RELIGION?

Why are you going on about aler-egos? I'm not Paxman, as I'm sure many of the members here will testify, seeing as they've met me in person.

Fair enough you just seemed to back him irrationally because There is a massive flaw in his view that science and religion are adversarial foes. Can you not see it?

Appologies. Although he does have alter -egos here doesn't he? Has anyone ever met him perhaps he's your alter-ego

Who is Jerry Springer? Do you mean Jerry Maguire?

Not worth getting into a discussion on this as nobody can conclusively prove it one way or the other. Everybody has their own beliefs. Some are religious and so have blind faith, some believe science provides all the answers, some believe we are reincarnated and some like Spiritualists believe you can actually speak to the dead.
Others on the other hand are sad enough to believe that if you stay on a forum for three quarters of your life you can win any arguement just by having the last word.

Was that an attempt to have the last word El Tel? Certainly had more than a whiff of the jerry springer 'final thought' about it, sorry if it was and i've subverted

A point of order, no scientist of any note would claim to have all the answers, or even 1 percent of the truth. Infact any serious scientist will tell there is no such thing as something being 100 percent predictable.

So the inevitability of death isn't predictable?

What scientists have you been speaking to?

Why are you going on about aler-egos? I'm not Paxman, as I'm sure many of the members here will testify, seeing as they've met me in person.

Fair enough you just seemed to back him irrationally because There is a massive flaw in his view that science and religion are adversarial foes. Can you not see it?

Appologies. Although he does have alter -egos here doesn't he? Has anyone ever met him perhaps he's your alter-ego

So what are my other alter egos?

And if science proves the earth isn't 6000 years old and that Adam and Eve weren't the first living things on earth how arent they adversaries?

Why are you going on about aler-egos? I'm not Paxman, as I'm sure many of the members here will testify, seeing as they've met me in person.

Fair enough you just seemed to back him irrationally because There is a massive flaw in his view that science and religion are adversarial foes. Can you not see it?

Appologies. Although he does have alter -egos here doesn't he? Has anyone ever met him perhaps he's your alter-ego

Religion and Any ideas of this almighty God is a load of bollocks in my eyes - the questions Paxman asks are all about proving the myths wrong.

I notice that many have argued that he's wrong, yet still cannot answer his questions.

Paxman is right. Totally spot on.

I notice some of you argue his claims, yet cannot answer any of his simple questions.

Says a lot.

His whole approach is wrong, he's not thought it through. Are you one of his psuedonyms? BTW

Yet you won't tell me otherwise. Not very Christian like of you is it.

I'm all ears.....

Who said i am Christian? yet another poorly thought out assumption? And no i won't be telling you, You can keep copying and pasting atheism 101 all day. It's completely missing the point, Although i would question your motives for doing so, To me you seem one of least sure of yourself & your own existence on this forum, the current 'paqxman' psuedonym, the almost pathological need to prove yourself via arguement, often with yourself using alter-ego. It's like you are so desperate for certainty, any hackneyed world view will do for you, just providing it offers a certainty. You're an Interesting subject and i love you for that.

I didnt assume you are a Christian I said its not very Christian like of you didnt I?

I haven't copy and pasted one thing (other than a youtube link) it should be easy to prove otherwise, ill await with baited breath. Although I assume you are lying once more. The rest of your text is nonsense really filled with assumption based on nothing.

I have given my opinion, notice the bold... MY opinion and based it with MY questions (notice the bold again) and based it on fact. You have held no opinion, decided you disagree with mine while providing no evidence at all.

Who is approaching this incorrectly again?

Still all ears...

Good grief, Honestly you need to seek help.

Paxman is right. Totally spot on.

I notice some of you argue his claims, yet cannot answer any of his simple questions.

Says a lot.

His whole approach is wrong, he's not thought it through. Are you one of his psuedonyms? BTW

Yet you won't tell me otherwise. Not very Christian like of you is it.

I'm all ears.....

Who said i am Christian? yet another poorly thought out assumption? And no i won't be telling you, You can keep copying and pasting atheism 101 all day. It's completely missing the point, Although i would question your motives for doing so, To me you seem one of least sure of yourself & your own existence on this forum, the current 'paqxman' psuedonym, the almost pathological need to prove yourself via arguement, often with yourself using alter-ego. It's like you are so desperate for certainty, any hackneyed world view will do for you, just providing it offers a certainty. You're an Interesting subject and i love you for that.

I didnt assume you are a Christian I said its not very Christian like of you didnt I?

I haven't copy and pasted one thing (other than a youtube link) it should be easy to prove otherwise, ill await with baited breath. Although I assume you are lying once more. The rest of your text is nonsense really filled with assumption based on nothing.

I have given my opinion, notice the bold... MY opinion and based it with MY questions (notice the bold again) and based it on fact. You have held no opinion, decided you disagree with mine while providing no evidence at all.

Who is approaching this incorrectly again?

Still all ears...

Good grief, Honestly you need to seek help.

So you can't answer them either then?

I couldn't care less what a scientist says - that was indeed 100% predictable.

Why are you going on about aler-egos? I'm not Paxman, as I'm sure many of the members here will testify, seeing as they've met me in person.

Fair enough you just seemed to back him irrationally because There is a massive flaw in his view that science and religion are adversarial foes. Can you not see it?

Appologies. Although he does have alter -egos here doesn't he? Has anyone ever met him perhaps he's your alter-ego

Religion and Any ideas of this almighty God is a load of bollocks in my eyes - the questions Paxman asks are all about proving the myths wrong.

I notice that many have argued that he's wrong, yet still cannot answer his questions.

Apparently anyone who asks these questions need to seek help

The fact he takes the trouble to re-invent himself once banned and then spends all his life on here confirms that theory beyond all reasonable doubt.

Not worth getting into a discussion on this as nobody can conclusively prove it one way or the other. Everybody has their own beliefs. Some are religious and so have blind faith, some believe science provides all the answers, some believe we are reincarnated and some like Spiritualists believe you can actually speak to the dead.
Others on the other hand are sad enough to believe that if you stay on a forum for three quarters of your life you can win any arguement just by having the last word.

Was that an attempt to have the last word El Tel? Certainly had more than a whiff of the jerry springer 'final thought' about it, sorry if it was and i've subverted

A point of order, no scientist of any note would claim to have all the answers, or even 1 percent of the truth. Infact any serious scientist will tell there is no such thing as something being 100 percent predictable.

So the inevitability of death isn't predictable?

What scientists have you been speaking to?

oH Go on i'll bite on this one

No death isn't inveitable, as we don't know for certain what will happen tommorow, so WRONG AGAIN, If we are talking in alsolutes facts, can you say weather the sun will rise tommorow? And yes i do want you to answer it.

The fact he takes the trouble to re-invent himself once banned and then spends all his life on here confirms that theory beyond all reasonable doubt.

So who are you assuming I was before and in what way have I been reinvented?

Surely the fact you assume I'm someone else proves that I carry the same beliefs as the poster(s) you think I was previously.

Think about it.

Not worth getting into a discussion on this as nobody can conclusively prove it one way or the other. Everybody has their own beliefs. Some are religious and so have blind faith, some believe science provides all the answers, some believe we are reincarnated and some like Spiritualists believe you can actually speak to the dead.
Others on the other hand are sad enough to believe that if you stay on a forum for three quarters of your life you can win any arguement just by having the last word.

Was that an attempt to have the last word El Tel? Certainly had more than a whiff of the jerry springer 'final thought' about it, sorry if it was and i've subverted

A point of order, no scientist of any note would claim to have all the answers, or even 1 percent of the truth. Infact any serious scientist will tell there is no such thing as something being 100 percent predictable.

So the inevitability of death isn't predictable?

What scientists have you been speaking to?

oH Go on i'll bite on this one

No death isn't inveitable, as we don't know for certain what will happen tommorow, so WRONG AGAIN, If we are talking in alsolutes facts, can you say weather the sun will rise tommorow? And yes i do want you to answer it.

So you will answer a question you believe you can answer

The fact you don't think death is 100% certain speaks volumes. Is the fact you were born 100% certain then?

You still haven't answered any of my other questions? Science proving the bible wrong, dinosaurs etc etc.

The sun never rises is the correct answer.

Just like blue always thought I was you too..

The fact he takes the trouble to re-invent himself once banned and then spends all his life on here confirms that theory beyond all reasonable doubt.

He's off his cake mate, yet almost certainly unaware of it.

The fact he takes the trouble to re-invent himself once banned and then spends all his life on here confirms that theory beyond all reasonable doubt.

He's off his cake mate, yet almost certainly unaware of it.

Yet you are unable to answer any question posed to you and are completely unable to explain your own opinion.

And you are questioning my compos mentis

Last edited by Paxman on Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:15 am, edited 2 times in total.

It is easy to tell the posters who are the same. Writing styles, frequency of posts, outlook, obsessive behaviour patterns and no i don't think you are the same person. You couldn't be more different.

It is easy to tell the posters who are the same. Writing styles, frequency of posts, outlook, obsessive behaviour patterns and no i don't think you are the same person. You couldn't be more different.

So if that is your belief then I haven't reinvented myself then have I?

Only your user name.

Not worth getting into a discussion on this as nobody can conclusively prove it one way or the other. Everybody has their own beliefs. Some are religious and so have blind faith, some believe science provides all the answers, some believe we are reincarnated and some like Spiritualists believe you can actually speak to the dead.
Others on the other hand are sad enough to believe that if you stay on a forum for three quarters of your life you can win any arguement just by having the last word.

Was that an attempt to have the last word El Tel? Certainly had more than a whiff of the jerry springer 'final thought' about it, sorry if it was and i've subverted

A point of order, no scientist of any note would claim to have all the answers, or even 1 percent of the truth. Infact any serious scientist will tell there is no such thing as something being 100 percent predictable.

So the inevitability of death isn't predictable?

What scientists have you been speaking to?

oH Go on i'll bite on this one

No death isn't inveitable, as we don't know for certain what will happen tommorow, so WRONG AGAIN, If we are talking in alsolutes facts, can you say weather the sun will rise tommorow? And yes i do want you to answer it.

So you will answer a question you believe you can answer

The fact you don't think death is 100% certain speaks volumes. Is the fact you were born 100% certain then?

You still haven't answered any of my other questions? Science proving the bible wrong, dinosaurs etc etc.

The sun never rises is the correct answer.

I didn't answer the question, i don't claim to have all the answers, i don't NEED a hackneyed version of 'certainty', that's your pathology.

Death is not 100 percent certain as is no future event, to think otherwise is irrational thinking. Now that really is a basic flaw in your thinking, and confirms you're not a deep thinker at all. As for refuting the notion of you using cliché...The dinosaur question your own is it?

Only your user name.

Well there we go then. If that is your belief I'm am continuing to exercise my right to post my views on a public domain. That's not reinventing myself.

You know who you are,
you know who you are.
Crazy Paxman,
you know who you are.

Not worth getting into a discussion on this as nobody can conclusively prove it one way or the other. Everybody has their own beliefs. Some are religious and so have blind faith, some believe science provides all the answers, some believe we are reincarnated and some like Spiritualists believe you can actually speak to the dead.
Others on the other hand are sad enough to believe that if you stay on a forum for three quarters of your life you can win any arguement just by having the last word.

Was that an attempt to have the last word El Tel? Certainly had more than a whiff of the jerry springer 'final thought' about it, sorry if it was and i've subverted

A point of order, no scientist of any note would claim to have all the answers, or even 1 percent of the truth. Infact any serious scientist will tell there is no such thing as something being 100 percent predictable.

So the inevitability of death isn't predictable?

What scientists have you been speaking to?

oH Go on i'll bite on this one

No death isn't inveitable, as we don't know for certain what will happen tommorow, so WRONG AGAIN, If we are talking in alsolutes facts, can you say weather the sun will rise tommorow? And yes i do want you to answer it.

So you will answer a question you believe you can answer

The fact you don't think death is 100% certain speaks volumes. Is the fact you were born 100% certain then?

You still haven't answered any of my other questions? Science proving the bible wrong, dinosaurs etc etc.

The sun never rises is the correct answer.

I didn't answer the question, i don't claim to have all the answers, i don't NEED a hackneyed version of 'certainty', that's your pathology.

Death is not 100 percent certain as is no future event, to think otherwise is irrational thinking. Now that really is a basic flaw in your thinking, and confirms you're not a deep thinker at all. As for refuting the notion of you using cliché...The dinosaur question your own is it?

So if nothing is certain and you don't claim to have the answers then how can you maintain I'm wrong?

The fact you asked will the sun rise, proves you aren't a deep thinker. It's a children's question.

Yes the dinosaur question is my own. Care to answer it? (By the way it's not a cliche, look it up)

"Death is not 100% certain"

Who do you know that isn't going to die then?!

"Death is not 100% certain"

Who do you know that isn't going to die then?!

Don't be silly chuckles, he's thought that through already. Apparently we never know whats going to happen tomorrow and someone can make ever lasting life in a can.

What he doesn't realise is, if that does happen then the notion of religion is out of the window as man created a way to block the judgements of God - which clearly wouldn't be able to happen.

So either way he's wrong.

"The fact you asked will the sun rise, proves you aren't a deep thinker. It's a children's question."

It's a classic philisophical question, Must have passed you by crazy-pax.

this really is it from me, all the best and i mean that


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem

The sunrise problem can be expressed as follows: "What is the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow?"

The sunrise problem illustrates the difficulty of using probability theory when evaluating the plausibility of statements or beliefs.

According to the Bayesian interpretation of probability, probability theory can be used to evaluate the plausibility of the statement, "The sun will rise tomorrow." We just need a hypothetical random process that determines whether the sun will rise tomorrow or not. Based on past observations, we can infer the parameters of this random process, and from there evaluate the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow......................

"The fact you asked will the sun rise, proves you aren't a deep thinker. It's a children's question."

It's a classic philisophical question, Must have passed you by crazy-pax.

this really is it from me, all the best and i mean that


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem

The sunrise problem can be expressed as follows: "What is the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow?"

The sunrise problem illustrates the difficulty of using probability theory when evaluating the plausibility of statements or beliefs.

According to the Bayesian interpretation of probability, probability theory can be used to evaluate the plausibility of the statement, "The sun will rise tomorrow." We just need a hypothetical random process that determines whether the sun will rise tomorrow or not. Based on past observations, we can infer the parameters of this random process, and from there evaluate the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow......................

It's not a philosophical question at all it's a probability question you plum It's a question to show someone thinking inside the box also.

If you were any sort of a thinker then you would give the answer I did. The sun doesn't rise, we only perceive it to rise. We move around it, not the other way around. Nice wiki cut and pasting though.

Bye now.

Last edited by Paxman on Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:36 am, edited 2 times in total.

Only your user name.

Well there we go then. If that is your belief I'm am continuing to exercise my right to post my views on a public domain. That's not reinventing myself.

Shouldn't laugh really

Only your user name.

Well there we go then. If that is your belief I'm am continuing to exercise my right to post my views on a public domain. That's not reinventing myself.

Shouldn't laugh really

I didnt, quite content in proving you wrong without the need to laugh. Although it is very hard to resist at times with your theory if ever lasting life and your probablility question which you mistakenly thought was philosophical completely blind to the fact that the sun doesn't rise at all.

As they say, you can't educate pork.

"Death is not 100% certain"

Who do you know that isn't going to die then?!

I notice this question was conveniently ignored too..

It may well be that none of the recognised religions in the world, past or present are based on a god that exists. That doesn't mean to say there isn't a god though. It a continual circle though, if there isn't a god then who made the universe etc? If there is a god then how did he come about?

Nobody has the answers and probably never will, hence those of a religious persuasion call it faith.