AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-03-28, 05:19   Link #641
Liddo-kun
Come on everyone
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nanairogaoka
Send a message via MSN to Liddo-kun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
He was asked repeatedly about this with no response. Frankly, it was pulled out of thin air (i.e. no source) as it has no basis. It also has so many grammatical problems that it isn't quite clear it means what it seems to mean. (the quote was: "yes also in buddhism it is also to rob a store as long as your not caught -.-")
Yeah, It's not believable at all. I think no religion would ever teach their followers that it's ok to keep robbing a store as long as you don't get caught.

Quote:
No, that was the *excuse* given for the treatment of Jews --- again, it traces back to greed and perceived injustice (some Jews in Germany WW2 were upper middle class and wealthy, many found work in the "white collar" banking sector - Hitler publicly blamed them for not having problems while the "average German" was crushed under their economic collapse after WWI).
Thanks for the clearup, what happened to the Jews wasn't really explained well back in my college days. All my history professor talked about is that they were Jews so Hitler wanted to eradicate them - didn't hear anything about the "perceived injustice".

Quote:
The Crusades were ALL about greed and the Church wanting control over trade routes and resources. Religion was simply used to round up the troops... (which should sound familiar to those watching a certain current war in creating the "Us vs Them" rhetoric).
Greedy, like the priests in Spice & Wolf.

I don't wish to get into another debate with the religious people posting on this thread, so I'll stop here.

Last edited by Liddo-kun; 2008-03-28 at 05:56.
Liddo-kun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 05:55   Link #642
-RK-
WoW addict
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Age: 31
Send a message via AIM to -RK- Send a message via MSN to -RK- Send a message via Yahoo to -RK-
I'm agnostic. Religon arguments are a source for e-drama btw.
__________________
-RK- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 13:15   Link #643
aka Providence
(; ,;) fthagn
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The End
Age: 25
Send a message via AIM to aka Providence Send a message via Yahoo to aka Providence
found this story/thingy on another forum. decided to post it here since me likey:

Quote:
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem Science has with God, The Almighty.He asks one of his new students to stand and…..

Prof: So you believe in God?

Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?

Student: Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student: Yes.

Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him.

Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn’t. How is this God good then? Hmm? (Student is silent)

Prof: You can’t answer, can you? Let’s start again, young fellow. Is God good?

Student: Yes.

Prof: Is Satan good ?

Student: No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student: From…God.. .

Prof: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student: Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything. Correct?

Student: Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?

(Student does not answer )

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?

Student: Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?

( Student has no answer)

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son…Have you ever seen God?

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

Student: No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him ?

Student: Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn’t.

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events .)

Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat,

But we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.

Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre .)

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?

Student: You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light….But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t.

If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure.

Sir, science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.

To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)

Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class is in uproar)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?

(The class breaks out into laughter)

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir.

With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room is silent . The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable. )

Prof: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it sir… The link between man & god is FAITH .

That is all that keeps things moving & alive………………
__________________
"If the Gods could build me a ladder to the heavens, I'd climb up the ladder and drop a big elbow on the world."
--Cactus Jack
aka Providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 13:26   Link #644
oompa loompa
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 28 37', North ; 77 13', East
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by aka Providence View Post
found this story/thingy on another forum. decided to post it here since me likey:
by apj abdul kalam if im not mistaken.. atleast thats who it was supposed to be by where i read it.. which was on Y!A i think pathetically enough .. though whether kalam actually said it or not will forever remain a mystery lol
oompa loompa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 13:40   Link #645
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
I've seen variations on that (and debunks) and it has so many logical flaws (not to mention the puppet, I mean professor, issues) .... I'm not going to waste my limited energy, but I'll label it a classic "strawman" easy-to-knock-down "wrong" argument play and move on.

Last edited by Vexx; 2008-03-28 at 16:23.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 14:46   Link #646
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liddo-kun View Post
Well, I partly agree with your post. Jews were massacred in WWII simply because they were Jews.
I mentioned before that Judaism is a religion as well as a culture. This is a duality that isn't easily understood because you don't usually find a religious term being used to describe a non-religious culture (and even though I'm living it, I don't claim a 100% understanding).

According to my upbringing, religious services, and history, Jews have almost always been persecuted. In medieval Europe they were ostracized perhaps partly because they weren't Christian, but largely because of their success. There are many stereotypes about "greedy Jews" or "evil banker Jews" and it may stem from this: Jews were some of the first bankers, and were very wealthy. My own biased history explains that Jews have always been envied because of their successes, but I don't know whether that's really true.

Either way, this ostracism was partially what led to the Jewish culture growing and becoming incredibly unique. Jews were scattered across Europe (and other regions) but they always retained Jewish elements, and this made it easy to single them out. The term "ghetto" in modern times describes a slum of sorts, but ghettos used to be those community areas where Jews were allowed to live. In at least one town (which I had to write a research paper on) Jews were relegated to the ghettos for their own protection - the townspeople wanted to be rid of the Jews (believing that they were evil and so on - there have been numerous demonizations of the Jewish people by non-Jews throughout history), but the town leader recognized that they were necessary for the town's economic prosperity, and so sent them to their own special area to avoid strife.

The Holocaust wasn't terribly different. It wasn't religious persecution, but group hatred. One of Hitler's goals was to secure the domination of the Aryan race*, and he set about doing this by ethnic cleansing and eugenics. Even though the Jews are most commonly focused on perhaps because they suffered the heaviest loss of life as a group, don't forget that Hitler also targeted other groups, including gypsies. If you want to argue that religion is to blame for making the Jews seem different as a cultural group than any other group, I suppose you could be right. If you think about your own experiences you'd probably realize that humans are very good at finding similarities and differences and making divisions based on those, and religion isn't the sole dividing factor.

*Hitler viewed the Aryan race as the stereotypical German - someone with white skin, blue eyes, and blonde hair. He felt that the Aryans were the supreme human race. In reality, the term Aryan identifies people from the Middle East - people of a darker skin tone, dark hair, and dark eyes.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 16:18   Link #647
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
aka Providence: if it was a boxing match... I'd give the win to the strawman. Though it'd be by points rather than KO.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 18:35   Link #648
twkiwilee
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by aka Providence View Post
found this story/thingy on another forum. decided to post it here since me likey:
Don't get to high and mighty, beause the professor does not know how to answer that new student's questions/ statements.

And here are some examples that I believe are also "flawed"

Quote:
To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
I don't agree, death is part of life/ the cycle of life.

Quote:
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour,
I don't agree, surely Charles Darwin had already observed the process of evolution, and he just wrote it down in a book so to make our lives easier, instead having us "observe" evolution--that's a silly thing to do, but you can and it can be done within our lifespan.

Quote:
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir.
Well, the person who wrote this "play" certainly forgot that hundreds of people have seen a human brain each day (doctors..etc.), and even back in the old days when the Eqyptians do mummification. Maybe the writer forgot to point out that the professor can be a "doctor" too?

Now that's a bad example/ "support"


And with all the words in bold, the students have used some extreme words.
twkiwilee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 18:47   Link #649
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by twkiwilee View Post
I don't agree, surely Charles Darwin had already observed the process of evolution, and he just wrote it down in a book so to make our lives easier, instead having us "observe" evolution--that's a silly thing to do, but you can and it can be done within our lifespan.
...
Well, the person who wrote this "play" certainly forgot that hundreds of people have seen a human brain each day (doctors..etc.), and even back in the old days when the Eqyptians do mummification. Maybe the writer forgot to point out that the professor can be a "doctor" too?

Now that's a bad example/ "support"
I think a lot of people read that post (I've seen it before too, by the way) and get hung up on some technicalities and miss the point.

In the case of evolution, the point is that there is an element of faith in it. Even if I prove evolution with a species of insect or with bacteria, people could argue that it doesn't scale up. How can you prove that humans came from monkeys? Well, we can do all sorts of fancy stuff these days - genetic testing, examining morphological changes in bone structure from fossils, etc. but when it comes down to it you didn't see it, these scientific explanations are proof-based explanations (to use a more offensive term, guesses) of what happened, and you're just choosing to accept them.

With regard to the brain statement, if the professor didn't have a brain he wouldn't be alive in front of you where he is. He could have been born without a brain, but he probably would have been dead on the spot, not lived very long, or (with an extremely basic brain) lived as a mentally disabled person and probably not made it to a professor position. (That one is ripe for jokes, but I'll refrain.) So we know based off of physiology, statistics, and numerous other fields that the professor must have a brain. But again, have you seen it? If not, then you are claiming that you know it exists based on other information, and you have faith in the credibility of that information.

When I first read that post I was a bit awed by it, but it's really not that earth-shattering and it's not worth getting upset over. You could argue against it but the end message is that just because God can't be proven doesn't mean you can't believe in Him; just as you take what your science textbook says on faith (and it is faith; countless experiments went into what's written there but you didn't perform or directly observe the experiments yourself - you are putting credibility in the works of others), man believes in God based on faith. Nothing we didn't already know.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 18:58   Link #650
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
No, no, I believe the messages of this story are these:
- Atheists, especially men of science and teachers, are assholes. Rather than do their jobs, they prefer proselytizing and abusing their positions to put believers on the spot and attack their faiths.
- Also, they're idiots.
- There is really no point in thinking about God. It's God. Move along.
- The scientific method is, ultimately, no better than taking a guess and saying "it's so". In that, it's exactly like religion.

Or maybe the story was written by an atheist in a Machiavellian plan to make believers look bad, and the messages are:
- boy, those silly theists sure like their strawmen, uh?
- religious people don't understand science at all.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 19:05   Link #651
KholdStare
ISML Technical Staff
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 25
Send a message via AIM to KholdStare Send a message via MSN to KholdStare
Quote:
Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?

(The class breaks out into laughter)

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir.

With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room is silent . The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable. )

Prof: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it sir… The link between man & god is FAITH .
I think that's the whole point to that long post, so if you only look at that, it's flawed. That's like saying "I can't perform CPR, so everyone right now on Earth who choke will die." Someone with the means can see into the professor's brain somehow, but no matter what technology you use, you cannot see God (or Buddha, Satan, or whatever you believe in, just to be unbiased). The student's argument is the most flawed.
KholdStare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 19:10   Link #652
twkiwilee
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
I think a lot of people read that post (I've seen it before too, by the way) and get hung up on some technicalities and miss the point.
No No, I didn't miss the point.

But that just brought me up a question, How does God explain dinosaurs? or are there such creatures as that?and if there are dinosaurs, why does God create them and then destroy them? or did God really created the dinosaurs too?

Quote:
But again, have you seen it?
Heck yes I've seen them, but not just a brain, but a heart and liver too. Yep.

Quote:
When I first read that post I was a bit awed by it, but it's really not that earth-shattering and it's not worth getting upset over.
I'm not upset, but just disappointed at the given arguments/statements.
twkiwilee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 19:13   Link #653
tripperazn
Toyosaki Aki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by twkiwilee View Post
I don't agree, surely Charles Darwin had already observed the process of evolution, and he just wrote it down in a book so to make our lives easier, instead having us "observe" evolution--that's a silly thing to do, but you can and it can be done within our lifespan.
He didn't "observe" evolution, he saw several similar species that occupied slightly different ecological niches and connected the dots with logic, there is no human being with a long enough lifespan who can really observe evolution on a large scale that results in significant physiological or anatomical changes.

Then again, let's not even pretend that that anecdote is logically or factually water-tight, it just isn't. But that isn't the point of it at all.
__________________
tripperazn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 19:15   Link #654
twkiwilee
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by KholdStare View Post
you cannot see God (or Buddha, Satan, or whatever you believe in, just to be unbiased). The student's argument is the most flawed.
May I ask, do you know Buddha?
Do you know Buddha or Siddhartha (or the person I think you are implying) is actually a real human? who died at the age of 80?

But I do agree the student's argument is bad, should make a better one.
twkiwilee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 19:34   Link #655
twkiwilee
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
No, no, I believe the messages of this story are these:
- Atheists, especially men of science and teachers, are assholes. Rather than do their jobs, they prefer proselytizing and abusing their positions to put believers on the spot and attack their faiths.
- Also, they're idiots.
- There is really no point in thinking about God. It's God. Move along.
- The scientific method is, ultimately, no better than taking a guess and saying "it's so". In that, it's exactly like religion.

Or maybe the story was written by an atheist in a Machiavellian plan to make believers look bad, and the messages are:
- boy, those silly theists sure like their strawmen, uh?
- religious people don't understand science at all.
Now that is just plain mean, calling men of science and teachers "assholes" and "idiots." If you really believe they are, then I suggest to never visit a medical clinic or a hospital or a pharmacy again. Not just that, you should never go to any aquarium and use any technological related inventions, such as your computer. I suggest to throw your computer or notebook away right now.

And are you saying that I'm an Atheist? I don't quite agree that I'm an Atheist, but not just that, making people who are Atheists look like they are the bad people.

But my notion is this: We don't need God and evolution; thus I agree with you that we should just "move along."
twkiwilee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 19:37   Link #656
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Twkiwilee, Anh is just pointing out what a disingenuous piece of tripe that little parable is. He's not being mean... the parable itself is misleading.

Really, that little play should be tossed in the trash. It really doesn't do either point of view any favors. Both sockpuppets end up looking stupid at the end.

But seriously, One cannot equate rational "faith" with irrational "faith". Rational faith in a set of ideas is continuously subjected to both ongoing measurements and logical deduction. The ideas themselves are modified if conflicting data cannot be reconciled.

Irrational faith in a set of ideas just doesn't follow a similar path. The revealed set of ideas will not be adjusted if contradictory measurements are taken -- in fact, measurements are discouraged. In Western religions especially, but even in Buddhism, you cannot achieve enlightenment through a rational process. It is an epiphany without analysis, or finding something by not looking for it.

Conflating the two ways is a disservice to both methodologies.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 19:46   Link #657
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by KholdStare View Post
I think that's the whole point to that long post, so if you only look at that, it's flawed. That's like saying "I can't perform CPR, so everyone right now on Earth who choke will die." Someone with the means can see into the professor's brain somehow, but no matter what technology you use, you cannot see God (or Buddha, Satan, or whatever you believe in, just to be unbiased). The student's argument is the most flawed.
I don't really get the analogy, but I also contest the last part. With the current technology and what we know now, we can't see God. There's a lot to learn about the universe. As we understand more and more, we may gain a clearer understanding of what God is, or we may find that everything really can be explained as not related to God and that God is clearly a made-up idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by twkiwilee View Post
No No, I didn't miss the point.

But that just brought me up a question, How does God explain dinosaurs? or are there such creatures as that?and if there are dinosaurs, why does God create them and then destroy them? or did God really created the dinosaurs too?
In the original post the professor asks the student similar questions, and the student doesn't reply. Again, the point of the post was not to provide a solid answer to statements like that, but to state that the link between man and God is faith - belief that isn't really reason-based. If you want to take it a step further you could claim that the student's point is that such questions show a misunderstanding of God.

Quote:
Heck yes I've seen them, but not just a brain, but a heart and liver too. Yep.
You misread me. In the example, the student asks if anyone has seen not just any brain, but the professor's brain. If you haven't seen it, how do you know it's there?

I will repeat what I said before: you know it's there due to physiology and a multitude of other fields, but that shows the point - you are basing what you know off of other knowledge rather than direct observation. You are putting your faith in that knowledge to be correct without having observed it yourself. Vexx makes a good point about different faith types (irrational and rational), but the idea that you operate and accept things without having observed them yourself (which in a crude sense is what a religious person does in their notions of God) is really the core idea here.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 20:21   Link #658
twkiwilee
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Vexx and Ledgem:

I raise a white flag. You guys made me understand more.
twkiwilee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 20:27   Link #659
KholdStare
ISML Technical Staff
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 25
Send a message via AIM to KholdStare Send a message via MSN to KholdStare
Quote:
Originally Posted by twkiwilee View Post
May I ask, do you know Buddha?
Do you know Buddha or Siddhartha (or the person I think you are implying) is actually a real human? who died at the age of 80?

But I do agree the student's argument is bad, should make a better one.
Actually since my family is Buddhists, I do. However, Mozart is also a real human. If you're attacking me about some technically about Buddha, then you're completely missing the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
I don't really get the analogy, but I also contest the last part. With the current technology and what we know now, we can't see God. There's a lot to learn about the universe. As we understand more and more, we may gain a clearer understanding of what God is, or we may find that everything really can be explained as not related to God and that God is clearly a made-up idea.
Ah, let me explain more then. The student claims that because the class cannot see into the professor's brain, it doesn't exist. The class is 0.0000000000000000000000001% of all the people on Earth. Just because I can't save a life because I don't know CPR, that doesn't mean other people can't, just like there are people who can take an X-Ray of the professor's brain or use some weird technology to see it.
KholdStare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-28, 20:38   Link #660
macguy
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Age: 22
Send a message via AIM to macguy
My position is a bit difficult... While at times I can come accross as a christian in regards to my philosophy, this is not the same as accepting Christianity as something I'd be willing to follow. I view Christianity as true, yet I don't wish to follow it as a religion. Perhaps I adopt the religion because it is such an intellectually satisfying view. Well I suppose atheism could be viewed as satisfying to a degree but I find Christianity to be more in depth due to it's supposed problems. When one really thinks about the issues, there are various justifications and logical reason for adopting the coherency of theism. All atheism does is present a bunch of attacks on a particular religion with their rhetorical statements such as the Flying Spaghetti monster that makes their arguments laughable in my opinion. Hence I take the other position to think deeper about issues rather than waving off other religions with cheap rhetoric. This being especially applicable to Richard Dawkins...

Then again, it's not fair to label all atheists as non-intellectuals as in fact I toyed with it for a year and had some interesting arguments against god's existence.. But for the most part, I still didn't find it intellectually satisfying to keep me thinking. So I decided to take the other side to tackle all the problems... That way I won't be bored of just waving god off to atlantis.
macguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
not a debate, philosophy, religion

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:55.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.