TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Haha, God.
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Yeah, Ken Ham is a complete idiot - there's no denying that, and Dawkins is legitimately a brilliant man. It's just unfortunate he's such a douchebag zealot about it all. Oh well, "equal and opposite reaction" and all that jazz.

Good point. It's the zealot aspect that annoys the shit out of me.

i like dawkins' total and utter lack of respect for faith. makes me laugh.

who cares, no one will ever agree on this issue completely, why try to put each other down for feeling different ways?

quote:

Originally posted by prolikewhoa who cares, no one will ever agree on this issue completely, why try to put each other down for feeling different ways?

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...7&forumid=16&s=

quote:

Originally posted by prolikewhoa who cares, no one will ever agree on this issue completely, why try to put each other down for feeling different ways?

fuck off hippy.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i like dawkins' total and utter lack of respect for faith. makes me laugh.

I'd bump fists with you if I were in the same room

i'm not a hippie, i'm not saying let's all get along, i'm saying deal with it and quit bitching

quote:

Originally posted by prolikewhoa i'm not a hippie, i'm not saying let's all get along, i'm saying deal with it and quit bitching

Some of us enjoy the intellectual joust. So, leave us alone and go paint something rainbow and make lentils.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN fuck off hippy.

LOL... PKC's on point tonight!

engarde!

Is it safe to say that the last 9 pages were full of bullshit?

a little late, but there's only one way to respond to the Drake Equation.

Aw man, i miss all the good treads because of my stupid biological need to sleep. How can one believe in god when he's hindered by such a stupid need, that's just a bad creation decision but since god would be perfect he wouldn't have likely made such a mistake while creating his masterpiece so the other more plausible explanation is that this is all due to stupid evolution.

FUCK EVOLUTION!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN The argument that atheism is the same as theism is total BS.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira If they were the same, there would be nothing to argue about, would there?

Interesting train of thought you've started here, from my perspective at least. To me it seems that framing the debate in such a way where it's theism vs. atheism is wrong. Non-theism or something of the sort would be a better choice than atheism. As an analogy / example of what I'm getting at, I pose this question: Is the boogie man in the closet or is he not? Answering that he isn't would (or rather could be seen to) imply that he exists, just not in the closet. The correct way to frame it is FIRST does the boogie man exist, and if that is proven true, then one could explore where/how it acts/etc.
It seems, to me, that by framing it in the first way, as atheism vs. theism, both sides are given equal shares of the burden of proof. However, in accordance with the standard scientific method of inquiry and study, we are to assume first that something does not exist, until proven otherwise.

Basically, thats the way I see it. I have absolutely no logical reason to believe in god unless god's existence is first proven.

note: didn't mean to offend by using the boogie man as my example, just happened to be the second mythical character that popped into my head (and the abominable snowman seemed like it'd be annoying to type)

edit: props to lira, craig, yan, and pkc for one of the best religious discussions i've seen in a while

quote:

Originally posted by RJT How are you confused? Do we really need to have a c0r summary for everything? c0r Summary: The God of traditional western theology is viewed as omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent (all knowing, all seeing, all powerful). This is not compatible with free will because for our will to be free God cannot know what we're going to do next, nor can he stop us from doing it. There we go - and all I really wanted was Craig's opinion anyways.

cheers

quote:

Originally posted by mezzir As an analogy / example of what I'm getting at, I pose this question: Is the boogie man in the closet or is he not? Answering that he isn't would (or rather could be seen to) imply that he exists, just not in the closet.

Only if you treat "existence" as a property.

Since Kant's critique of the ontological argument most philosophers haven't done this.

quote:

The correct way to frame it is FIRST does the boogie man exist, and if that is proven true, then one could explore where/how it acts/etc.

Nooooo. The best way is to specify what characteristics we think the boogie man has, and then to examine whether some thing in our world has those characteristics -- whether the properties of a boogeyman are "instantiated."

If you want to conduct a productive inquiry into whether something exists, it seems to me that it's best to know first what you're looking for -- what properties you think the thing possesses. And if you have no reason to believe that those properties coincide in some real entity, then you have no reason to believe in the existence of the hypothetical thing that you specified as the coincidence of those properties, which I guess would be the three "omnis" in traditional ideas of God.

quote:

Originally posted by mezzir edit: props to lira, craig, yan, and pkc for one of the best religious discussions i've seen in a while

Uh, they wouldn't even be having this discussion if I hadn't started this thread! So really, I'm like God up in this bitch.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Uh, they wouldn't even be having this discussion if I hadn't started this thread! So really, I'm like God up in this bitch.

Don't hate cause you're jealous!

but what came first God or Humans?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.