| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
Free will is a golden thread running through the frozen matrix of fixed events. Or maybe not. I think we can all agree that those who use violence in the name of their faith are evil. Those who wish to tear down monuments or temples of another's faith are evil. Those who would harm people because of their faith alone, ( not connected with actions ) are evil. Those who wish to impose their religious laws on me may not be evil, but they may be short lived, since I may see them as evil, and I'm not of a pacifist faith. Evil men exist. ( the discussion of evil as an external thing I leave to you ) I have no issue with agnostics. Not knowing for sure is certainly better than "knowing" lies as truth. IMHO Not proselytizing. Seek your own path to enlightenment. (Message edited by aesquire on September 13, 2011) | ||
| Kenm123t |
The best response to an athiest is laughter. I had a Humanist Society marked car crowding me on a ride a while back When We stopped at a light I could finally read the door sign. I started laughing so loud the guy could hear me over the bike. He was in a convertible he asks ( whats so funny ?) I replied how suprised you will be when you meet Satan. Couldnt stop laughing for about 2 miles. They have church,with every thing a church has in the way of a service. They totally leave force out any mention of God. As for the nasty athiests they may be in one of the many stages of possion. Pwnzor athiests arent worth getting upset over laugh and go on about life. Some will chase away the good in their life for the bad. | ||
| Sifo |
Those who wish to tear down monuments or temples of another's faith are evil. I'm honestly not sure if you had the Taliban in Afghanistan in mind or Atheists here in the US in mind. At least those are the groups that come to mind for me. | ||
| Tankhead |
Here is a review of Craig and Harris debate. BTW, they have had many, many debates between the two, another thing the reporter failed to mention. Craig: not as strong in debate as touted. The chimpanzee example in my listed article specifically. Have fun and make sure you watch the debate listed, both for that matter. Educate yourself.. tx http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=15167 (Message edited by tankhead on September 13, 2011) | ||
| Froggy |
Which is interesting, I completely pulled it out of my ass for the discussion, not knowing about any past with religion vs science. I'll have to do some reading.
To me, everything about religion is a joke anyway. To me, the bible is just a great fictional work, like Lord of the Rings or all of the lore in the Warcraft universe.
I've been called a Satanist in the past by a Catholic who didn't know the difference between that and an Atheist. She was going on about how I am evil and worship the devil, I said "Actually, you are the Satanist. I am not the one who believes in god nor satin." Another time back in high-school, someone thought I was a Satanist due to frequently wearing all black, my reply was "so do priests". Either way, I just laugh it off, if someone is gullible enough to believe everything they are told without questioning it, well they are just limiting the possibilities in their own life. | ||
| Tankhead |
The best response to a buddist, christian, Jew, etc. is laughter. I had a jesus fish, gefilte fish, etc marked car crowding me on a ride a while back When We stopped at a light I could finally read the door sign. I started laughing so loud the guy could hear me over the bike. He was in a convertible he asks ( whats so funny ?) I replied how suprised you will be when you are at no heaven when you die but in the ground until you rot. Couldnt stop laughing for about 2 miles. They have church,with every thing a church has in the way of a service. Meaningless sentence garbeled yada yada. Doesn't sound so funny now does it. WOW | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>I'm a mixture of agnostic, insomniac and dyslexic<< and Rodney Dangerfield. This site needs more accordions.  | ||
| Slaughter |
Accordions... maybe. Kazoos, CERTAINLY! | ||
| Tankhead |
And for those of you that did not understand the chimpanzee reference: Here is some info, albeit, from wiki (with reference) Did God have control over this, if so, what part did man play in this, all or none. Some believe that the fact that Washoe not only communicated with, but also formed close and personal relationships with, humans indicates that she is emotionally sensitive and is deserving of moral status.[30] Read the review and it will make more sense. | ||
| Aesquire |
Sifo, correct on both counts. Danger Dave, so.......up all night wondering if there is a Dog? http://pajamasmedia.com/andrewklavan/2011/09/12/th e-war-on-terror-is-all-about-god/?singlepage=true There are those, of course, who believe the problem is religion itself: remove the subject of the argument, they say, and the argument would end. The murder and oppression that defined the atheist empires in communist Russia and China – not to mention the slow, insidious death currently claiming “post-Christian” Europe — strongly suggest otherwise. Culturally, atheism is a disaster— although atheists are entitled to express their opinion right up until the moment the Islamists kill them. My only objection to Some atheists ( certain members of any faith, really ) is to those who want to prevent others from worshipping as they see fit. I don't care if you wish to light a fire to Zoro-Aster, ( not on my lawn or kitchen table without asking, please ) or chant about rocks and flowers. You may think that a quartz crystal has no aura and it's silly to hang them in the moonlight. Just don't go hurting others, or breaking their stuff. And if you are the kind of atheist who is stuck at the adolescent "reject the elders" stage and want to tear down a war memorial, or burn a church, because it's "offensive" to you that others believe differently, I ask you to grow up, or show me there is no afterlife by preceding us all there before you hurt someone. I'm NOT going to argue that belief in an invisible being of incredible abilities is dumb or smart. I happen to so believe, but freely admit it's a pretty funny thing. So is sex. See Sam Kinison's bit on taping yourself during. | ||
| Danger_dave |
Nope! - I meant Slaughter - using old material. My philosophy is a man has to believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink. - Fields W.C. | ||
| Sifo |
I've often found it rather amusing that some atheists will rip on people believing in "an invisible friend" yet have no problem at all believing in other invisible forces that science is yet unable to explain. Gravity for example. How silly believing in an invisible force! | ||
| Kenm123t |
Hey Froggy now I know why you hate Carbs lol Some people are just mean Froggy They fail to put what they should have learned at church in action. Faith is a hard subject some never get it. Some have faith thats tougher than diamonds most people are somewhere in between (Message edited by kenm123t on September 13, 2011) | ||
| Kenm123t |
Tankhead Lol try harder it was funny at the light and so is your response. For Similar reasons. Your reponse and Froggys differ in this respect Froggy explains why he feels how he does. Yours Oh well  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
How is the "nature of his debating style" threatening? | ||
| Tankhead |
I think gravity has been explained plenty. You can't see perfume after you spray it but you know it is there. You can feel the effects of gravity by walking off a cliff. You fall. We see the moon in different positions because it rotates around in orbit around our planet because of gravity. The astronauts have felt anti-gravity. Not rational debate tools. | ||
| Sifo |
I think gravity has been explained plenty. You can't see perfume after you spray it but you know it is there. You can feel the effects of gravity by walking off a cliff. You fall. We see the moon in different positions because it rotates around in orbit around our planet because of gravity. The astronauts have felt anti-gravity. Not rational debate tools. You're just describing "miracles" supposedly performed by gravity. We still have no explanation for how it works. There has never been a "gravity particle" found. It's just an invisible force that we have no means of explaining how it works. Silly people believing in such a thing! Perfume, OTOH, you can see, smell, and taste. You may need a microscope to see the particles, but they are defiantly there. Gravity??? | ||
| Tankhead |
Maybe I missed something.... if you could re-type what you meant to say in the last two sentences to your post about laughing at someone about their beliefs maybe I would get the joke. It did not makes sense. Not trying to insult you, just trying to get you to see the hypocrisy in the first part of the post.... Oh and I deliberately did not explain my beliefs because they are personal to me. Whether I am christian, jew, athiest, agnostic not really important. Your pretentious behavior in that story was.... well.... strange, that's all. | ||
| Sifo |
Maybe I missed something.... if you could re-type what you meant to say in the last two sentences to your post about laughing at someone about their beliefs maybe I would get the joke. It did not makes sense. Not trying to insult you, just trying to get you to see the hypocrisy in the first part of the post.... Oh and I deliberately did not explain my beliefs because they are personal to me. Whether I am christian, jew, athiest, agnostic not really important. Your pretentious behavior in that story was.... well.... strange, that's all. This?... "Gravity for example. How silly believing in an invisible force!" It was meant to sound absurd. Yet still science can't explain how it works. | ||
| Tankhead |
Fatty, I don't think it is about being threatening I think it was about debate style. There is a difference. From reading I gathered it was not about content but the method of how the debate was to commence. But good on ya for bringing that to our debate. However it did not work when I tried to view it. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I just youtubed William Lane Craig debate. You should be able to find it. It really is a good, two hour debate with cross examinations. If the debate was to be conducted in any similar fashion, I can't see how it would be threatening. | ||
| Rick_a |
There is nothing to see here...move along...  | ||
| Tankhead |
I don't doubt it or you my friend. I willfully it out fbast ard tx. Damn smart phone.... I will check it out. Tx (Message edited by tankhead on September 13, 2011) (Message edited by tankhead on September 13, 2011) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I believe that each person MUST vet the idea of God and Christ for themselves. Whether exposed to the idea through family affiliation or by motorcycle bulletinboard, each must make a decision for belief or disbelief. I feel THIS is the singular driving force behind the existence of humanity. I believe this is the purpose of all this. Debates like this are good in that ALL the evidence both for and against the existence of God and Christ are explored. If you reject God, this is your choice. The decision is based upon the following supposition, "I am all that there is. I am the master of me." Christianity is the individual choice to recognize that "There is an entity that is greater than am I." Unlike most atheists with whom I have debated faith, I recognize and defend each person's singular and individual right to make this decision themselves. Most atheists I have debated with seek to prevent even the discussion of God let alone a decision of belief or disbelief to even occur. | ||
| Blake |
Racerx for example. The lady atheist bailed for fear of public humiliation. Dr. Craig is unmatched in logical analysis and philosophical debate. What an amazing intellect! | ||
| Tankhead |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg Craig and Harris debate: The God Debate. Harris did not appear mismatched nor did he seem to fear humiliation. Quite the contrary. Great debate. Obvious both parties are absolutely great speakers (Message edited by tankhead on September 13, 2011) | ||
| Tankhead |
The lady atheist bailed for fear of public humiliation. Could you cite the article where she gives that as an answer. I have looked everywhere on google and Bing and I am having a heck of a time finding her quotes........Tx | ||
| Tankhead |
Here is a brilliant response to the gravity debate: (not my answer but I agree) There are several different types of proof, depending on context, for example legally proof means produce an argument that is convincing beyond reasonable doubt, such that a jury or magistrate is sufficiently convinced. In common everyday usage proof simply means come up with an argument that will convince the person you are trying to convince. Philosophically speaking, you can't prove that gravity exists. Gravity is a word used to describe a force that one mass exerts on another, which is widely believed to be calculated by the formula F = Gm1m2/r squared. That is Force is equal to the gravitational constant multiplied by the mass of the first object multiplied by the mass of the second object divided by the square of the distance between them. There are four types of statement, which are called, analytical, metaphysical, empirical and value judgements. Value judgements are a matter of opinion like what type of music is best these can be true for one person and at the same time false for another. Metaphysical statements cannot be proved or disproved as by definition they are outside of the limits of our physical understanding, this is where we are forced to rely on faith or belief. That leaves analytical and empirical statements. Analytical statements are true by definition, so for instance, the mathematical statement 2 + 2 = 4 is true by the definition of the numbers 2 4 and the symbols + and =. Analytical statements are the only statements that can be proved. Empirical statements are a matter of observation and evidence. They cannot be confirmed but they can be denied. A nearly infinite amount of evidence to support a theory has very little weight compared to one single piece of evidence that contradicts it. So for example if you threw a ball in the air and it did not come back to earth but floated off into space, we would have to completely rethink the law of gravity. In point of fact, there might well be a problem with the law of gravity as the universe is not behaving as the current laws of physics would have it behave. To begin with, the universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is increasing. The law of gravity would expect all the matter in the universe to pull the universe back into single mass, so the universe should either be shrinking or at least the rate of expansion should be slowing down. So either there is new energy being introduced into the universe or we need to re-think our understanding of gravity. Also the rate that stars on the outer edge of a galaxy orbit the centre of the galaxy is the same as for stars closer to the centre, meaning galaxies maintain their shape. This is contrary to what our normal laws of physics would predict. It is possible that there is a great deal more mass contained in a galaxy than we can currently detect or perhaps our whole understanding of gravity is wrong. For now physicists and astronomers talk of dark energy and dark matter and will likely continue to do so until the question is resolved. Assuming the laws are right has been more beneficial than assuming the laws are wrong, when the planets in our own solar system did not behave as the law of gravity and the law of conservation of angular momentum predicted, a search was made for other planets and they were discovered. The laws of physics as we have them now may not be complete and they may not even be correct but they are good enough to put human beings on the moon, manoeuvre robotic space craft through the rings of Saturn and hold countless satellites in orbit so that we can watch satellite TV, use satellite navigation systems in our car, GPS watches and GPS enabled mobile phones, communicate almost instantaneously with people all over the world and have reasonably accurate weather forecasts. I hope my answer does justice to what is in reality a very intelligent question. I would also like to strongly urge you to keep questioning things that most people take for granted, as this is what separates intelligence from genius. Now for my take: Most athiests that I have researched (Dawkins for example "The God Delusion") would be a believer if it could be proven without faith that a god exists. Prayers would be granted every time could be the measure. As I watched Fox news 9/11 recap this weekend, which I thought was wonderfully produced, I watched a man tell his story about being pulled out of the burning rubble and he thanked the man (understandably) but then saying that God had sent him to save him. Meanwhile they showed many unfortunate Jumpers falling to their death and the viewer got to listen to a few bodies hit the ground. Now if their prayers did not get answered and the other 2900 people did not have their prayers answered I felt incredible saddness for the families of those who were of faith besides the obviously terrifying events that we all witnessed that day and again this weekend. You all have a good night sleep. Peace be with all of you. Thanks for the debate. (Message edited by tankhead on September 14, 2011) | ||
| Doerman |
What if.. What if our heavenly father has left a spark in us that helps guide us through this exciting experience called life. What if.. Theology may fix, formulate, define, and dogmatize faith, but in the human life of Jesus faith was personal, living, original, spontaneous, and purely spiritual. What if.. In a religious genius, strong spiritual faith so many times leads directly to disastrous fanaticism, to exaggeration of the religious ego, but it was not so with Jesus. The actual "living faith" is so simple. The mistake most commonly made is to complicate matters. | ||
| Blake |
Tank, Her really lame excuse tells all, really. She committed to debate but then witnessed the strong foundation and exceptional merit of Dr. Craig's arguments in favor of the existence of god and against non-existence of god and then she bailed. There is no other plausible reason that I can perceive. As stated by Mr. Harris himself, Dr. Craig is “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” Dr. Craig's argument for the existence of god is comprised of five separate logical points, one of which is that objective morality exists and is evidence that god exists. Yet even if that point were to be cast into significant doubt, four more remain, any one of which by itself provides compelling reason to think it more plausible that god exists than to think our finely tuned universe, time itself, all matter and energy, and life exist magically by some unexplainable accident of random happenstance. I've seen the entire Harris-Craig debate you reference. It's topic was "secular morality", not any question of the existence of god. Harris ultimately turned petty and insulting. He clearly lost the debate. Credit to him for not running away from a fair and scholarly debate, unlike Ms. Toynbee. Your objection to god re prayer may or may not be valid; I don't agree at all, but your objection has no relation whatsoever to the question of god's existence. Your objection is questioning the validity of a certain religion or religions. Your point is easily countered with a simple analogous question illustrating it's logical fallacy. Should the parent of a child not respond to the child's stated desires, does the parent cease to exist? Of course not. |
