Conquer Club

heavycola wrote:It seems patently obvious to me that there are no gods, as there no anima, demons, spiderpigs etc.

then howcome there have been so many accounts of demons. so many stories. in fact, one of my neighbors has seen one. ever heard of a ouija/ouiji board? he played with one and a demon came out. so many accounts have been told about demons/evil spirits, its hard to say that they don't exist. I believe ghosts are demons (you probably don't, but how do you explain them?). spirits are everywhere. luckily there are good ones too. demons do exist. i haven't seen one myself, but thats because (i believe this anyway, you will most likely not) i have Jesus living in me (hes not living in me with like a bed or tv sort of living just in case some of you were going to make a comment on that) and demons are afraid of the name of Jesus, let alone the person.
what are anima? spiderpigs... no...

rocky mountain wrote:

heavycola wrote:It seems patently obvious to me that there are no gods, as there no anima, demons, spiderpigs etc.

then howcome there have been so many accounts of demons. so many stories. in fact, one of my neighbors has seen one. ever heard of a ouija/ouiji board? he played with one and a demon came out. so many accounts have been told about demons/evil spirits, its hard to say that they don't exist. I believe ghosts are demons (you probably don't, but how do you explain them?). spirits are everywhere. luckily there are good ones too. demons do exist. i haven't seen one myself, but thats because (i believe this anyway, you will most likely not) i have Jesus living in me (hes not living in me with like a bed or tv sort of living just in case some of you were going to make a comment on that) and demons are afraid of the name of Jesus, let alone the person.
what are anima? spiderpigs... no...

...

Yeah...

tzor wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:The inquisition was perhaps inspired by divine purpose but the church certainly did nicely out of the confiscated wealth and property, especially that of Jews.

Sorry but that was an incorrect answer. Technically speaking the Inquisition delt with heresy. They did not prosecute non Christians. The Spanish Inquisition may seem an apparent exception but that was only because before he asked Rome for an Inquisition, the King of Spain commanded all Jews and Moslems to either convert or leave the country. Many "converted." He then called for the Inquisition becasuse they were still observing their old faith but at that point they were technically "Christians" and so the Inquisition applied.

In a like manner Jews were for the most part not targeted by witch hunters since only a Christian could be a witch. There were, however, a plethora of other things that Christians did to Jews in this time, so I don't want to say that they had a good time.

Well im sorry but in essence all I said was factual, technically yes the inquisition was for Christian heretics but in practice it was also used against the Jews. As early as 1242 it denounced the Talmud leading to the wholesale burning of the sacred book, the first Jews were burned at the stake in France in 1288 on the orders of the inquisition. When the Inquisition came back to life in the middle ages it was seized upon by both the Spanish and Portuguese authorities as the perfect vehicle for purging the Jews. Both Conversos ( so called secret Jews ) and New Christians ( from families who had converted only a generation or two earlier ) were targeted on a massive scale. Property was confiscated regardless of guilt or innocence and the net result was an Exodus from both countries of both Jews and those considered to be still Jewish in spirit,nice little earner for church and the states in question.

rocky mountain wrote:

heavycola wrote:It seems patently obvious to me that there are no gods, as there no anima, demons, spiderpigs etc.

then howcome there have been so many accounts of demons. so many stories. in fact, one of my neighbors has seen one. ever heard of a ouija/ouiji board? he played with one and a demon came out. so many accounts have been told about demons/evil spirits, its hard to say that they don't exist. I believe ghosts are demons (you probably don't, but how do you explain them?). spirits are everywhere. luckily there are good ones too. demons do exist. i haven't seen one myself, but thats because (i believe this anyway, you will most likely not) i have Jesus living in me (hes not living in me with like a bed or tv sort of living just in case some of you were going to make a comment on that) and demons are afraid of the name of Jesus, let alone the person.
what are anima? spiderpigs... no...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight............

rocky mountain wrote:then howcome there have been so many accounts of demons. so many stories. in fact, one of my neighbors has seen one. ever heard of a ouija/ouiji board? he played with one and a demon came out. so many accounts have been told about demons/evil spirits, its hard to say that they don't exist. I believe ghosts are demons (you probably don't, but how do you explain them?). spirits are everywhere. luckily there are good ones too. demons do exist. i haven't seen one myself, but thats because (i believe this anyway, you will most likely not) i have Jesus living in me (hes not living in me with like a bed or tv sort of living just in case some of you were going to make a comment on that) and demons are afraid of the name of Jesus, let alone the person.

Cuckoo, cuckoo...


So I suppose, going by your logic, that we can safely conclude that Ganesh, Vishnu, Allah, Yaweh, Dragons, Redcaps, Father-Christmas, Griffins, Leprechauns, Baba-Yaga, Succubi, Bigfoot, The Easter Bunny, Flying-Saucers, Chupacabra, Vampires, Kelpies, The Walking Dead, Atlantis, and the Lizardmen Overlords all exist then?

You know, what with all of them being mentioned in many accounts, being the subjects of many stories, there being reported sightings of them/contacts with them all over the world? I mean, it's hard to say that they don't exist really, isn't it? I mean after all, how do you explain them otherwise? They can't all surely just be myths and tales believed by people eager to explain away difficult to comprehend situations can they? I mean, who cares that there's no real proof of any of them, the collected opinions of large-numbers of hearsayers and conjecturers surely can't be wrong!

Seriously, get away from the camp-fire and stop believing in fairy-tales. If hundreds of people claim to have seen it, but none of them can prove it... the fact is that they're probably all wrong.

Dancing Mustard wrote:If hundreds of people claim to have seen it, but none of them can prove it... the fact is that they're probably all wrong.

o ya. i bet if you saw a demon, you would quickly take your camera out and take a picture. you wouldn't provide proof if you saw it either.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Dragons, Redcaps, Father-Christmas, Griffins, Leprechauns, Baba-Yaga, Succubi, Bigfoot, The Easter Bunny, Flying-Saucers, Chupacabra, Vampires, Kelpies, The Walking Dead, Atlantis, and the Lizardmen Overlords all exist then?

a lot of the things you mentioned would most likely be hoaxes (bigfoot, santa claus, leprechauns, the easter bunny, flying saucers, vampires, the walking dead (what exactly do you mean by that?)) and costumes or some other object. it would be impossible to impersonate a demon. the neighbor i mentioned gave a very clear description of it. (i don't know what the description was but my sister does) many of the stories i believe to be genuine. probably not all are true, but a lot are. how do you explain all these ghost sightings? and PROOF of them! pictures, and videos. thats all the kind of proof there is really, without seeing them yourself. how can you not believe in ghosts with all the proof? if you do believe in them, what is your explanation?

(by the way, what are redcaps, baba-yaga, succubi, chupacabra, kelpies, and lizardmen overloads?)

rocky mountain wrote:then howcome there have been so many accounts of demons. so many stories. in fact, one of my neighbors has seen one. ever heard of a ouija/ouiji board? he played with one

Careful when playing Here is an old joke: Two junkies are sitting in an attic in a public builidng. Both are high. One says to another: "look, a crocodile has just flied out of this window". Outside two policemen are standing. One policeman say: "There are junkies in that attic. Let us bust them". Another: "How do you know?". The first: "a crocodile has just flied out of the window there".

Technically speaking, many demon stories are pre-christian gods, who were deposed when Christianity was adopted. Many stories appeared during inquisition? Do you know how many woman confessed to having sex with devil?

On a separate note, there are numeruos accounts of contacts with aliens. Interestingly, many of people (I have read somewhere but cannot find a reference that 25%) who saw aliens had sex with them http://www.geocities.com/area51/shadowl ... et051.html

rocky mountain wrote:(by the way, what are redcaps, baba-yaga, succubi, chupacabra, kelpies, and lizardmen overloads?)

Baba-Yaga is a special Russian witch, who has just 1 leg, flies in a mortar instead of a broom and lives in a house on chicken legs. In most of the russian stroies, she is morally ambivalent, first usually trying to eat the main character but then helping him/her in an essential way. Here is one of the sexiest Baba-Yagas in movies:

succubi, chupacabra, kelpies, and lizardmen overloads?)

Succubi are creatures that suck either the soul, or the life out of someone (depending on the story). Chupracabra is supposedly a creature in Mexico that likes to eat cattle (descriptions and backgrounds vary from person to person). Kelpies, no idea. lizardmen overlords are in reference to the "NWO/Neocon" conspiracy people (making light of them basically).

muy_thaiguy wrote:

succubi, chupacabra, kelpies, and lizardmen overloads?)

Succubi are creatures that suck either the soul, or the life out of someone (depending on the story). Chupracabra is supposedly a creature in Mexico that likes to eat cattle (descriptions and backgrounds vary from person to person). Kelpies, no idea. lizardmen overlords are in reference to the "NWO/Neocon" conspiracy people (making light of them basically).

Chupacabra is usually in goat form when I come across him.

a lot of the things you mentioned would most likely be hoaxes (bigfoot, santa claus, leprechauns

Apparently, you never caught and made a Leprechaun clan your family's servants for all eternity. And the little guy on my shoulder here is hopping mad right now and wants to pop Backglass a good one for calling him imaginary.
See?

rocky mountain wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:If hundreds of people claim to have seen it, but none of them can prove it... the fact is that they're probably all wrong.

o ya. i bet if you saw a demon, you would quickly take your camera out and take a picture. you wouldn't provide proof if you saw it either.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Dragons, Redcaps, Father-Christmas, Griffins, Leprechauns, Baba-Yaga, Succubi, Bigfoot, The Easter Bunny, Flying-Saucers, Chupacabra, Vampires, Kelpies, The Walking Dead, Atlantis, and the Lizardmen Overlords all exist then?

a lot of the things you mentioned would most likely be hoaxes (bigfoot, santa claus, leprechauns, the easter bunny, flying saucers, vampires, the walking dead (what exactly do you mean by that?)) and costumes or some other object. it would be impossible to impersonate a demon. the neighbor i mentioned gave a very clear description of it. (i don't know what the description was but my sister does) many of the stories i believe to be genuine. probably not all are true, but a lot are. how do you explain all these ghost sightings? and PROOF of them! pictures, and videos. thats all the kind of proof there is really, without seeing them yourself. how can you not believe in ghosts with all the proof? if you do believe in them, what is your explanation?

(by the way, what are redcaps, baba-yaga, succubi, chupacabra, kelpies, and lizardmen overloads?)

The world and our own bodies are very complex things that we don`t yet fully understand. The problem is, most people are way to eager to explain any odd phenomena by means of the supernatural (or lizard overlords ).
Check out the God Helmet.
Also, perhaps you`ve heard of sleep paralysis.
Apparently during REM sleep(the part where you have dreams) you`re body is paralyzed so that you don`t act out your dreams. Now, sometimes, this misfires and you gain partial consciousness before the paralysis wears off. But you aren`t fully awake, like some part of your brain is still in dream mode.
So you find yourself paralyzed and hallucinating(dreaming), if you`re afraid of UFO`s, you`re going to see UFO`s, if you belive in ghosts, you`ll probably meet your great grandmother, etc.
Actually this is how a lot of those medieval stories of women being raped by demons came to be.
The odd thing is that most people are 100% sure that what they dreamed is real, some even exhibit post traumatic stress.
Check out these for more on the subject [1], [2]

And about the proof, c`mon there`s a ton of videos of bigfoot too.( you guys know about the one Penn&Teller made, right? damn that was funny )

But if you think there is such irrefutable proof of "ghosts", please show us.


What truly puzzles me is why a lot of people, intelligent people, seem to just grasp at any straw to prove that something supernatural exists.
Just a few days ago i was watching a game with some friends, and in the break, while switching channels we stumble upon one of those psychics that has a room full of people and says things like "I sense a spirit, yes she is trying to communicate, she says her name is M..., i can`t hear it well, Ma..." and then someone in the public goes "My aunt died 3 months ago, her name was Maria", and the psychic " Yes that`s her, she wants to tell you that she`s sorry for [insert generic crap]".
So why i was chuckling at his amazing powers, one of my friend goes "Well, how do you explain that?"

rocky mountain wrote:o ya. i bet if you saw a demon, you would quickly take your camera out and take a picture. you wouldn't provide proof if you saw it either.

Maybe not.

But given the number of supposed 'demons' that have been sighted over the years, isn't it incredible that one has never been caught on camera, or caught alive/dead, or even picked up on something like CCTV equipment?

Face it mate, there's just no proof for any of the folk-tales and hearsay accounts that people come up with. Just because a lot of people make stuff up doesn't make it true.

rocky mountain wrote:a lot of the things you mentioned would most likely be hoaxes

Yes. Just like 'demons' and 'ghosts'. All unprovable hoaxes, or errors on the part of their observers.

Why is it that you seem happy to dismiss half of these crazy fantasys as hoaxes, and embrace the other half as rock-solid truth; even when both sets are equally unproven and fantastical?

rocky mountain wrote:it would be impossible to impersonate a demon.

Really? What is it about these demons (which you have apparently never seen, nor seen any contemporaneously produced visual representation of) that would be impossible to imitate?
Secondly, what makes them so special? I have equally solid proof that it would be impossible to impersonate a Leprechaun, Redcap, Baba-Yaga, Santa-Klaus, or a Vampire.

So there. People who think they've seen all of those things must be right. Because I say it's impossible to impersonate the creatures they report.

rocky mountain wrote:the neighbor i mentioned gave a very clear description of it. (i don't know what the description was but my sister does)

I can only suggest that you consult your dictionary for the meaning of the word gullible.
Are you honestly suggesting that you're basing your view of the world on a a hearsay account of hearsay, then preaching it as gospel truth?

rocky mountain wrote:how do you explain all these ghost sightings?

As camp-fire stories to scare children, as cries for attention from hoaxing individuals, and as paranoid superstitious folk attempting to explain complex environmental phenomena by recourse to easily understandable mythology.

rocky mountain wrote:and PROOF of them! pictures, and videos ... how can you not believe in ghosts with all the proof?

Ok, now you're being silly.

If you honestly believe that there's serious proof for these ghosties and demons and bogeymen and things that go bump in the night; then start up a thread and post it. I 100% guarantee that the CC masses (and snopes.com) will be able to demonstrate why all of the proofs you post are either completely ridiculous, or seriously unconvincing.

rocky mountain wrote:(by the way, what are redcaps, baba-yaga, succubi, chupacabra, kelpies, and lizardmen overloads?)

Lizardmen Overlords was just me having a joke at Jay_a2j's expense again... but the rest you should be able to hunt down on google.

Actually, most dictionaries forgot to put a definition for the word "gullible".
Incidentally, If your dictionary does have a definition for the word, you could sell it on eBay for a considerable sum.

tzor wrote:

heavycola wrote:And you seem to be missing my point. Why must I equivocate?
In the homosexuality thread you said something like 'sexual impulses are occasions of sin'. This statement presupposes that sin exists. My statement presupposed that god doesn't exist. Do you preface every prayer with 'although your existence cannot be proven or unproven...'?

No, my statement does nothing of the sort. My statement instead has a definition problem. "A is B of C" ... define C ... define B of C. It is not a question here of C existing but a question of C being defined.

Your statement, on the other hand was a "Since X does not exist any more than Y or Z then the superset of all of type XYZ are fundamentally equivalent" which is basically an insult to the rules of logic.

what utter tosh! I said that since gods do not exist, all religions share a fundamental similarity. Turn it into rules and then insult them if you want - nothing to do with me.

anyway...

And presuposing is really functionally equivalent to assuming. The problem with assuming is that while you can prove things based on those assumptions the base assumptions themselves are just that, nothing more than base assumptions. If you simply assume god doesn't exist ... well there is not much farther you can go from there.

Talk around it all you want - your life operates on a base assumption, i.e. that god does exist. Everyone operates according to base assumptions - that objects fall earthwards, that the sun will rise. One of mine happens to be that gods don't exist. So why on earth would I not assume that to be the case? It seems patently obvious to me that there are no gods, as there no anima, demons, spiderpigs etc.

Once again: do you preface your prayers with 'although your existence is unverifiable...' or some such? Or do you make them on the assumption that an intelligence is listening to them?

MeDeFe wrote:Where it's mentioned, yeah, good idea, like the dead sea scrolls. No wait, they do not mention Jesus despite being written by a messianic sect at the time... damn, that's a bummer.

Small correction, I believe the most current idea is that the scrolls were written by a group from whom Jesus arose ... but they were not necessarily Messianic. That is, Jesus was influenced by them, not the other way around. (but I could be wrong ...)

Dancing Mustard wrote:

rocky mountain wrote:o ya. i bet if you saw a demon, you would quickly take your camera out and take a picture. you wouldn't provide proof if you saw it either.

Maybe not.

But given the number of supposed 'demons' that have been sighted over the years, isn't it incredible that one has never been caught on camera, or caught alive/dead, or even picked up on something like CCTV equipment?

Face it mate, there's just no proof for any of the folk-tales and hearsay accounts that people come up with. Just because a lot of people make stuff up doesn't make it true.

rocky mountain wrote:a lot of the things you mentioned would most likely be hoaxes

Yes. Just like 'demons' and 'ghosts'. All unprovable hoaxes, or errors on the part of their observers.

Why is it that you seem happy to dismiss half of these crazy fantasys as hoaxes, and embrace the other half as rock-solid truth; even when both sets are equally unproven and fantastical?

rocky mountain wrote:it would be impossible to impersonate a demon.

Really? What is it about these demons (which you have apparently never seen, nor seen any contemporaneously produced visual representation of) that would be impossible to imitate?
Secondly, what makes them so special? I have equally solid proof that it would be impossible to impersonate a Leprechaun, Redcap, Baba-Yaga, Santa-Klaus, or a Vampire.

So there. People who think they've seen all of those things must be right. Because I say it's impossible to impersonate the creatures they report.

rocky mountain wrote:the neighbor i mentioned gave a very clear description of it. (i don't know what the description was but my sister does)

I can only suggest that you consult your dictionary for the meaning of the word gullible.
Are you honestly suggesting that you're basing your view of the world on a a hearsay account of hearsay, then preaching it as gospel truth?

rocky mountain wrote:how do you explain all these ghost sightings?

As camp-fire stories to scare children, as cries for attention from hoaxing individuals, and as paranoid superstitious folk attempting to explain complex environmental phenomena by recourse to easily understandable mythology.

rocky mountain wrote:and PROOF of them! pictures, and videos ... how can you not believe in ghosts with all the proof?

Ok, now you're being silly.

If you honestly believe that there's serious proof for these ghosties and demons and bogeymen and things that go bump in the night; then start up a thread and post it. I 100% guarantee that the CC masses (and snopes.com) will be able to demonstrate why all of the proofs you post are either completely ridiculous, or seriously unconvincing.

rocky mountain wrote:(by the way, what are redcaps, baba-yaga, succubi, chupacabra, kelpies, and lizardmen overloads?)

Lizardmen Overlords was just me having a joke at Jay_a2j's expense again... but the rest you should be able to hunt down on google.

Okay, I came into this a bit late (seems to have been fun, though..). However, I must (sigh) stand against you here Dancing Mustard.

If you limit your belief to that which can be emphirically proven without a doubt, then you must limit yourself also to much of science, as well as excluding art, philosophy, etc.

On the issue of Ghosts and Demons ... The one thing I have found is that there is a very wide gap between the most current scientific/theological arguments/discussion/ideas about these things and what many people learn "around the campfire" or "on the playyard"

There actually are a large number of wholly responsible, wholle intelligent and credible individuals who have had experiences that are just not explained by traditional means. Are they ghosts? Many think so. I myself just don't know.

Most of those creatures you mentioned were popularized in D & D, though in most cases they predate that game & its accompanying texts.

heavycola wrote::roll: what utter tosh! I said that since gods do not exist, all religions share a fundamental similarity. Turn it into rules and then insult them if you want - nothing to do with me.
...
Once again: do you preface your prayers with 'although your existence is unverifiable...' or some such? Or do you make them on the assumption that an intelligence is listening to them?

I think the utter rubbish is you refusing to see that what you wrote was not what you wanted to write. In addition you also don't have the understanding that your assumptions are no means of proof of anything.

Now had you written, "Since I start with the assumption that gods do not exist, all gods are functionally equivalent to me," then I would find nothing wrong with the statement whatsoever. This you did not do.

How I preface my prayers has nothing to do with this discussion. How I formulate logical statements has everything to do with this discussion.

heavycola wrote:It seems patently obvious to me that there are no gods, as there no anima, demons, spiderpigs etc.

No spiderpigs? Oh wait that's spidergoats. I keep getting those evil scientist DNA experments all mixed up.

tzor wrote:

heavycola wrote::roll: what utter tosh! I said that since gods do not exist, all religions share a fundamental similarity. Turn it into rules and then insult them if you want - nothing to do with me.
...
Once again: do you preface your prayers with 'although your existence is unverifiable...' or some such? Or do you make them on the assumption that an intelligence is listening to them?

I think the utter rubbish is you refusing to see that what you wrote was not what you wanted to write. In addition you also don't have the understanding that your assumptions are no means of proof of anything. Now had you written, "Since I start with the assumption that gods do not exist, all gods are functionally equivalent to me," then I would find nothing wrong with the statement whatsoever. This you did not do.

You must be being wilfuly obtuse. What i write is always what I want to write.
No, i did not want not describe gods as functionally equivalent - what does that even mean?
And where did I state that my assumptions proved anything? You keep taking my words, screwing around with them and then arguing with them.

How I preface my prayers has nothing to do with this discussion. How I formulate logical statements has everything to do with this discussion.

Quit dodging the question. It has everything to do with it. I'm asking you whether it's OK for you to assume god exists every time you pray to him, or whether you feel it necessary to preface your prayers with some tortuous logical disclaimer.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Okay, I came into this a bit late (seems to have been fun, though..). However, I must (sigh) stand against you here Dancing Mustard.

Then let battle be joined...

PLAYER57832 wrote:If you limit your belief to that which can be emphirically proven without a doubt, then you must limit yourself also to much of science, as well as excluding art, philosophy, etc.

I'll have to limit myself to only believing in things which are scientifically proven? Well that's just great!
No more fairy-tales, no more make-believe, just things that we can prove and demonstrate. I'll only be basing my life around things which I am totally confident are real.

As for eschewing Art and Philosophy... why do I have to do that? I'm not quite sure why refusing to believe in Gods and monsters stops me from enjoying fine art? Help me out there...

PLAYER57832 wrote:On the issue of Ghosts and Demons ... The one thing I have found is that there is a very wide gap between the most current scientific/theological arguments/discussion/ideas about these things and what many people learn "around the campfire" or "on the playyard"

Sure, it's easier to set up arguments stating that one can't disprove a magical, invisible, all-powerful, ageless God, than it is to say you can't disprove Unicorns and Boggarts. But that doesn't mean that either concept is any more fantastical than the other, does it? It simply means that the subject of one tale is allegedly more ephemeral than that of the other.

Also, the problem with 'God stories' (as opposed to other similar folk-tales) is that they allege to explain something which we haven't yet found a conclusive scientific explanation for; which means that they're not flying in the face of completely overwhelming proof... merely in the face of gross improbability.
Basically, the reason I keep comparing 'God Stories' to campfire tales is because both of them are, so far as I'm concerned, no more than age-old superstitions that were invented to answer questions about environmental phenomena that couldn't be otherwise explained in that time and age. I realise that a great deal of reverence has sprung up around God Concepts, and that their adherents take them very seriously, but that doesn't oblige me to treat the tales as anything other than that which they actually (in my opinion) are... old folk-tales.

However, what I'm not saying with that comment is that the existence of a creator necessitates that creator being the Christian 'God'... In my opinion (which I realise isn't one that Christians are going to take kindly to) Bible stories are as much speculative fairy-tales as those in any other religious text, or in any other collection of folk-tales. All of which can be tested by real evidence and proven to be, at the very best, entirely implausible and highly unlikely.

Before somebody like Coffeecream pipes up, let me say for the record that the above does not make me a 'God Hater', simply a 'God Dismisser'. I don't hate him, or those who choose to base their lives on his speculative existence; I just think it's an odd and archaic way to carry on.

PLAYER57832 wrote:There actually are a large number of wholly responsible, wholle intelligent and credible individuals who have had experiences that are just not explained by traditional means.

Well then bring them out.

If people are up for the "I think that things actually do go bump in the night" thread, then I'll be happy to engage in the business of explaining away and discrediting any 'evidence' that they choose to bring.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Most of those creatures you mentioned were popularized in D & D, though in most cases they predate that game & its accompanying texts.

All true of course... though I resisted the urge to slot 'Owlbears' in there. They were always my favourites y'see.

heavycola wrote:Quit dodging the question. It has everything to do with it. I'm asking you whether it's OK for you to assume god exists every time you pray to him, or whether you feel it necessary to preface your prayers with some tortuous logical disclaimer.

I am not dodging the question, I'm flat out ignoring it. I'm ignoring it because you are going from proof to faith or if you want to ue nicer terms the certanty of assumption. I suppose you are absolutely comfortable in your absolute assumption that god does not exist. I would call that "blind faith" in the non existance of god. Few people have blind faith.

I have faith that If I dropped down $5 at the next Mega Millions jackpot that I'm not going to win it. It's not blind faith, there is certan room for doubt, but I am fairly confident in my assumption that I'm not going to win it. I'm certanly not going to bet the family farm on it.

Which somehow doesn't seem like the right place to start talking about prayer. After all if god knows what we think and say before we think or say it, why are we thinking or saying it in the first place? But you don't think god exists why am I telling you this? Or is you blind faith in his non existance not as blind as you thought? Or perhaps you might be interested in certering prayer?

Are you still reading this? Is there any point to me writing this? Well even my faith here is far from blind. But I have enough faith and that is all I need.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Also, the problem with 'God stories' (as opposed to other similar folk-tales) is that they allege to explain something which we haven't yet found a conclusive scientific explanation for; which means that they're not flying in the face of completely overwhelming proof... merely in the face of gross improbability.

So what these 'God stories' you keep talking about?

Dancing Mustard wrote:All true of course... though I resisted the urge to slot 'Owlbears' in there. They were always my favourites y'see.

Personally I always like the rust monster. The monster was developed because Gary had this little plastic mini from a dinosaur toy set and wanted something to really scare his players.

There is an interesting little argument that all the "fey" stroies of europe are cases where a slightly advanced culture destroyed a weaker culture through genocide.

One could argue that a lot of the Greek stories of the gods were simply disuised rants against the current rullers of the day because if you were actually talking about them they would have killed you on the spot.

tzor wrote:Which somehow doesn't seem like the right place to start talking about prayer. After all if god knows what we think and say before we think or say it, why are we thinking or saying it in the first place? But you don't think god exists why am I telling you this? Or is you blind faith in his non existance not as blind as you thought? Or perhaps you might be interested in certering prayer?

I don;t know what certering is.. but hang on! there you go again! You decide what blind faith is, accuse me of having it and then question my having it at all!

Are you still reading this? Is there any point to me writing this? Well even my faith here is far from blind. But I have enough faith and that is all I need.

You have enough faith to what? Pray without having to twist yourself up in logical knots? if your belief in god isn't unwavering, then perhaps you should start qualifying your prayers.

As Dawkins wrote: I am agnostic about god's existence in the same way I am agnostic about fairies living at the bottom of my garden. Agnosticism is the only rational stance to take, but i have to be agnostic about the celestial teapot, too. There are degrees of probability, and the existence not just of a celestial creator, but one that impregnates virgins, turns women into salt and all the rest of it, is just.... nah. Don't be silly.
So yeah, it's a safe assumption for me to make. I assume it every day. I particularly love assuming it when I listen to xians who demand the rules of logic be observed at all times, too. That really is belly laugh irony right there.

tzor wrote:So what these 'God stories' you keep talking about?

I think he's talking about the mythical Pontius Pilate, Octavian, Herod, and people like that. The Roman Empire also was a myth.

heavycola wrote:

Are you still reading this? Is there any point to me writing this? Well even my faith here is far from blind. But I have enough faith and that is all I need.

You have enough faith to what? Pray without having to twist yourself up in logical knots? if your belief in god isn't unwavering, then perhaps you should start qualifying your prayers.

"We pray to you Oh God of Gods, whomever you may be."