For those Australians amongst us

Swastikas has nothing to do with nationalism, the Gods will punish you hard if you ever claim that again. You WILL feel their wrath.

 

The existence of god(s) has never been proven true, neither has it been proven untrue, therefore no one can know whether there is a god/gods or not, thus rendering us all agnostics. Calling all of us agnostic however is dumb, and therefore we are divided into groups by belief. Bree believes that there is one god [(which I presume is Yahweh), a belief that really doesn't work with any of the communist states we've seen this far by the way]. Frigo believes that there is no such thing as gods until such has been proven (I presume he also believes that proving such a thing is impossible because they do not exist).

Now unfortunately for you Bree, the burden of proof lies on you because if I were to claim that there was an invisible pink unicorn orbiting the moon, then no one would believe me unless I could prove it. And being that none of us really have any more reason to believe in a god than in the unicorn (reason: we've been told it's there) the alleged god must also be proved.

So when I say that the gods will punish you for claiming swastikas have anything to do with nationalism, I mean that Thor will crush your head with his hammer, and then nail you to a tree just like he did with your god. Now of course I can't prove any of this (except that swastikas has nothing to do with nationalism as swastikas existed long before nationalism existed), and I have no want to either because trying to prove the existence of a god is not only stupid but also impossible.

So fuck you and your mono-theistic religion bashing crap.

DISCLAIMER: I am an atheist.

 

I consider one of the main flaws with religious practice the fundamentalist approach seen in many believers, to whom proven scientic fact and common sense are inferior to, what they feel, is the perfect inerrancy of their divine scriptures.

Myself, I prefer to have an allegorical outlook on religious myth, rather than regarding it as historical fact. Noah's ark is a good example of this.

To sum up the story, about four millennia ago, Yahweh felt that mankind had gone terribly bad/crossbred too much with the nephilim depending on interpretation, and decided that the sons of a bitches were going down. However, he wanted the righteous to be spared, and just so it happens, the only ones righteous enough were Noah, his three sons and their wives. Yahweh revealed his plans for global omnicide to Noah and instructed him to build a 450' boat of gopher wood, whatever that is. Clearly the obedient sort, Noah spent the following 120 years building it (because back then, apparently people had lifespans compared to Tolkienesque elves).
Furthermore, Noah was instructed to take two of each land-dwelling animal on his vessel, except for the "clean" animals which he was to take seven of. With the boat built and loaded, Yahweh let loose the first rain ever, which must have been just a little bit more than a slight drizzle seeing as it managed to cover the entire Earth with enough water to put Mount Everest below the surface in a matter of forty days. After a year or so, the water receded and Noah landed with his ark somewhere in the mountains of Ararat, forming a new covenant with Yahweh, who gave us the rainbow to glare at.

As a myth, I think this is a great story, perhaps because I have such a weak spot for worldwide genocide. However, I would never dream of treating it as a historical fact. History is a science and science must be based on logic, and so void of logic is this story that it cannot be seriously regarded as a fact. First of all, collecting all the animals. Animals would have to travel from their natural habitats across the globe to Iraq, a feat not many animals would be even capable of, even if they had 120 years to do it. I'm not sure if the ark, given its measurements, could fit all the animals inside, especially when you factor in the supplies of food they'd have to bring. Unless the ark was fitted with some really high-tech gear, I find it highly improbable that many of the animals we see today would survive being locked up inside a boat for a year. It's also peculiar that when the boat landed, the animals would spread out back to their natural habitats, logically the penguins would never have made it back to Antarctica. In fact, most herbivores would go extinct seeing as there were only two of each, and loads of hungry carnivores.

This is only scratching the surface. I could go on forever, the point is that nifty things such as the theory of evolution does a better job of explaining why there are kangaroos in Australia rather than them having to jump all the way through Asia and swim the last bit.

Why I even bothered to write all this is beyond me, though I guess the hope for some frenzied debate was pushing me to it.

 

I'd say the chances are pretty 50-50. Unless it can be tested the odds are always 1:1.

Yes, there is no reason to believe anything we don't need.

As with all other religions Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is based on both fact s and faith. We know that it's invisible because we can't see it, and we have faith that it's pink.