Cyprus-Forum.com

[Jerry]

I always thought speed cameras were a good idea - until yesterday. After 45 years of driving without any fines or endorsements I got a speeding ticket in the post, £60 plus three points for doing 38MPH in a 30 zone late at night in pouring rain. I did not see the signs but got a double flash and thought it was lightning. I only had the car a week and forgot it was much quicker and quieter than my old one. Apparently I can attend a course for naughty boys that speed and avoid the 3 points but it still costs me £30. I feel bloody sick about it because I was doing someone a favour at the time.

[Oracle]

I always thought speed cameras were a good idea - until yesterday. After 45 years of driving without any fines or endorsements I got a speeding ticket in the post, £60 plus three points for doing 38MPH in a 30 zone late at night in pouring rain. I did not see the signs but got a double flash and thought it was lightning. I only had the car a week and forgot it was much quicker and quieter than my old one. Apparently I can attend a course for naughty boys that speed and avoid the 3 points but it still costs me £30. I feel bloody sick about it because I was doing someone a favour at the time.

Do everyone a favour and quit speeding ....

(Those are killing speeds!)

[Oracle]

Is faith linked to intelligence?

I don't think it is. But perhaps (some) people of faith are less confident than others and need something they can 'rely on'? I don't know...

I've met many people who are devoted to their faith and still maintain a very sharp intellect. But there comes a time when every intelligent being must question their faith as science prove them wrong.

Generalisations don't work for individuals. They are just looking for trends to help establish root causes. Although by no means was it a scientific study. There are however more interesting studies which link a particular gene with belief, against observation (based on amputated limbs).

Although I identify myself with the Christian culture I'm not a devoted Christian. I wouldn't call myself an atheist. An agnostic perhaps. Each time I read the newspaper I see so much pain and suffering and I can simply not believe there is a God. I must admit that I would like a benevolent God to exist. I would like to know that there is a life after death too. I don't want to live my life and then just... well, die... like a burnt out candle. I think it's only human to want a life after death. Especially a life in heaven which is supposed to be... well, heavenly.

Philosophically I do believe agnosticism is a more powerful argument against either belief or atheism (the two extremes, both impossible to prove).

But what I want and what I think (or believe) is not necessarily the same thing.

I think you've put your finger on the most fundamental difference between having the cognitive ability to distinguish between wish fulfilment and observable phenomena.

However, when you look at the human body, or the bodily functions of any living creature. You only have to take a close look at a flower really. Look at how certain animals, plants etc in nature work in symbiosis with each other. Then it really makes you wonder. Was all these things created just by mere accident? Or is there some thought behind it all. Is there an biological engineering mastermind somewhere that created it all? It's an interesting philosophical question.

That's where as Humans, we can have spiritual awareness of the interconnectedness of everything.

Did you now it only takes about 500 years before the molecules from an average body, say William Shakespeare .... have distributed themselves around the globe evenly. So that if you were to drink a tumbler of water, there would be a very great chance you would swallow an atom that was once part of The Bard

I believe in evolution and Darwinism though. But... let's for arguments sake say there is a God. If God created Adam and Eve this lovely couple where nothing but primates. Human prototypes, alpha versions if you will. Then development of the product Human™ was outsourced to Mother Nature and her developer tool called natural selection. Several beta versions came. Version 1.0, Homo Erectus was released. It was pretty successful. A new version, code named 'project Neanderthal' was released. It failed as Mother Nature made the mistake to promote a far better competing product named Homo Sapiens pretty much simultaneously. Mother Nature also decided to release the small sized Homo Floresiensis which unfortunately failed miserably. Homo Sapiens was considered the ultimate product. But it has received some minor maintenance updates throughout the years mostly to adapt it to the international market and the environmental circumstances throughout the world.

This is where the fundamental religious doctrine falls down.

Christianity's central dogma is the Omnipotency of God .... by admitting he made mistakes as you outlined above, it does away with the need for a God ... full stop! If God made mistakes, he is not Omnipotent/Omniscient. Hence dispensable.

Joking aside, I have to admit that I've thanked God a couple of times (just in case, lol). Once I had a car accident. Someone rammed the side of my car. He was doing 100 km/h. My car was cut in half right behind me. I was very thankful that I could get out of the wreck and all body parts were in place. I've also thanked God that my children were born beautiful and healthy.

I still cross myself when the plane is about to take off

For the record, I do not consider myself less intelligent than the average person. And what is intelligence anyway? Should it be measured in IQ or EQ? I've scored very high on IQ tests. Does that make me intelligent? IQ gets you through school and EQ gets you through life. You need both in order to be successful.

Agreed wholeheartedly ....

[miltiades]

Oracle wrote:
"""""Philosophically I do believe agnosticism is a more powerful argument against either belief or atheism (the two extremes, both impossible to prove). """

The one impossible to prove is belief in the existence of a creator , atheism or non belief as I prefer to call it since atheism is generally associated with decadence , immorality , dishonourable contact and many more " negativisms " .
The non believer such as my self doesn't have to prove the non existence of a creator any more than he has to prove the non existence of martians in our city streets.

[paul1978]

oracle, you post a lot of rubbish about nothing on this forum.
You dont know much for being the "oracle".

[Oracle]

Oracle wrote:
"""""Philosophically I do believe agnosticism is a more powerful argument against either belief or atheism (the two extremes, both impossible to prove). """

The one impossible to prove is belief in the existence of a creator , atheism or non belief as I prefer to call it since atheism is generally associated with decadence , immorality , dishonourable contact and many more " negativisms " .
The non believer such as my self doesn't have to prove the non existence of a creator any more than he has to prove the non existence of martians in our city streets.

That's because you are a non-believer through dogmatism and not through logic ... like your other habitual oppositions.

Most rational people have the strength of mind to support their claims. As such offering agnosticism as a stand, since one accepts one has no proof, is sound.

However the belief you oppose (religion), is based on the dogma of being above evidence.

If you share the same right as the believers, in not requiring to show evidence .... then you are one and the same as the believers. That is that you are in fact a believer .... albeit as a believer in non-existence as opposed to a believer in the existence of a God. But fundamentally the same.

Hence you are as an atheist (without evidence), a true believer.

I dunno whatdya think?

[miltiades]

Oracle wrote:
"""""Philosophically I do believe agnosticism is a more powerful argument against either belief or atheism (the two extremes, both impossible to prove). """

The one impossible to prove is belief in the existence of a creator , atheism or non belief as I prefer to call it since atheism is generally associated with decadence , immorality , dishonourable contact and many more " negativisms " .
The non believer such as my self doesn't have to prove the non existence of a creator any more than he has to prove the non existence of martians in our city streets.

That's because you are a non-believer through dogmatism and not through logic ... like your other habitual oppositions.

Most rational people have the strength of mind to support their claims. As such offering agnosticism as a stand, since one accepts one has no proof, is sound.

However the belief you oppose (religion), is based on the dogma of being above evidence.

If you share the same right as the believers, in not requiring to show evidence .... then you are one and the same as the believers. That is that you are in fact a believer .... albeit as a believer in non-existence as opposed to a believer in the existence of a God. But fundamentally the same.

Hence you are as an atheist (without evidence), a true believer.

I dunno whatdya think?

Precisely wrong Oracle . It is applied logic that happens to be my guiding light in rejecting total nonsense that you my dear vociferously supported recently on this forum , using flying pigs to penetrate deep into Turkey !!
It is because I'm gifted , unlike you , with an abundance of this wonderful virtue called logic.
Here is an example : Directly after the Tsunami that killed over 300 thousand men women and children , an old lady , I believe in her late 70s was found clinging on to a tree some 11 or so days after the horrific events.
Immediately the International religious machines were proclaiming a MIRACLE !!!
The more illiterate a nation is the more rampant religious nonsense exist.
Check it out .
ps, THERE IS NO GO THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A GOD BUT THERE WILL BE ONE SOON !! WHEN IT HAPPENS I SHALL REJOICE

[Oracle]

Oracle wrote:
"""""Philosophically I do believe agnosticism is a more powerful argument against either belief or atheism (the two extremes, both impossible to prove). """

The one impossible to prove is belief in the existence of a creator , atheism or non belief as I prefer to call it since atheism is generally associated with decadence , immorality , dishonourable contact and many more " negativisms " .
The non believer such as my self doesn't have to prove the non existence of a creator any more than he has to prove the non existence of martians in our city streets.

That's because you are a non-believer through dogmatism and not through logic ... like your other habitual oppositions.

Most rational people have the strength of mind to support their claims. As such offering agnosticism as a stand, since one accepts one has no proof, is sound.

However the belief you oppose (religion), is based on the dogma of being above evidence.

If you share the same right as the believers, in not requiring to show evidence .... then you are one and the same as the believers. That is that you are in fact a believer .... albeit as a believer in non-existence as opposed to a believer in the existence of a God. But fundamentally the same.

Hence you are as an atheist (without evidence), a true believer.

I dunno whatdya think?

Precisely wrong Oracle . It is applied logic that happens to be my guiding light in rejecting total nonsense that you my dear vociferously supported recently on this forum , using flying pigs to penetrate deep into Turkey !!
It is because I'm gifted , unlike you , with an abundance of this wonderful virtue called logic.
Here is an example : Directly after the Tsunami that killed over 300 thousand men women and children , an old lady , I believe in her late 70s was found clinging on to a tree some 11 or so days after the horrific events.
Immediately the International religious machines were proclaiming a MIRACLE !!!
The more illiterate a nation is the more rampant religious nonsense exist.
Check it out .
ps, THERE IS NO GO THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A GOD BUT THERE WILL BE ONE SOON !! WHEN IT HAPPENS I SHALL REJOICE

Since there is also no evidence for the existence of applied logic in Miltiades, it is on a par with religious indoctrination.

You are the only faithful follower of Miltiadinism ... A Blind Cult based on turning wine into rhetoric

[Jerry]

I always thought speed cameras were a good idea - until yesterday. After 45 years of driving without any fines or endorsements I got a speeding ticket in the post, £60 plus three points for doing 38MPH in a 30 zone late at night in pouring rain. I did not see the signs but got a double flash and thought it was lightning. I only had the car a week and forgot it was much quicker and quieter than my old one. Apparently I can attend a course for naughty boys that speed and avoid the 3 points but it still costs me £30. I feel bloody sick about it because I was doing someone a favour at the time.

Do everyone a favour and quit speeding ....

(Those are killing speeds!)

And I suppose Mrs Bloody perfect has never driven even 1 mph above a speed limit. First time in 45 years you mouthy mare, I wonder how good your record will be in that time.

[miltiades]

Oracle wrote:
"""""Philosophically I do believe agnosticism is a more powerful argument against either belief or atheism (the two extremes, both impossible to prove). """

The one impossible to prove is belief in the existence of a creator , atheism or non belief as I prefer to call it since atheism is generally associated with decadence , immorality , dishonourable contact and many more " negativisms " .
The non believer such as my self doesn't have to prove the non existence of a creator any more than he has to prove the non existence of martians in our city streets.

That's because you are a non-believer through dogmatism and not through logic ... like your other habitual oppositions.

Most rational people have the strength of mind to support their claims. As such offering agnosticism as a stand, since one accepts one has no proof, is sound.

However the belief you oppose (religion), is based on the dogma of being above evidence.

If you share the same right as the believers, in not requiring to show evidence .... then you are one and the same as the believers. That is that you are in fact a believer .... albeit as a believer in non-existence as opposed to a believer in the existence of a God. But fundamentally the same.

Hence you are as an atheist (without evidence), a true believer.

I dunno whatdya think?

Precisely wrong Oracle . It is applied logic that happens to be my guiding light in rejecting total nonsense that you my dear vociferously supported recently on this forum , using flying pigs to penetrate deep into Turkey !!
It is because I'm gifted , unlike you , with an abundance of this wonderful virtue called logic.
Here is an example : Directly after the Tsunami that killed over 300 thousand men women and children , an old lady , I believe in her late 70s was found clinging on to a tree some 11 or so days after the horrific events.
Immediately the International religious machines were proclaiming a MIRACLE !!!
The more illiterate a nation is the more rampant religious nonsense exist.
Check it out .
ps, THERE IS NO GO THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A GOD BUT THERE WILL BE ONE SOON !! WHEN IT HAPPENS I SHALL REJOICE

Since there is also no evidence for the existence of applied logic in Miltiades, it is on a par with religious indoctrination.

You are the only faithful follower of Miltiadinism ... A Blind Cult based on turning wine into rhetoric

You are the scientist you try and fathom my superior and rather charismatic if I may say so multi potent logic , a dynamic and a stand for no nonsense acute logic !! Flying Pigs I ask you