Observer of dreams Posted October 20, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 39 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 314 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/08/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 Only if you can get me George Carlin as my vice president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Durnan Posted October 21, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,782 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 49 Days Won: 1 Joined: 06/14/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 21, 2006 "Atheism" itself is but a very wild hypothesis based on a "liver's" most vivid imagination. He proudly declares he is an "atheist" even tho he DOES NOT KNOW whether a Creator-God does indeed exist SOMEWHERE in the vast universe! He DOES NOT KNOW, so minus that essential knowledge he foolishly asserts afresh, "There is no God!" I DO NOT KNOW whether or not there is a Creator-God, so believe me, "There is no God!" Maybe, just maybe the Creator-God is declaring "There is no atheist!" Very interesting, yes? http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer of dreams Posted October 21, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 39 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 314 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/08/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 21, 2006 (edited) You mean this? What's bad about pointing out the fallacies in them? Nothing is wrong with pointing out fallacies Lepaca. I said I'll listen to instruction, but you offer only negative criticism and none of YOUR ideas. Noone can learn from "YOUR BAD!' if they don't know what's good. I know what's good for me, but if you have a better way than how am I supposed to learn if you never share it? Edited October 21, 2006 by Observer of dreams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartP Posted October 22, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 95 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/10/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/15/1962 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Many of juggernaut's reposts are based on logic and the spotting of various logical fallacies. Personally I hold logic in high regard. Some people claim that you can prove any old nonsence using logic. Not so. Undertsanding the difference between a VALID argument and a TRUE argument will prevent any logical discourse from straying into falshood. For the benefit of all, I submit the following URL on LOGICAL FALLACIES As far as I know it does not violate Worthy's TOS rules on non-christian content or intent. Learn to spot them, learn to counter them. They are used, knowingly and unknowingly by believer and atheist alike. Onward to rational debate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Durnan Posted October 22, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,782 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 49 Days Won: 1 Joined: 06/14/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 22, 2006 Ah, yes, there's an "atheistic" non-sequitor again! There are no unicorns, but there is a created order with mathematical precision. The self-concocted "atheist" assures us "There is no God for absolutely certain!" yet he really only means "In spite of an appalling lack of evidence for my position, please take my word for it!" It won't wash! Richard Dawkins loses by K.O.! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khalou Posted October 22, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 251 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/03/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 22, 2006 Correct soulgrind I made an apology a few posts back about that little diddy. I think a lesson in Ethics is in order here, if only for a select few. There is a theory out called "cultural relativism" This theory states that there is no universal right or wrong. It goes on to say that all moral values are different from culture to culture. Here is an example; There was a Greek and a Callation talking amoungst each other and discussing their various traditions. During the conversation the Greek mentions that they cremate their dead, "Absolutly disgusting!" Says the Callation. "Well" Says the Greek "What are your practices for honoring the dead?" To which the Callation responds, "We devour them into us so that their spirit might be with us always." To which the Greek replies, "Absolutly disgusting!" The problem with the theory of cultural relativism is that it is inductive, and it assumes that morals are based on beliefs rather than values. The Greek and the Callation both value the dead and seek to honor them, but their BELIEFS as to how to do it is what seperates them. Also it is not to say that one of them was mistaken in the first place. For instance take that same argument but replace it with the Earth. The Callation thinks the Earth is round, yet the Greek thinks it's flat. We know that the Earth is round so the Greek must be mistaken in this case. A further point. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie. Take these 3 laws from the bible. if murdering was acceptable a society would not exsist for long, and if it did last noone would feel secure leaving their house, and they would most likey form their own "gangs" so they could be safe, but even in this gang killing then becomes unacceptable. You would also not be able to rely on anyone for anything if lying were acceptable. I couldn't even trust that someone gave me the right time if I asked, and Talking would become totally pointless. The same is true for stealing, at least as far as trusting those around us. My point is that the laws of God are the rule not the exception. If there were no universal right or wrong then Hitler could say it was a good thing to kill jews and be correct, the south could say slavery was ok and be right, and noone could utter a word against Darfur because that would be acceptable as well. Not only that, but we also could not condemn our own moral code as a society because they would all be right as well. The rights of women and blacks being allowed to vote, homosexuals in the military, abolition of slavery. None of these would have happened had it not been for someone within our society holding himself/herself to a higher moral standard than that of the people around them. If you are trying to make the point that Christian morality is any less arbitrary than secular morality, you haven't done so. Why is it that (especially in America) whenever someone mentions "Christian Morality", everyone just nods their heads as though they know what it means? There is no evidence whatsoever that Christian morality has led to any better (or even more unified) morality than any other morality. k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khalou Posted October 22, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 251 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/03/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 22, 2006 Ah, yes, there's an "atheistic" non-sequitor again! There are no unicorns, but there is a created order with mathematical precision. The self-concocted "atheist" assures us "There is no God for absolutely certain!" yet he really only means "In spite of an appalling lack of evidence for my position, please take my word for it!" It won't wash! Richard Dawkins loses by K.O.! You don't get to just say things that sound good to you in a debate, you know. k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billie Posted October 22, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 51 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,849 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/17/1979 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Do you know that, K? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khalou Posted October 22, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 251 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/03/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 22, 2006 Do you know that, K? What? To which post were you referring? k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Durnan Posted October 22, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,782 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 49 Days Won: 1 Joined: 06/14/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 22, 2006 Hey, Khalou, I read you but I'm decidedly underwhelmed. There is no God for sure, however you have failed to investigate whether the Creator may indeed dwell on Barnard's Star or on on Kaptyn 68 or on any of Saturn's, what, 27 moons? Hmm. In your total lack of knowledge on the matter at hand, you assure us for dead certain that your own god, the Blind, Mindless & Inert god Chance takes gold medal. Boogie down, Khalou, boogie down! http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts