Sounds remarkably similar doesn't it. I wonder what a psychologist would have to say.
I remember being told by a very eminent psychiatrist that there was a very fine line between religious fervour and psychotic disease
I remember being told by a very eminent psychiatrist that there was a very fine line between religious fervour and psychotic disease
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 1,367
- Reaction score
- 77
- Country
breadnbutter said:
Oddly enough, I can relate to that - but in a different context.
I said:
Sounds remarkably similar doesn't it. I wonder what a psychologist would have to say.
Probably the Psychologist would conclude that you are both as mad as a Box of Frogs, I am presuming Spacecats context was a religious one.
As for Breadandbutter - if you really consider you can meet up with someone who's supposedly been dead for 2000 years, then my previous posting suggesting your were a Nutter is fully justified.
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 1,367
- Reaction score
- 77
- Country
No-one knows anything about the reason (if any) of life, nor how the Universe actually works. When you know all of that - then tell others they are wrong. Until that time - you are just as dopey as they are.
To a certain extent you are right Joe, but the evidence is very heavily in my favour.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 1,367
- Reaction score
- 77
- Country
Rather irrelevant Joe.
There is no evidence for anything before the big bang, but there is plenty of evidence post big bang for non creationism and absolutely None for creationism.
So on the balance of evidence we atheists still win.
There is no evidence for anything before the big bang, but there is plenty of evidence post big bang for non creationism and absolutely None for creationism.
So on the balance of evidence we atheists still win.
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
No you don't - that is where you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO wrong.
If you believe in God and an afterlife - and there is one - you can say that you knew that all along.
If you believe in God and you are wrong - and there is NO afterlife - then you never even get to know you are wrong.
That's the power of religion, it's a 'heads I win - tails I don't lose' scenario.
If you believe in God and an afterlife - and there is one - you can say that you knew that all along.
If you believe in God and you are wrong - and there is NO afterlife - then you never even get to know you are wrong.
That's the power of religion, it's a 'heads I win - tails I don't lose' scenario.
B
Big Tone
I hope so but, as always has been the case, might wins over right. As indeed all of the disgusting religions have done for so very long....
If you haven't seen this Hysteresis - enjoy
As for the religious and ignorant 'blind' - carry on as ever.
Can we get back on topic now and avoid the circular and pointless religious argument...
No you don't - that is where you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO wrong.
If you believe in God and an afterlife - and there is one - you can say that you knew that all along.
If you believe in God and you are wrong - and there is NO afterlife - then you never even get to know you are wrong.
That's the power of religion, it's a 'heads I win - tails I don't lose' scenario.
Step on a crack, break your mother's back.....
if you believe it and avoid them, and it turns out to be true... you've saved your mothers back
If you believe it and avoid them, and it turns out to be a load of crap, you've done no harm to her.
Same logic?
Your question mark is superfluous.No you don't - that is where you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO wrong.
If you believe in God and an afterlife - and there is one - you can say that you knew that all along.
If you believe in God and you are wrong - and there is NO afterlife - then you never even get to know you are wrong.
That's the power of religion, it's a 'heads I win - tails I don't lose' scenario.
Step on a crack, break your mother's back.....
if you believe it and avoid them, and it turns out to be true... you've saved your mothers back
If you believe it and avoid them, and it turns out to be a load of crap, you've done no harm to her.
Same logic?
B
Big Tone
Pascal beat you to that JoeNo you don't - that is where you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO wrong.
If you believe in God and an afterlife - and there is one - you can say that you knew that all along.
If you believe in God and you are wrong - and there is NO afterlife - then you never even get to know you are wrong.
That's the power of religion, it's a 'heads I win - tails I don't lose' scenario.
1. If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven: thus an infinite gain.
2. If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever: thus an infinite loss.
3. If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded: thus a finite loss.
4. If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life: thus a finite gain.
See also Russell's teapot
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
But we are in danger of a major topic drift here...
I'm with you on this JBR but i really think you should change your signature to read "primitive people of planet Earth"
I think you're right but, as we all know, Lankies are the most primitive of us all (except for the Welsh, of course). We've got to start somewhere and the Lankies are the ones benefiting from my presence at the moment.
question
who came first then,in your evolution,male or the female, as you know it takes two to tangle.
who came first then,in your evolution,male or the female, as you know it takes two to tangle.
Never heard of asexual reproduction then?
Sponsored Links