dimreepr

I didn't say Nietzsche was wrong about "God is dead" when I said "not everything he said was gold", I simply meant I don't think he was right about some of the other things he wrote. I said I believe in the concept of Karma, there is a difference; The actions of a person in this life if negative, has negative consequences, but if positive then so are the consequences; Smile and the world smiles back, frown and the world turns it's back.

Not at all, I'm an atheist and don't believe in god/s pseudo or otherwise but I do see how it helps some people find peace; the reality of god/s is irrelevant when one is content. I'm not suggesting we've discussed Nietzsche, I assumed you were familiar with him and suggested you revisit his work along with our previous discourse. Edit: I'm sorry, I should've been more specific "God is dead", not everything he said was gold. As an aside, I believe in the concept of karma but not reincarnation.

Reincarnation/Karma is a pseudo god, by which I mean it seeks to provide succour to those that don't understand the benefits of forgiveness but are happy to be told. Your atoms can survive physical death but you can't. May I suggest, with all due respect, you revisit our previous correspondence and Nietzsche. Just a hint, when you understand why god is irrelevant, you understand why it's needed.

There's always another choice, with or without evidence.

That's your choice.

Again no, it means there's no assumption to be made.

No, the point is “what ever is lacking evidence ” is null.

When did 'Strange' suggest there was? You've read them all, right, 'disarray', understand Nietzsche, much?

how was Nietzsche wrong when he declared "God is dead"; the idea seems prophetic.

Sorry John but you're also missing my point: How do you know what will inform our future thinking? Religion changes all the time, new factions are always popping up with a new interpretations of the bible; that lacks understanding. No but someone started it.

The real step forward is in understanding why a “god” doesn’t matter.

You’re missing the point, science explains our current thinking, and religion explains our previous thinking, who knows what will explain our future thinking.

Last one tonight, promise...

And lets not forget these classics:

Both bands are well worth checking out, but the Pixies penned that song.

Awesome track, so well delivered.

How is a child gestated artificially, artificial?

Agreed given the number of elective C-section’s amongst women that have the option, I have no doubt this technology has a future. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/9796499/Why-50-per-cent-of-Chinese-women-are-opting-for-C-sections.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290672/The-hospitals-wealthy-mothers-posh-push-babies-delivered-caesarean-section.html

Whilst I do agree that neither side has the higher moral ground by default, I do have to conclude that tolerance is more often correct than a strict adherence to the traditional intolerant stance of the natural conservative; both views have merit and are necessary in a balanced society but a little more tolerance does go a long way in keeping the peace and lessoning extremes of attitude.

Given that this is a science forum, I really don’t see why navigating what is really only a side issue needs further clarification; as always in internet fora, if in doubt, just ask.

Why?

Bitch...

try this