There is no god. - Page 15

Matt789er · 10-18-2006, 10:07 AM

Yeah, I didnt read that website, too many words, Just had a title, so I put it in here, thanks for reading it for us!

Oh well.

Roger the Shrubber · 10-18-2006, 10:09 AM

Here is another mathematical tool to get you closer to everlasting life:

If a train leaves Chicago traveling at 55 mph, and another train leaves San Francisco traveling at 45 mph, given that the linear distance between the two Cities is 854 Miles, compute the maximum number of children you can molest an still be granted passage through the gates of heaven.

Show your work.

Matt789er · 10-18-2006, 10:10 AM

10 pages sweet.

How 'bout them Browns?!

Everybody knows God exists.

Its just fun for people that like to talk, to talk about.

10-18-2006, 10:19 AM

The fallacy is threefold: conceptual, semantic, and mathematical. Naturally the runner has to traverse half the remaining distance, but nowhere does it say his movment is limited to units of only half the remaining distance. The moment you write that half-unit into the equation, you've bollocked up the concept and the math. Then using semantic tricks to cover that up is the philosophical equivalent of doing parlor tricks. Entertaining yes, but ultimately not very useful.

Atheism is a dead end, just as blind faith is. A religious person sees the wonderous complexity and beauty of the world, and can't see how anyone can think that it wasn't created that way. A scientist sees the same world, makes a well-educated guess on how it wound up the way it did, and then thanks what ever creator may have set that chain of events in motion in the first place.

The idea of a Prime Mover was pretty well laid out by Plato and Aristotle. It seems the only thing we disagree on here is how far back or how far forward in time the Prime Mover did all the moving, and whether that Prime Mover is natural, or Intelligent, or both. Seems like hair-splitting to me.

10-18-2006, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario Smith

Moto: What about rotten and vile uses of science? Hitler comes to mind. So do partial birth abortion and the nuclear bomb. You can't just paint religion with that brush.

I haven't painted the whole of religion, just some of the poor excuses for followers. I though that was pretty obvious prerefaced the whole paragraph with "Religion is a **** fine thing". Was it not?

And yes, science has been used for rotten and vile purposes too. It's not science that's bad, nor religion, but what people do with it. And when someone says "If you believe something else, I'll pray for you!" what they are usually saying is "I look down on your beliefs, and am using this passive-agressive means of belittling you." This isn't always the case, of course, but it is the case more often than it should be.

And in the future, would you read my posts a little more carefully before responding? It may save you some embarassment.

Mario Smith · 10-18-2006, 10:31 AM

Wow, are you insane, or only pretending to be for our amusement?

10-18-2006, 10:36 AM

Wow, are you going to qualify that with anything or is it just a mindless jab because you have no other argument?

Roger the Shrubber · 10-18-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiyamotoMusashi

The fallacy is threefold: conceptual, semantic, and mathematical. Naturally the runner has to traverse half the remaining distance, but nowhere does it say his movment is limited to units of only half the remaining distance. The moment you write that half-unit into the equation, you've bollocked up the concept and the math. Then using semantic tricks to cover that up is the philosophical equivalent of doing parlor tricks. Entertaining yes, but ultimately not very useful.

Atheism is a dead end, just as blind faith is. A religious person sees the wonderous complexity and beauty of the world, and can't see how anyone can think that it wasn't created that way. A scientist sees the same world, makes a well-educated guess on how it wound up the way it did, and then thanks what ever creator may have set that chain of events in motion in the first place.

The idea of a Prime Mover was pretty well laid out by Plato and Aristotle. It seems the only thing we disagree on here is how far back or how far forward in time the Prime Mover did all the moving, and whether that Prime Mover is natural, or Intelligent, or both. Seems like hair-splitting to me.

My good sir,
I am afraid you arguments have no place here. They are far to highminded and drip with stench of hope for common ground.

In order for you to speak truths about the life the universe and everything, you must remember immediately follow any statement of belief with the following tag and format: Apostile Number : Number (ie Isaiah 58:7)

it is only then that your arguments may be viewed as legitimate.

10-18-2006, 10:43 AM

Roger, as I have suspected all along, you are a good man, and true.

Mario Smith · 10-18-2006, 11:07 AM

Moto,

It's just that I don't find the idea of someone praying for me vile at all but rather harmless. You claim not to get "bent out of shape about beliefs" and then go on to attack people that want to pray for you by calling them vile. It seems a little irrational to me.

You tell me to read your post more carefully, but what the hell did your initial reply to me have to do with my first post?