Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn

[zoobernut]

You're bashing God, did you ask yourself, "what if im wrong?" "what if there is a God?".

I dont know about you guys, but just to be safe...i'm gonna believe in him, cus the athiests are not talking about good deeds, heaven & hell; they're just saying big bang > monkeys > humans. If i believe in the half-assed story the athiests are giving me, im risking something very very serious.

If you believe in god, fine, but believing in god because you just want to be "careful" and not because you truly believe it is the worst reason I have ever heard to believe in god. That is essentially saying that you would not believe in god but you are forced to just to make sure you don't end up damned for eternity.

And the statement about atheists not talking about good deeds, heaven and hell is such a stupid sentence that it must be a troll attempt and does not warrant a counter argument.

[Tristam]

You're bashing God, did you ask yourself, "what if im wrong?" "what if there is a God?".

I dont know about you guys, but just to be safe...i'm gonna believe in him, cus the athiests are not talking about good deeds, heaven & hell; they're just saying big bang > monkeys > humans. If i believe in the half-assed story the athiests are giving me, im risking something very very serious.

You just threw up Pascal's wager, not really a serious argument as it stands for any tenet of any belief system whether or not they're mutually exclusive. You've also strawmanned atheists in an offensive caricature. Not all atheists are scientists, and we certainly do more than sit in ivory towers discussing matters of secular/evolutionary importance. A good motto of atheists can also be described as "being good for goodness' sake" rather than trying to impress a deity.

Evolution is alot more than a half-assed story, it's as close to complete as anything on this planet to the extent that we can know anything about our ancient history. Sadly, the media has painted the picture of this fossil as the fossil to end all fossils, when it's better described as a great example of what is an overwhelming mass of evidence. I had hoped this thread would prompt some inspection of the fossil record and further examination of the fossil itself, but predictably, it became the same religion argument that we've had about a million times already.

[Mizango]

You just threw up Pascal's wager, not really a serious argument as it stands for any tenet of any belief system whether or not they're mutually exclusive. You've also strawmanned atheists in an offensive caricature. Not all atheists are scientists, and we certainly do more than sit in ivory towers discussing matters of secular/evolutionary importance. A good motto of atheists can also be described as "being good for goodness' sake" rather than trying to impress a deity.

Evolution is alot more than a half-assed story, it's as close to complete as anything on this planet to the extent that we can know anything about our ancient history. Sadly, the media has painted the picture of this fossil as the fossil to end all fossils, when it's better described as a great example of what is an overwhelming mass of evidence. I had hoped this thread would prompt some inspection of the fossil record and further examination of the fossil itself, but predictably, it became the same religion argument that we've had about a million times already.

Well said man, you summed up everything I was about to say, only better.

[EternalSnow]

You don't know that

We also don't know if there really is a God.

I'm a Christian and I am shocked that some people actually believe that the people back than didn't rewrite the bible into their own liking. What kind of Higher power would tell you not to eat sea food? Something he created? lol

[Mizango]

All everyone ever asks is for is a tidbit of proof besides a book bout a dude written by a dude who magically fathered another dude.

Sorry I couldn't resist that, I mean fish and bread falling from heaven, Jesus on toast and waffles, granite statues crying blood etc.. I mean where does it end? If we were to hypothetically remove God from this discussion and replace with him the Chupacabra or with the Abominable Snowman everyone here would be skeptics in the purest sense.

What I'm saying if you remove the Bible from the equation and put Science and Religion side by side in terms of proof you would not have a single leg to stand on. I like the Science vs Religion debate, it's reminiscent of a Hammer vs a Nail and rooting for the nail to win. Now that I think about it nails defeated the heir to the earth and the son of a deity, I guess the nail can be quite the formidable adversary.

[EternalSnow]

All everyone ever asks is for is a tidbit of proof besides a book bout a dude written by a dude who magically fathered another dude.

Sorry I couldn't resist that, I mean fish and bread falling from heaven, Jesus on toast and waffles, granite statues crying blood etc.. I mean where does it end? If we were to hypothetically remove God from this discussion and replace with him the Chupacabra or with the Abominable Snowman everyone here would be skeptics in the purest sense.

What I'm saying if you remove the Bible from the equation and put Science and Religion side by side in terms of proof you would not have a single leg to stand on. I like the Science vs Religion debate, it's reminiscent of a Hammer vs a Nail and rooting for the nail to win. Now that I think about it nails defeated the heir to the earth and the son of a deity, I guess the nail can be quite the formidable adversary.

I mean I don't know what to believe, but maybe there are angels and stuff. It's nice to think about Angels being real though .

[Effluo]

We also don't know if there really is a God.

I'm a Christian and I am shocked that some people actually believe that the people back than didn't rewrite the bible into their own liking. What kind of Higher power would tell you not to eat sea food? Something he created? lol

Not to turn this religous any more than it already is, but two words.. Forbidden Fruit

[Mizango]

And Dinosaurs. Apparently in many circles it is accepted that early Christians were Dino-riders.

Spoiler: show

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...2420x20768.jpg

FUCK YEAH!

[Milks]

And Dinosaurs. Apparently in many circles it is accepted that early Christians were Dino-riders.

Spoiler: show

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...2420x20768.jpg

FUCK YEAH!

Spoiler: show

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/h...ngDinosaur.jpg

I second this notion of dino riders.

[Mizango]

Spoiler: show

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/h...ngDinosaur.jpg

I second this notion of dino riders.

That's a Jesús I'd follow anywhere.

[Jefe]

I stand by the Ontological argument. Amazing Anselm formulated such a logical argument more than a thousand years ago. Most modern philosophers have failed to refute it. If you like logic, you definitely need to check it out. It will bite you in the ass and then rape you.

[zoobernut]

Dino riders are Awesome! This thread just became amazing.

"Harness the power of Dinosaurs."

The thing that I like to point out to extremely devout religious friends of mine is how it is hypocritical to give the older religions a free pass because they are old. If anyone tried the same shit today they would be touted as crazy lunatics and laughed at.

New religions are ridiculed and called cults while established religions are allowed and I do not understand how you can allow one but not the other. There is essentially no difference between how they were started. One just happened so long ago that people would not question things the same way we do now.

[Tristam]

I stand by the Ontological argument. Amazing Anselm formulated such a logical argument more than a thousand years ago. Most modern philosophers have failed to refute it. If you like logic, you definitely need to check it out. It will bite you in the ass and then rape you.

Plenty of modern (and ancient) philosophers have refuted it, the ontological argument pretty much says that because we can conceive of something which is the greatest of all things, it can exist because the act of existence is necessary to be the greatest. It's just another unproven statement, it may be "logical" but that dosen't make it real, or anything close to a proof. One can just as easily say that nothing so great as to achieve perfection CAN ACTUALLY EXIST ATALL. The argument assumes the existence of the thing it tries to prove, lots of these sorts of arguments get free passes because they're proposed by ancient philosophers already convinced of the existence of the thing they were trying to prove.

[Zilong]

I stand by the Ontological argument. Amazing Anselm formulated such a logical argument more than a thousand years ago. Most modern philosophers have failed to refute it. If you like logic, you definitely need to check it out. It will bite you in the ass and then rape you.

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

[Mizango]

Dino riders are Awesome! This thread just became amazing.

"Harness the power of Dinosaurs."

The thing that I like to point out to extremely devout religious friends of mine is how it is hypocritical to give the older religions a free pass because they are old. If anyone tried the same shit today they would be touted as crazy lunatics and laughed at.

New religions are ridiculed and called cults while established religions are allowed and I do not understand how you can allow one but not the other. There is essentially no difference between how they were started. One just happened so long ago that people would not question things the same way we do now.

It's the same thing when some random noob proclaims himself the messiah. Mention David Koresh and the possibility of him actually being a profit, people laugh. Bring up Jim Jones or Sun Myung Moon who have followers that believe them and you would laugh your ass off correct? Yet Jesus does it and books and glorious tales are told by his followers it is taken as an absolute? I mean honestly what do you think Koresh's followers would say about him now? Some still love him and take him at his word that he was the literal son of god.

I'd be willing to bet that I could post cult videos and watch everyone ridicule and laugh at the followers not realizing you do the same thing, just not in such a drab fashion. Welcome to the other side of the fence. You see, it's always in the details. When you take the proverbial mirror down it's funny as hell until you realize that the religious nut you were just laughing at is exactly like you.

[Jefe]

(...)

Links/names, etc. plz, as a part time logician I want to read them (I hope is not Giulio, Kant, et al.).

Nvm, your post clearly shows you don't even understand the argument.

[Dimmauk]

It's the same thing when some random noob proclaims himself the messiah. Mention David Koresh and the possibility of him actually being a profit, people laugh. Bring up Jim Jones or Sun Myung Moon who have followers that believe them and you would laugh your ass off correct? Yet Jesus does it and books and glorious tales are told by his followers it is taken as an absolute? I mean honestly what do you think Koresh's followers would say about him now? Some still love him and take him at his word that he was the literal son of god.

I'd be willing to bet that I could post cult videos and watch everyone ridicule and laugh at the followers not realizing you do the same thing, just not in such a drab fashion. Welcome to the other side of the fence. You see, it's always in the details. When you take the proverbial mirror down it's funny as hell until you realize that the religious nut you were just laughing at is exactly like you.

Those new age Prophets needed more indigenous tribes to enslave and convert into followers.

[Neosutra]

Please tell me firas didn't use pascal's wager on this page.. That's like the ultimate "I don't deserve to be in this debate" arguement.

[Mizango]

Please tell me firas didn't use pascal's wager on this page.. That's like the ultimate "I don't deserve to be in this debate" arguement.

Yep, Pascal's card was indeed played.

[Zilong]

Is that some sort of Godwin Law on philosophical argument?