Fleetops is for fun. Please leave religion out of here.
Not everyone is a Christian, nor does everyone find much difference in believing in God, or believing that he does not exist. Science itself is still adapting, and at each new discovery of Gas planets that can float on our oceans scientists find that the universe holds more wonders of which simple human-perception-governed science cares to take cognizance. One can "believe" that God exists or one can "believe" that God does not - in both cases people only choose a point of view to suit their own psychological/carnal needs. Neither can conclusively disprove the other.
Maybe when we have broken through the confines of our football shaped finite universe, and seen all that is out there, can we continue with the Hubris of this thread.
Otherwise it is just simple, and idle banter on a topic none of us here actually have the knowledge or acumen to fruitfully discuss.

Fleetops is for gaming. Please let's stick to gaming and enjoying here. For those interested in such intricate and controversial topics - visit Yahoo and chat there.

Now if we were to ask if we find the Borg ideals of oneness and lack of disunity to be admirable, or simply a deprivation of the basic uniqueness to which each living being is entitled, then hey, love to discuss that "morality" here. 

That's why we have a small talk section. There's one in most forums, you should know that. "Anything goes", so on and so forth.


Yet another "statement" without backup. Who said this? I've never met a person for whom this issue is irrelevant. Here's my "statement": Whether or not you believe in a God (particularly the Abrahamic God) has profound implications. Why? Because if you conceded that he exists then you have to find out his will. This affects your choice of career, whether or not you have a family, etc. I wish people would stop making baseless statements.


I couldn't agree more. This actually demonstrates the sheer arrogance of the religious people in believing they've got it all figured out. Your sentence summarizes everything I've been trying to say for the past several months. I certainly don't have the answers. However, I'm trying to purge all of this simplistic, absurd nonesense and non-thinking that occurs as a result of siding with a world religion. What is more, I won't allow anyone to try to stop me.


I take exception to this, and frankly I find it insulting. My "carnal" and psychological needs tell me there is a God, and I want to be close to him. However, unlike our happy-go-lucky friends here on the thread, I am not fooled by my own sentiment. When I examine nature, with it's visious polar bears, creepy parasites and deadly diseases, I know that God didn't create all that, and that the Genesis account is absurd, and requires much faster evolution than any scientists would try to claim. When I read the bible, and I read about slaughter and nationalism as well as rape and other vulgarities, I feel disgust. When I read it's contradictions, duplications and mistakes, my intellectual faculties tell me that it's not inspired on God. So please do not tell me that I decided the Judeo-Christian God isn't there in order to satisfy a carnal need. It is that need I fight against, using reason. And reason wins everytime.


Once again I agree unreservedly with your statement about our limited knowledge, and I think it's quite exciting actually. I think the whole planet should know that they don't need to believe in the horrors described in the bible, because reality is likely richer and more beautiful than they could ever imagine. The only "Hubris" in this thread comes frim those who declare that they're at one with a God that they do not even understand, and that may not even be personal or personable. Moreover, to take that theme further, they personify their deity because they are only capable of thinking in human terms. I view it as my life-long responsibility to get these people to expand their minds to other possibilities.


Here's an example of idle banter: "Jesus died on the cross for me, I'm one with him, I'm sorry you don't see that, you can take it or leave it".

Such sentences result in a fruitless dicsussion because not only is there no evidence to support the statement, but the person has also insulted the "non-believer" by implying that the reason he can't see his point of view is because he's wicked or lacks "holy-spirit". The truth is that such an arguer demonstrates clearly that he doesn't have God's wisdom at all, and that he has about as much holy spirit as a bowl of cornflakes.

If you carefully read my posts you will see that they are not idle banter, and I challenge you prove your assertions. In fact I challenge everyone to back up what they say instead of just saying stuff in declarative form. Why do I keep asking that? Why is it that everyone states something in opinionated from, such as "it is like this" or "it is like that" without bothering to explain why?

So serpicus, I agree with certain things you have said, but you won't drive me away from here. I'd love to "leave religion out of here", the very word religion to me is offensive because of what it represents (division amongst many other things). However I feel compelled to speak out against the folly of simplistic superstitious nonesense, and I'll do so until someone comes up with a golden argument to prove me wrong. So far, nobody has even come close. My opponents don't even try to tackle the naturalistic, cosmological, scientific and logical arguments, because they know that to do so is futile. So all they do is spout off more emotional garbage.

That's genius that is. I always knew you were a dark horse Smoerebroed.

I should point out that the above answer is, in fact, the best anyone's come up with so far. Quite sad really.

Urrrm, purply-blue with a black strip down the centre? 

Its Green and orange our eyes convert the colors in to blue and red. Every thing is not as it seems every time we think we know a truth is disproved by some new truth. So for us to say three no god is a little silly if we cant prove it.

But it very in plausible that a creator with supper human powers control the fate of every thing is very very very unlikely.

um the FSM was a humoristic approach by a US citizen (a scientist, if I'm correct) to criticize the fact that some states in the US allow teaching of creationism @ school.

what's the current status of the string theory?