Enquiry: Harvard and Ali G
-
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.
-
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.
Yes Kyle, your combination of deep theology and encyclopeadic knowledge of Church history humbles us all. Do enlighten us. :rolleyes:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Yes Kyle, your combination of deep theology and encyclopeadic knowledge of Church history humbles us all. Do enlighten us. :rolleyes:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
See, you did it again, thus proving my point. It's sad that "i know more than you" seems to be the only argument you can use. Most Christians can argue better than you can (although that isn't saying much :laugh:).
-
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.
Unless you accept God's sacrifice of his own son to himself, he will send you to everlasting torment, But he Loves you!
-
See, you did it again, thus proving my point. It's sad that "i know more than you" seems to be the only argument you can use. Most Christians can argue better than you can (although that isn't saying much :laugh:).
If you had an argument I would merrily destroy it as I have many times in the past. As you don't I will refrain from destroying you as that would not be very Christian.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Unless you accept God's sacrifice of his own son to himself, he will send you to everlasting torment, But he Loves you!
Which merely proves my point. You have neither an argument nor sufficient understanding to form one that would require an answer. By all means keep trying, you may eventually learn something.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
If you had an argument I would merrily destroy it as I have many times in the past. As you don't I will refrain from destroying you as that would not be very Christian.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Quote: "If you had an argument I would merrily destroy it as I have many times in the past. " Ok, why would God, if he knows everything in advance, create billions of people that will never hear the gospel, knowing that he is dooming them to eternal torture? This obviously makes him evil. Quote: "As you don't I will refrain from destroying you as that would not be very Christian." :laugh::laugh::laugh:
-
Which merely proves my point. You have neither an argument nor sufficient understanding to form one that would require an answer. By all means keep trying, you may eventually learn something.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
That was not an argument, it was sarcasm. But can you tell me which part of it was in dispute with the Bible? :rolleyes:
-
Quote: "If you had an argument I would merrily destroy it as I have many times in the past. " Ok, why would God, if he knows everything in advance, create billions of people that will never hear the gospel, knowing that he is dooming them to eternal torture? This obviously makes him evil. Quote: "As you don't I will refrain from destroying you as that would not be very Christian." :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Demon Possessed wrote:
why would God
Ask him. He is omniscient not me.
Demon Possessed wrote:
This obviously makes him evil.
By whose definition? Yours :laugh::laugh: Now that is funny, you trying to tell God that he's wrong. If it wasn't so pathetic the hubris would be gobsmacking in the extreme. You should try juggling with some concepts you can handle. Start with small questions you have some chance of understanding and you are far more likely to get answers you can understand. If I say to you, God is Sovereign. There's you answer. What can you possibly do but misunderstand, deny, misinterpret or just invent nonsense. You're a long way from being able to handle the sort of answers you're asking for. Nothing wrong with aiming high but all things in moderation hey.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
That was not an argument, it was sarcasm. But can you tell me which part of it was in dispute with the Bible? :rolleyes:
Yes, the use of sarcasm. An inappropriate and wholly inadequate response to the word of God.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
why would God
Ask him. He is omniscient not me.
Demon Possessed wrote:
This obviously makes him evil.
By whose definition? Yours :laugh::laugh: Now that is funny, you trying to tell God that he's wrong. If it wasn't so pathetic the hubris would be gobsmacking in the extreme. You should try juggling with some concepts you can handle. Start with small questions you have some chance of understanding and you are far more likely to get answers you can understand. If I say to you, God is Sovereign. There's you answer. What can you possibly do but misunderstand, deny, misinterpret or just invent nonsense. You're a long way from being able to handle the sort of answers you're asking for. Nothing wrong with aiming high but all things in moderation hey.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Quote: "Ask him. He is omniscient not me." Just as I expected. You just declare that God is above our understanding. That's the only way you can justify your preposterous beliefs. Quote: "By whose definition? Yours Now that is funny, you trying to tell God that he's wrong. If it wasn't so pathetic the hubris would be gobsmacking in the extreme. You should try juggling with some concepts you can handle. Start with small questions you have some chance of understanding and you are far more likely to get answers you can understand. If I say to you, God is Sovereign. There's you answer. What can you possibly do but misunderstand, deny, misinterpret or just invent nonsense. You're a long way from being able to handle the sort of answers you're asking for." You start out with the assumption that you are right, then personally attack me for not "understanding" it. Nice try, but that's hardly a way to destroy an argument. :rolleyes:
-
Quote: "Ask him. He is omniscient not me." Just as I expected. You just declare that God is above our understanding. That's the only way you can justify your preposterous beliefs. Quote: "By whose definition? Yours Now that is funny, you trying to tell God that he's wrong. If it wasn't so pathetic the hubris would be gobsmacking in the extreme. You should try juggling with some concepts you can handle. Start with small questions you have some chance of understanding and you are far more likely to get answers you can understand. If I say to you, God is Sovereign. There's you answer. What can you possibly do but misunderstand, deny, misinterpret or just invent nonsense. You're a long way from being able to handle the sort of answers you're asking for." You start out with the assumption that you are right, then personally attack me for not "understanding" it. Nice try, but that's hardly a way to destroy an argument. :rolleyes:
Demon Possessed wrote:
You start out with the assumption that you are right
and...? Am I to assume that you don't:doh::doh::doh:
Demon Possessed wrote:
personally attack me for not "understanding"
No I castigate you not for "not understanding" but for claiming understanding you don't have. That you do not understand is blatant and beyond debate at this point. BTW Remember you have no argument to destory before pointing at me for not destroying trying to destory it.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Yes, the use of sarcasm. An inappropriate and wholly inadequate response to the word of God.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Just exactly how far up your rectum have you lodged your cranium? Is your god so feeble and your beliefs so tenuous and weak that they'd be corrupted by a little sarcasm?
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
You start out with the assumption that you are right
and...? Am I to assume that you don't:doh::doh::doh:
Demon Possessed wrote:
personally attack me for not "understanding"
No I castigate you not for "not understanding" but for claiming understanding you don't have. That you do not understand is blatant and beyond debate at this point. BTW Remember you have no argument to destory before pointing at me for not destroying trying to destory it.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Quote: "No I castigate you not for "not understanding" but for claiming understanding you don't have." I am sure you understand all the aspects of your religion much better than I. But I understand that it goes against all logic and reason to blindly accept a religion as truth when there is no evidence for any of them. There are many religions, Christianity, Islam, neopaganism, to name a few, and each one of them has people that are just as convinced as you that they are right. And none of them have any evidence to support it. It's all very ridiculous.
-
Quote: "No I castigate you not for "not understanding" but for claiming understanding you don't have." I am sure you understand all the aspects of your religion much better than I. But I understand that it goes against all logic and reason to blindly accept a religion as truth when there is no evidence for any of them. There are many religions, Christianity, Islam, neopaganism, to name a few, and each one of them has people that are just as convinced as you that they are right. And none of them have any evidence to support it. It's all very ridiculous.
Demon Possessed wrote:
there is no evidence
Except the experience of millions of people over thousands of years. By saying
Demon Possessed wrote:
It's all very ridiculous
you place your own understanding above all those who are so convinced. There is no difference in logic or validity between your position and that of a Muslem or a Neopagan, except that you deny the existence of your own beliefs, making yourself less honest and less rational even than them.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
