Advertisement
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 6:25 AMWhat an idiot.
-
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 8:42 AMThe whole game about running public ads for atheism is just plain stupid.
What do they hope to get?
Why?
Trying to assert that there is no god using pseudo scientific sounding arguments and questions is a fool's game of trying to prove something that science is entirely incapable of addressing.
Science addresses things that are subject to the laws of physics.
The whole idea of god embodies the notion that god falls outside the laws of physics.
ERGO: it's a silly game of chasing one's tail.
-
-
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 8:44 AMAlthough Mr. Bear, ( lorenzo taps his pencil emphatically ) One certainly must concede that 'all A is A," must one not?" -
-
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 2:15 PMAll A is A?
Pretend I'm a slow kid and 'splain that please. -
-
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 3:03 PMwell back in the day, the hay day, as it were. . .they were inventing alphabets. . .and they had to start with something, so A was the logical choice. . .now later on as the years went by, more letters got added. . .
some men were called men of letters, although women were not awarded that title until many years later. . .some were bewildered by the dazzling invention, some say discovery of new letters and the number of letters was huge in that time, although many today have been discarded, forgotten even. . .all competing for the job of member of the alphabet. . .but in the end they were always able to fall back on A, no matter how distracted or distraught they might become with the strange array of letters they were faced with. . .
So A is tight with A among abcdarians. .thus it is known as a tautology. . .interestingly enough most abcdarians are women these days, men are rare in that discipline. . . -
-
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Fri, October 23, 2009 - 7:15 PMWell now that really cleared things up. -
-
-
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 11:17 AM"What do they hope to get?"
Raised awareness, more people 'out' as atheist, to understand they're not alone and to organise a little against theism.
"Why?"
To safeguard our rights and for the reasons above again.
"Trying to assert that there is no god using pseudo scientific sounding arguments and questions is a fool's game of trying to prove something that science is entirely incapable of addressing."
That rather depends on the claims that the religions are making. Claims are subject to disproof, otherwise the simple lack of evidence for a god is sufficient to dismiss it. -
-
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 11:34 AMWell said, Grim.
-
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 11:40 AMOkay, I'm a silly guy. . what else is new?
What I am referring to in my whimsical way is a fundamental aspect of logical reasoning, that you haven't demonstrated anything when your arguments are reduced to All A is A. . .or in other words, you are using different terms to make your case but the terms mean essentially the same thing, in other words. . .a tautology.
How this relates to the question of religious belief is. . .the atheists and the religious do believe in the same thing, there are simply different aspects of the same thing that they chose to endow the thing with. The Christians myth-ify the realm in which we live while the atheists deny the very real power of belief to create "social" realities.
I am a pantheist and beyond that a christian pantheist, so these arguments all are hilarious to me.
Pantheist = universe as god. . .god is a perfectly acceptable name for universe. So the atheists are denying god while standing on god. . .while the christians are insisting that god isn't here but instead sitting on a throne in the sky trying not to get his beard tangled in the keyboard while he plays Second Life. . -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 2:55 PMGod . . . plays . . . second life?
(Jaw drops incredulously...) -
-
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 3:13 PMwell that's what xtians believe, of course pantheists believe that god does EVERYTHING! -
-
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Sat, October 24, 2009 - 4:21 PM...even Warcraft?
(looks to sky with love and wonder)
-
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Sat, October 31, 2009 - 6:09 PM<I am a pantheist and beyond that a christian pantheist>
in as much as part and parcel of being a 'christian' requires a belief in a personal god and part and parcel of being a pantheist is a belief in an impersonal god, how can there rationally be a 'christian' pantheist?
-
-
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Sun, November 1, 2009 - 12:54 AMrather than get all philosophical, I will simply say that I believe that christianity is warranted by the nature of the life of Jesus, without all the mumbo jumbo. . .and in my view the word god is a term of respect for the universe and the natural world in which we live.
if you are a rationalist you can establish a proof for the existence of god that clearly establishes god as being the universe.
and no, I don't believe it is necessary to believe in a personal god in order to be a christian. if you accept the rules that christian authorities demand then you are accepting that their beliefs about the nature of reality are correct. i don't, so i am not bound by their silly ideas. . -
-
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Sun, November 1, 2009 - 1:06 AM>if you are a rationalist you can establish a proof for the existence of god that clearly establishes god as being the universe.
in my belief system, I accept Anselm's proof for the existence of god which is:
"god is that being than which none great can be conceived." are you familiar with that argument?
i agree with Anselm that this is an unquestionable proof for the existence of god.
now Anselm would argue that this god is the author of the bible and the father of jesus, but that doesn't follow from his argument, not at all.
Those who argue against Anselm state that his proof doesn't have an actual referent. . .only a concept. Anselm's reply is that if you are only conceiving of a being who has no existence, that is not the greatest being that can be conceived. . .because obviously a being which has no existence isn't that great!
But there is a being of which we can conceive which meets the criteria established by Anselm and that is the universe. . .and that leads us to Spinoza.
Your assignment for this week is to read Spinoza's Ethics and we will pick up this discussion next Sunday.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Hannity, Just a Little Clueless. .
Sun, November 1, 2009 - 2:25 PMHe gets paid enough to be indeed clueless... why then should he change his tune?
-
-
-
-
-
