Holy **** August, I can't believe you just said that. I had to do a triple take to make sure I was looking at the right person.

Damn it was like in Wayne's world when Dana Carvey's character randomly spits out some rediculously complex and deep diatribe out of nowhere.

I of course agree with you.

What a circus! :D And the best idea yet - attack the validity of the article because it had a grammatical error. I wait to see what else we come up with! :p :up:

-S

Well, there really isnt anything else to point out on that article. Bad grammar and opinions.

The critique of grammar was but one minor point in that post, did you not read the rest of it?

yousa says me speak badly?

Oh, but I attacked it on other points. Why so selective?

Because you made the rest of your argument look like an idiots argument with this first one, discounting the rest of your post. Same logic you used on the article with the comment about grammer.

-S

This doesn't follow. In fact - if god is omniscient, then he must know everything about the past, present and future. If he knows everything about the future, then he knows everything we will ever do, right down to how I will finish this very sentence. If he knows everything we will do, how can we have free will? How could he know anything about the future if we had the ability to make real free choices?



Please show me a soul. Why believe in them? It's been shown that brain damage can affect personality, and that brain activity corresponds with certain ideas. Why assume there's a soul?

What, the faiths that don't believe this don't count? Their adherents are amoral monsters?

They don't, but even if they did, it still doesn't give an iota of evidence for a creator.

Nope. We're equal in that we're all members of the same species.


Nope. I'm a determinist, but I can still have freedom of speech, etc. And even thought I'm a determinist, I still act as if I and others have free will, as we simply can't know all the causes for each action.


Richard Dawkins made the point that the very existence of liberal belief proves the idea that we don't get our morals from religion. How do you know to choose to follow the nice bits and not the killy smashy bits in your "holy" book, which is the original source of your belief? You must have some standard independent of religion.

He also cites a study which had Westerners and members of the Kuna tribe participate in similar moral quandary thought experiments. The results were almost entirely the same between the two groups.


Regardless of my rebuttal, any apologist worth his salt would recognize this article as utter crap.

:rotfl:Man that was some funny stuff. But Subman if you believe in that nonsense then I'm happy for you. :D

Happy holidays dudes. ;)

What are you talking about? The article you posted was nothing more than an opinionated hate speech. It doesn't have any points, it just makes the same old claim that Atheists are all immoral and godless bastards who must be evil. What could be more idiotic than that? All I did was point out how obvious these things were.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I take from that response that you either cannot rebut the other arguments or are so arrogant as to make debate a pointless endeavor

And just what religion does Jar Jar Binks follow.:D

The Light Side of the Force.

Seriously, did you know that Britain (I think it's Britain, anyway) has acknowledged Jedi Force as a religion?:lol:

I like this about Britian. They acknowledge everyones petty little subculters like a smiling parent instead of declaring war on everything. :up:

I have to admit, upon really reading the article in the original post I find it to be highly flawed. The author is attempting to use paradoxal ideas in an attempt to prove something.

For instance, he implies that a soul is something God gives you then says that without God, there wouldn't be any souls. Under his conditions it's a true statement, but in reality he isn't really positing anything substantial. It's like a physics argument where you create the system then make a true statement about something within that system. The problem is that if the system turns out to be false, all your arguments related to it would also be false. (Einstein himself committed this error when adjusting the General Theory of Relativity to accomodate a static universe, thusly ignoring that his very own data suggested an expanding one.)

But I digress. I have no problem with religion whatsoever. Nor do I have a problem with them proselytizing. What I do have a problem with is when people use semantics and twist facts to try to "prove" something, be it religious, political, or otherwise. If the data supports you, your ideas can stand up on their own merits. There's no need to create a new, closed system to support your ideas.

Ya know, the more y'all post in this thread, the more happier your making subman.

lol
God aint a sissy mate he could stamp you slipknot fans out like a light:arrgh!:

PS Slipknot came to 'bigdayout' here in NZ 3 yrs ago. Bigday out consists of 20 or so bands local & around the world that play on 4 stages for 24hrs non stop held every year in Janurary. Slipknot was the crowd puller i just had to go and see for myself what these guys are like. Got to meet some of the bands after the event cause a mate was one of the bouncers shook hands with Slipknot and a few other bands. Only mention this cause i see your a maggot fan. ;)

pfft! I'ts true. He seams to see every post as confirmation of his beliefs, regardless of the content. :rotfl:

Yea, all he would have to do is create a lightning storm, and direct all the lightning towards you. Or stop alcohol sales.:lol: