|
God (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Yeah, de-humanization of your opponent is not at all exclusive to any political or religious agenda whatsoever; everyone does it. It's so much easier to rally people into agreeing with you in the droves required to appropriate the appearance of progression when you demonstrate the opposition as commies, fascists, godless immoralists, the delusional, the retarded, etc.
"THOSE people killed Jesus, and control the media and were behind 9/11!vote for me"
"THOSE people were responsible for the Crusades, and the Inquisition, and Amway/Blackwater! vote for me"
"THOSE people don't understand morality because they neglect the power of God in their lives! vote for me"
Obviously, the one to side with is the one doing the most effective -painting. Via negativa. |
Exactly my point. If one relies on the assumption that there is a God, then there is no more need for intellectual violence than were one to believe such an entity could not exist. It's certain that logic does exist and that conclusions can be drawn from its employment. To defy logic is to deny the validity of one's position, regardless of what you believe. In essence, the ad hominem, deduced, implied, or simple, immediately forfeits the right to claim your position is reasonably argued, let alone reasonable, at all. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Sure, but fun also exists. Can't discount fun.
You're not insulting fun, are you? |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Sure, but fun also exists. Can't discount fun.
You're not insulting fun, are you? |
Fun is a tool the devil uses to make evil seem good.
Living a joyless, stoic existence free from the burden of sin is how I know I'm close with Jesus and far away from the sinful, filthy, glutinous riffraff who I take great pride in looking down on.
That's my idea of fun! |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| Gee, heaven must be quieter than a law school library. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
It has better acoustics, so there's no pesky sonic reflection every time you turn a page in the book.
And there's only one book. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
It has better acoustics, so there's no pesky sonic reflection every time you turn a page in the book.
And there's only one book. |
What book is that? |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
What book is that? |
It used to be Atlas Shrugged, but now it's Catcher in the Rye.
Gabriel finally got tired of Rand's over-simplified characters and thought Salinger a bit more nuanced. |
|
|
| yukii |
| HEY, I like Catcher in the Rye :mad: |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by yukii
HEY, I like Catcher in the Rye :mad: |
Women. They always be liking boring books. They kill me.
Except for Rand. She threw a fit. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| Oh, I thought it was the Book of Life. -_- |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Oh, I thought it was the Book of Life. -_- |
For four months, in 1965, it was a Russian organic chemistry textbook. |
|
|
| Znack |
| quote: | Originally posted by ken_lee
how do you know that? can you prove that it is unreasonable to believe in something without evidence? |
Very, very easy.
A: reason = ability to think clearly, assess situations properly and make wise decisions.
B: evidence = something which establishes the truth or authenticity of a claim or a phenomenon.
Source: The Danish Dictionary, ordnet.dk
C: Emotions and senses are not reliable to determine authenticity, because we know that our senses can easily be wrong (hallucinations) and that emotions in and of themselves can not convey information about what they mean.
To judge a situation correctly and take a "wise" decision, it is necessary to assess the authenticity of the circumstances. Since evidence is all we have, that can assess the authenticity objectively, they are necessary for reason.
- Another thing entirely is that we can not know 100% for sure with evidence when the evidence must also be interpreted by the senses - but this is not a problem. Nothing can be known 100% sure, but by repeating an experiment again and again, we can get as close as possible, which nothing else can.
| quote: | Originally posted by ken_lee
"god" as some call it is all around you, you just need to look at it differently. |
Pink, invisible unicorns are all around you, you just need to look at it differently. Do you believe in them now?
That is not how it works. Explain to me how they can be perceived. |
|
|
|
|
