Posts made by FinsterniS

I’ll use a metaphor. We’re blind. And we’re arguing over the color of the sky. Some people tell us the sky is blue. Some tell us that the sky is red. Some people tell us that the color of the sky is unknowable. Some say that you have to have faith to believe that the sky is (insert color). Some say that logically the sky would be (insert color) because to think that it is (insert color) is laughable, or too complicated.

The sky is one color, definitely one color. But without looking at it we can never really be 100% sure either way.

Then you are an empirist, but i am not. I do not need to see to integrate concept in my vision of the woorld. But the fact GOD is a concept useless in creation of the universe and in everything is a very good argument against it…

God either exists or He doesn’t. The Atheist believes that God doesn not exist. The Theist believes that he does. The Agnostic doesn’t really believe either way.

The Atheist has a burden of proving God does not exist.

The Theist has the burden of proving that God does exist.

The Agnostic has no burden of proof.

That is a complete non-sence. Those who believe X concept is valid must try to proove it IS valid. But those who believe it is not valid; they have nothing to proove at all. If we were working with your looking we were certainly not as advanced as we are, because if each time a X person invent a Z theory everyone try to proove it exist or not; we would loose time. Like i said, it is hard to proove that something that does not exist, really does’nt exist. Try to proove to me;

• Santaclaus does’nt exist
• My mother is’nt Gaia
• The tooth fairy does’nt exist

You will (i wish) ask for proof, you have no burden to proove i am wrong, because sometime (tooth fairy) it is VERY hard to prove the inexistance of a concept.

Anyway, I have two points. The Atheist does have a burden of proof. Otherwise he is an agnostic. Which is why it is such a muddy debate. Both sides have burdens of proof which they are hard-pressed to fulfill well, let alone perfectly.

I am atheist because i think the concept of god is useless, nobody demonstrate it can be useless in understanding the creation of the universe, or any other physical laws.

An agnostic is someone “not sure”. He think theres maybe something behind the theist’s argumentation, while the Atheist believe it is all crap.

that was me…

First of all i am happy my favorite “foe” is back, welcome back Cryptic… just don’t call be dogmatic again, i really don’t like that :smile:…

Second, i think all the discussion on religion cannot end with the rhetoric we are all using (CC, F_alf, me, yb), because they often take “evidence” from observation.

Exemple; god is the opium of the people (Marx)

While this argument can be consider valid by a lot of sociologist, it is not for everyone. Why ? because it is based on empirical knowledge, so very unstable, we can discuss for years if god is or is’nt the opium of the people… and even if it was; this cannot be a proof agains the concept of god.

Also, the burden of the proof is on theist’s shoulder… not atheist. It is very hard outside mathematic to prove something that does’nt exist, really does’nt exist. (Try to prove the tooth fairy does’nt exist). In the other hand, proving something that does exist, really exist is easier. So like i said, the burden of the proof in on theist’s shoulder.

Soooo… proving god exist is hard. I will just ask that;
i want the rational proof that the concept of god is needed in the explanaition of the creation.

If your answer is; we cannot, then the concept of god cannot be taken seriously in science, only in faith.

A concept can be consider a valid theory only if it can explain something, if it cannot give anything to the theory, it must be consider invalid. Thats the occam’s razor.

The occam’s razor is; “Do not multiply entities unnecessarily.”
It is NOT “the simplest answer is propably the good one”, like most people think…

A little explanaintion of the occam’s razor; If im looking in the sky, i see a big, black cloud. If i follow the logic behind occam’s razon, i’ll think its a natural phenomena, if not, i can say it’s in fact the blood of a giant invisible bird, fighting the humanity’s survival in the space. You cannot prove my concept is false, only it is useless to explain the black cloud… so we won’t use it.

Definition of God; An higher, superior, personnal being.
In short; not the Pantheist’s God, only the Theist’s god, and maybe even the Panentheist’s god…

I wish this way we will conclude… Not that i think i will convert anyone to Atheism, i just want to make god concept retreat where it belong; outside science, outside logic, outside physic, only in personnal faith.

Note; i am still working so i won’t have time to answer this week, only the weekend…

FS, if I remember correctly each time the Intifada is acted out, the Israeli gov’t. responds disproportionately(meaning about 10x as strong as the Palestinian attack). This has been recognized as the most efficient and successful reponse to any attack for a long time. If you destroy your opponent the conflict is over. If you crush your opponent so hard that maximum effort must be expended by them to recover/relocate then the conflict is, at the worst, delayed for a long time.

Still, the conflict is opposing two fanatic.
The islamic extremist group.
The israelian* governement (less fanatic, but a little more powerful).

But the logic of Sharon of “they attack then we’ll attack even harder” is a big problem. Its a vicious circle, violence breed violence, each time the israelian governement kill palestinian they give people there a reason to be angry. Each time palestinian terrorism are killing israelian
they give a good reason to Sharon to use again more violence…

And to people here who think Arafat is “evil” and he do not want peace and blablabla. Who, between Sharon & Arafat, want an international police ?

• its israelian or israeli ?

Still, its not “pro-life”

that was me

that was me

my favorite quote is from my personnal hero… all the quality are in him.

he’s a good american
he’s rigth-wing
he hate french
he’s a christian

If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being.

Jerry Falwell.

A pure genius

A huge problem with Healthcare is the insane cost to maintain.

So we only heal the rich ? We only give healcare to those who can afford them ?

This is hard to make a powerfull allies strategy since Axis are leading the game. The action of the German/Japan on the first turn can easely compromise any strategy, a fortiori Axis tend/must be in some way unpredictable to beat the allies juggernaut.

Most game ive played all axis force were playing on two major front since they decide, often in turn 3, to concentrate on a front.

Often the game is psychological & strategical, so i never really build a main generic strategy, but i really find your ideas interesting. You are rigth about the turn 1 of the US; i should be defencive, ive never (never!) played as the US but most of my opponent/allies US seem to be really nervous.

Also, i think the US should not concentrate too much on germany, japan is expending fast and when attaking russia it help a lot Germany. The best way to make germany in trouble is to stop japan from attaking massively russia. But sure, sometime (often) you cannot concentrate all your IPC on japan…

thx Candy, now i know its a computer game

I know what is the WW2 and i know what is the Medal of Honor, but what are you taling about Medal of Honor coming out june… You are certaly not speaking of the Highest decoration of America that come out June x, it must be somekind of game or something…

PS; im not an idiot :smile:

“Gott ist Tot”

• Friendrich Wilhelm Nietazsche (1844-1900)

“Chacun prend les limites de son propre champ de vision pour celle de l’univers”

• Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

[ This Message was edited by: FinsterniS on 2002-05-31 01:19 ]

[ This Message was edited by: FinsterniS on 2002-05-31 09:38 ]

First; what is “World War II” & “Medal of Honor”. Never heard of that…

Exactly

its a canadian i think, hes infecting the forum with absurdity… Maybe the forum should require peaple to register before writing message, but thats only my humble opinion i dont want to tell you want to do.

The problem with your medical system is theres no insurance for everyone, at least not an insurance that cover 100% of the medical cost. I dont think it is something normal for a country to make peaple pay so much for a diseases which they caught by accident, i mean peaple are not running after problems, and when they caugth a diseases; now two problem, 1; the disease itself, 2; $$$.

I cannot imagine it is not even a big debate on you country (Clinton was thinking about it i think but it was not really consistant)

Nein

I hear and read that the Medical system ain’t great.

I dont know a lot about Canada but i can hardly image a system worse than yours.

lack of “confidence”,

thats a part of capitalist; its very emotional. Sometime a compagny is running fine, very fine, but oops, their actions are loosing valor, why ? Because X said something bad for the compagnie and peaple get afraid…

(largely due to capitalism)

Largely ? Not totally ?

Note that you are maybe rigth, im just curious about the “Largely”.