Enquiry: Harvard and Ali G
-
Why? He has clearly understood the concept of religion, and why it is bad for the individual.
-
Why? He has clearly understood the concept of religion, and why it is bad for the individual.
Trust me, I'm a non-believer. That sorts things out for me, heh! ;)
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
By the look of your sig you seriously need to read this book[^].
Why the hell would anyone want to escape reason? Yeah, Aquinas was a great man and did wonderful things. :doh: Maybe you seriously need to read [^]?
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
What book do you recommend for my sig?
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove and evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... yeah, makes perfect sense.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
By the look of your sig you seriously need to read this book[^].
Why the hell would anyone want to escape reason? Yeah, Aquinas was a great man and did wonderful things. :doh: Maybe you seriously need to read [^]?
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
Tim Craig wrote:
Why the hell would anyone want to escape reason?
Read the book and find out. BTW Over 50% of under 18's in UK survey data now say they do not believe in the existence of truth. Insanity is the new religion of the masses and rationalists and atheists like yourself are so busy accusing Christians of messing with people minds they have missed the demise of the entire relevance of their own religion. The irony is that the internally consistent, however wrong, position of rationalist atheists is now closer to fundamentalist Christianity than it is to the main stream of public attitudes. It holds definite beliefs and is prepared to stand up for them. Takes logical argument seriously and is dismayed by broken thinking and weak reasoning.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
What book do you recommend for my sig?
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove and evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... yeah, makes perfect sense.
The Bible of course. It's always best to understand what you're saying before saying it rather than suddenly realizing what you said after you already said it. Believe me I should know :laugh: -- modified [spiling mistail] at 10:18 Tuesday 27th November, 2007
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Why? He has clearly understood the concept of religion, and why it is bad for the individual.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
He has clearly understood the concept of religion, and why it is bad for the individual.
To the same degree that you have, for sure.:doh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Why the hell would anyone want to escape reason?
Read the book and find out. BTW Over 50% of under 18's in UK survey data now say they do not believe in the existence of truth. Insanity is the new religion of the masses and rationalists and atheists like yourself are so busy accusing Christians of messing with people minds they have missed the demise of the entire relevance of their own religion. The irony is that the internally consistent, however wrong, position of rationalist atheists is now closer to fundamentalist Christianity than it is to the main stream of public attitudes. It holds definite beliefs and is prepared to stand up for them. Takes logical argument seriously and is dismayed by broken thinking and weak reasoning.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
BTW Over 50% of under 18's in UK survey data now say they do not believe in the existence of truth
Unless you can provide a source... C'mon, you know better than that: statistics tell us that 84% of your posts are purist nonsense.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The irony is that the internally consistent, however wrong, position of rationalist atheists is now closer to fundamentalist Christianity than it is to the main stream of public attitudes. It holds definite beliefs and is prepared to stand up for them. Takes logical argument seriously and is dismayed by broken thinking and weak reasoning.
Have you been smoking weed again? You do come out with some nonsense: besides, if you are a fundamentalist that is your cross to bear: leave us poor faithless atheists out of it and stop trying to rationalise your irrational position with ours cos ours at least makes sense. You don't, for instance, get many atheists trying to prove that god doesn't exists because the banana is a perfect fit for the human hand.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
BTW Over 50% of under 18's in UK survey data now say they do not believe in the existence of truth
Unless you can provide a source... C'mon, you know better than that: statistics tell us that 84% of your posts are purist nonsense.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The irony is that the internally consistent, however wrong, position of rationalist atheists is now closer to fundamentalist Christianity than it is to the main stream of public attitudes. It holds definite beliefs and is prepared to stand up for them. Takes logical argument seriously and is dismayed by broken thinking and weak reasoning.
Have you been smoking weed again? You do come out with some nonsense: besides, if you are a fundamentalist that is your cross to bear: leave us poor faithless atheists out of it and stop trying to rationalise your irrational position with ours cos ours at least makes sense. You don't, for instance, get many atheists trying to prove that god doesn't exists because the banana is a perfect fit for the human hand.
digital man wrote:
You don't, for instance, get many atheists trying to prove that god doesn't exists because the banana is a perfect fit for the human hand.
That's a better case than most I've seen from such :laugh: My position is just one step more rational than yours. I admit that all rationalisations have to based on unprovable assumptions. You have to deny this or admit to your assumptions. Mine are that God exists and that his character is what he says it is. All evidential data comprising the entire universe past and present matches perfectly with these assumptions so they are as sound as you can scientifically get, along with being as fundamental as you can possibly get. In the end my assumptions are better than yours and your logic no better than mine so who is right?:laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
digital man wrote:
You don't, for instance, get many atheists trying to prove that god doesn't exists because the banana is a perfect fit for the human hand.
That's a better case than most I've seen from such :laugh: My position is just one step more rational than yours. I admit that all rationalisations have to based on unprovable assumptions. You have to deny this or admit to your assumptions. Mine are that God exists and that his character is what he says it is. All evidential data comprising the entire universe past and present matches perfectly with these assumptions so they are as sound as you can scientifically get, along with being as fundamental as you can possibly get. In the end my assumptions are better than yours and your logic no better than mine so who is right?:laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Congratulations, you just joined the dominant paradigm, escaped from reason, and denied yourself while promoting yourself to the position of singular deity, all in one sentence.:omg::doh::laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Congratulations, you just joined the dominant paradigm, escaped from reason, and denied yourself while promoting yourself to the position of singular deity, all in one sentence.:omg::doh::laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
As a solipsist I can do whatever I want.
-
As a solipsist I can do whatever I want.
Indeed, you can even go on believing that the universe is playing along with you went it isn't. Next time you step out in front of a speeding bus or train and it magically passes through you or miraculously stops instantaneously let me know. While you're at it would you mind believing in a 7 figure balance in my current account, just for a week or two. My cash flow could really do with it. :laugh: Reality is a hard task master but the truth will make you free :-D
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
By the look of your sig you seriously need to read this book[^].
Why the hell would anyone want to escape reason? Yeah, Aquinas was a great man and did wonderful things. :doh: Maybe you seriously need to read [^]?
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
I checked out the book link and was amused by the top review. The reviewer shouts "ATHEISM IS NOT A PROOF THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. INSTEAD IT IS THE ASSERTION THAT THEISM DOES NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD." To which the quite obvious answer is, Theism in not a proof that God exits. Instead it is the assertion that he does and furthermore that his existance and revealed character is 100% consistent with all observed phenomena. It is positive, predictive, functional and useful, unlike atheism which is empty, fails by definition to increase knowledge because a negative cannot be proved, is non predictive, non functional and at odds with the experiences of billions of people. Case dismissed :-D
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
By the look of your sig you seriously need to read this book[^].
Why the hell would anyone want to escape reason? Yeah, Aquinas was a great man and did wonderful things. :doh: Maybe you seriously need to read [^]?
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
:laugh: That book trashes Aquinas into oblivion. On the other hand, Aquinas posses as much reason as Illion, so for someone like George Smith, it was probably very relaxing to do it.
-
digital man wrote:
You don't, for instance, get many atheists trying to prove that god doesn't exists because the banana is a perfect fit for the human hand.
That's a better case than most I've seen from such :laugh: My position is just one step more rational than yours. I admit that all rationalisations have to based on unprovable assumptions. You have to deny this or admit to your assumptions. Mine are that God exists and that his character is what he says it is. All evidential data comprising the entire universe past and present matches perfectly with these assumptions so they are as sound as you can scientifically get, along with being as fundamental as you can possibly get. In the end my assumptions are better than yours and your logic no better than mine so who is right?:laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
You show greatly how little you understand the concept of being rational, and use reason.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
In the end my assumptions are better than yours and your logic no better than mine so who is right?
Your odds are infinitesimal. Mine aren't.
-
You show greatly how little you understand the concept of being rational, and use reason.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
In the end my assumptions are better than yours and your logic no better than mine so who is right?
Your odds are infinitesimal. Mine aren't.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Your odds are infinitesimal. Mine aren't.
Based on the limitations of the knowledge that you have, I have no doubt. That has nothing to do with my reasoning which is based on knowledge that you deny or are ignorant of. By basing your understanding of reason itself within the limits of your own ignorance you prove my point that reason is not absolute or self based. It is only as good as the assumptions it is based on. Correct assumptions will lead logically to correct conclusions and incorrect assumptions to incorrect conclusions. You know my assumptions and claim they are false even though they work and cannot be disproved. So what are the better, more fundamental and wiser assumptions on which your confidence is based?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Your odds are infinitesimal. Mine aren't.
Based on the limitations of the knowledge that you have, I have no doubt. That has nothing to do with my reasoning which is based on knowledge that you deny or are ignorant of. By basing your understanding of reason itself within the limits of your own ignorance you prove my point that reason is not absolute or self based. It is only as good as the assumptions it is based on. Correct assumptions will lead logically to correct conclusions and incorrect assumptions to incorrect conclusions. You know my assumptions and claim they are false even though they work and cannot be disproved. So what are the better, more fundamental and wiser assumptions on which your confidence is based?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You know my assumptions and claim they are false even though they work and cannot be disproved.
Please prove to me that there are no pink and invisible unicorns. If you cannot do that, then my claim that such creatures exist, must be equally valid as your claim that there is a god. For "God's" sake, read George H. Smith's Atheism - A Case Against God before you try to mix faith and reason. If you dare that is.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You know my assumptions and claim they are false even though they work and cannot be disproved.
Please prove to me that there are no pink and invisible unicorns. If you cannot do that, then my claim that such creatures exist, must be equally valid as your claim that there is a god. For "God's" sake, read George H. Smith's Atheism - A Case Against God before you try to mix faith and reason. If you dare that is.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
If you cannot do that, then my claim that such creatures exist, must be equally valid as your claim that there is a god.
A wonderful example of a logical fallacy, well done. Nice of you to miss my oft repeated point as well so I will spell it out for you. There is no reason without belief. Smith's thesis if it amounts to or relies on the idea that 'you can't mix faith with reason' is undermined before it begins. I wouldn't waste my money it.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
The Bible of course. It's always best to understand what you're saying before saying it rather than suddenly realizing what you said after you already said it. Believe me I should know :laugh: -- modified [spiling mistail] at 10:18 Tuesday 27th November, 2007
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
It's funny how when someone disagrees with you about your religion you always automatically assume that they just don't know or understand as much as you do, when really the opposite is true. I guess that is because you can't find any real arguments to use.