and just make him sound like a petty little sod.

I've only read 'The God Delusion' and it's put me off reading anything else by him. I couldn't agree with you more, it was just hundreds of pages of frothing ranting and being horrible about people who don't agree with him.

Malcolm.

Cleaver wrote: »

Before I go to bed, let's just wheel out the classic, cliched atheist question...

...ahem...

If God made the stuff that started the universe, then who created God? And once you've found who / what created God, who created them? And if you find who / what created the thing that created God, who / what was it who created the thing that created the thing that created God who created the universe? And whilst we're thinking about that, shoudn't we really debate who / what created the thing who created the thing, who created thing, who created the thing that created God who created the universe? And who / what created that?

Skipping the nonsense bit in the middle. I think the question you're infering to is where did it all start and who (or what) started it? That is what you're asking right?

Cleaver

treliac wrote: »

Just so you don't get the last word in (after asking to quit ), you can apply that 'circular' theoretical argument to however the world did start.

We tend to think of time as linear, as in from point a to point b, and work from the basis that something must have been 'started' at somepoint, possibly by someone or something. But maybe we just 'exist' in a timeless world. And maybe something just always has existed, and always will. Even if that something is nothing or everything.

F*ck me, I sound really, really stoned...

Malcolm.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If we're being pedantic, then you can't "divide two numbers together", you can only divide one by the other or vice versa.

edit: sorry, forgot the obligatory smiley

Blast. I've been corrected again.
Albeit on grammar. :mad: