I think Exilement's trying to save face.

Are you going to let that happen, Zed?

From this discussion, I think I've decided never to use any word again... ever... about anything. It makes my brain hurt. I'm going to stop talking.

Quote from Captain Cook

I think Exilement's trying to save face.

Are you going to let that happen, Zed?

Yup. I quoted him to say "this guy's getting it right".

*Exilement brofist*

Quote from Captain Cook

I think Exilement's trying to save face.

I promise I'll debate the absolute fuck out of zed as soon as we disagree about something.

I think the forum's new mission is to find a subject that Exilement and Zed disagree on.

This we shall, Fusion. this we shall.

We must construct a list of issues to debate, and send them both independently to Exilement and Zed, and they have to answer each question with yes or no. Then we get both replies, and put all the issues they disagreed on in one thread.

you guys are weird

Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and just shut up because I waited too long to open this thread again and now there's like 200 new posts. I have no idea where we are now. Let's make a topic where Zed and Exilement just state a bunch of their opinions; then they can either argue or make out.

Quote from TheRandomGrabber

there is close to 0 chance that a deity actually exists mate

Baseless assumption. Where are you getting this probability from?

So I take it the main argument against the 50/50 idea is that before the big bang is unknown, including the nature of the everything and its laws (in fact there really isn't a "before" the big bang because time didn't exist then), and therefore we can't conclude anything about its cause (if there is one)? And at the very least we can say that there could be infinite possibilities as to where this came from, and therefore god is one of many, many options?

Just clearing this up in my head.

Quote from Automaton

therefore we can't conclude anything about its cause

Kind of answered your own question there.

But, yes, you could get away with saying an infinite number of possibilities exist, which necessarily includes God and whatever is actually responsible for cosmogenesis.


I think you'd be better off wondering why you're spending so much time sorting out a statement that, quite literally, says nothing meaningful whatsoever.

Quote from 2-D

i stopped reading once i saw the giant walls of text

That was my basic reaction.

Whenever there are enough words on the page, they all turn to arabic.

It takes much more time and effort to formulate and type out those long arguments than it takes to read them. Just saying "hurr too many words, can't be bothered" is kind of insulting to the people who actually give a shit about this topic.

This is the debate section. If you don't want to debate, then kindly fuck off.

Unrelated, but how do you classify someone that answers the question of "do you believe in a god?" with "I don't know".

Now, these people would say they're agnostics, but as we've discussed in this thread, that is not what agnostic means.
The second option is to say these people are atheists as their not knowing means they lack a belief, which falls under the category of atheism.

However, my problem with this is that these people, unlike atheists, don't view the likelihood of a god existing to be probable or improbable. I have a friend who's like this and I said he was an atheist. He said "no I'm not, I don't believe that there isn't a god, I'm completely in the centre". While it's true that he does lack a belief in a god, I do think there is a meaningful distinction between someone like that and someone that believes a god probably doesn't exist. Sure, you can say there are strong/weak atheists, but I doubt he'd want to be considered an atheist at all considering he gives just as much credence to the idea of a god existing. Thoughts?