|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:26 PM
Posts: 135,
Visits: 279
|
|
| *shrug* I thought it was a smug pile of shit. Look, feel free to hold your own beliefs but please stop trying to foist them on me ... last time I looked this was an LRP discussion forum, not a soapbox for evangelical atheists.
"When I want your opinion, I'll read it from your steaming entrails"
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
Look, feel free to hold your own beliefs but please stop trying to foist them on me ... last time I looked this was an LRP discussion forum, not a soapbox for evangelical atheists.
Considering the previous threads on this board, I felt this was an extremely relevant post.
As for "foistering" my beliefs* onto you, I assumed everyone reading these boards are intelligent free-willed people who can choose what to read and what not to. If you have a problem with what I say, or the links I post, I suggest you exercise that automony, and don't read them.
*though i'm not sure posting a link to a website that points out the logic of the statements "god exists" or "Santa Claus exists" are the same meta-physical statements and therefore have the same logic/truth behind them is technically a belief, but heh.
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 21, 2008 4:02 PM
Posts: 206,
Visits: 644
|
|
I'm just surprised that there are still people who think this is making an original or clever point. Okay, its logical enough, and better explained than some I've read, but in this society is there really any point saying "believing in God is like believing in Father Christmas" again? For one thing, I'm sure we've all heard the arguments and counter-arguments more times than we count.
No spoken or written word can ever be a substitute for one's own practical experience. No-one too can convince another who does not wish to believe what he is told - only the doubter loses by his incredulity - T.C. Lethbridge
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
I'm not sure he claims it is original does he?
And i guess it's a repeated thought-experiment (for want of a better phrase) because it's a particularly good one at making the point.
If you don't think using old arguments is useful, then that makes pretty much all of human thought bunk, doesn't it?
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:26 PM
Posts: 135,
Visits: 279
|
|
Tart (6/20/2006)
[quote]Considering the previous threads on this board, I felt this was an extremely relevant post.
Your contributions aside, previous threads tackling the topic of religion on this thread have been discussions. In fact, one of those discussions managed to be locked because you had derailed it with your unwelcome proselytising. Simply posting a link which suggests, in so many words, that "All believers are cunts" isn't, in my opinion, an attempt at a discussion ... it's just you being an atheism bore again.
"When I want your opinion, I'll read it from your steaming entrails"
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:59 PM
Posts: 191,
Visits: 1,555
|
|
Lets imagine I tell you the folowing story;
* An oceanographer goes to sea to investigate sealife
* He/She casts a net over the side
* He/She retrieves that net after some time and catalogues the sealife they found in that net
* He/She then claims to "know" what is living in the sea
Now what the oceanographer is claiming is observable and measurable data... or is it? is it just a delusion? I could say that what the oceanographer has found is a false representation, as it clearly does not take into account all life forms that were to small to be caught in the net... but the oceanographer would say (quite rightly) that there is no evidence for such small creatures in their study. I could claim that some creatures were to big to be caught in that net, and again the oceanographer would rightly say that there was no evidence for such creatures. I could claim that there is other forms of life in other parts of the sea that the oceanographer did not investigate, and again the oceanographer would claim quite rightly that there is no evidence for such in their study. So what we have is the delusion that all that is measurable and observable and only that which is measured and observed is real.
This is the problem that I have with such cynical attempts at diasbusing faith with the new religion of science and all that is measurable and observable.. the truth is that all scientific knowledge, all that is measurable and observable is gathered by casting a net and seeing what data is gathered. Every year that net gets bigger, and the holes in it get smaller, but it is still a net. There is greater knowledge still to be had beyond the limits of that net, and truths that still escape through its holes.
My faith is unproven, but your net is to damn small, and your holes are to damn big.
*Analogy borrowed from somewhere else, I just can't rememeber where I first heard it.
____________________________________________________________
I'm a variable power wit.... sometimes full-on, sometimes only half....
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
Simply posting a link which suggests, in so many words, that "All believers are cunts" isn't, in my opinion, an attempt at a discussion ... it's just you being an atheism bore again.
Did you even read the link? At no point does it say that. It merely uses logic (and from skimming over some of it - scientific reasoning) to show that belief is simply that, belief.
As i have said before, once you move into meta-physics but definition reason goes out the window. So why is it that belief A is ok, but belief B is bad?
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|
| | |