wrong again..I do read books..
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Understaning Islamofascism
- Thread starter Alias
- Start date
Werbung:
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
That's good, but for you to be right you'd have to be most of the people on this board and my guess is that you aren't
I guess the rest of my post meets with your agreement
I guess the rest of my post meets with your agreement
not in the least..I saw the following t-shirt slogan the other day. It read as follows:
Atheism: “the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense.”
I gotta get me one of those, if for no other reason than because atheists love to portray themselves as “free thinkers.”Jordan Froese, writing for the huffington post, summed up atheism as he understands it thusly:
“I am an atheist, and I subscribe to the idea that humanity and all of its works are essentially the sum of water, carbon, and random electrical impulses.”
I’ve been analyzing that sentence with my right wing interbred mind for a few minutes now and am of the opinion that a two-word change would make it a lot clearer:
“I am an idiot, because I subscribe to the idea that humanity and all of its works are essentially the sum of water, carbon, and random electrical impulses.”
Consider what he is saying, here. The Mona Lisa is the sum of water, carbon and random electrical impulses.Following his line of reasoning, then so too, is the atomic bomb. The Bible. A crossword puzzle. An energy-efficient home. The computer you are reading this on. The software that makes it work.A Fabrege egg. The Sistene Chapel. The Great Wall of China. A baby’s smile.A tree.
According to Froese, all these -- simply the sum of water, carbon and random electrical impulses. Your ability to read these words are not the result of anything. Instead, they are the result of nothing.
THIS is the position adopted by those who claim thatreason is on their side!
Recently, Stephen F. Hawking, hailed as one of the most brilliant scientists alive, made headlines by sharing what he knows about God, the afterlife and outer space.Hawking certainly deserves the title of the most brilliant scientists alive – he knows things no other scientist does.
Hawking says that he knows that there is no God. Hawking says that he knows that heaven does not exist. Hawking says that he knows that everything was created from nothing according to a random process.
But as brilliant as Stephen F. Hawking is supposed to be, he was rendered speechless by former child actor Kirk Cameron’s two-word challenge:
“Prove it.”
“Ooops!”
owned ! nice. Steve is getting on in years perhaps his best thinking is behind him ?
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
I guess I should be pleased that you are reading T shirts
You might eventually move up to books
I love your ridiculing atheism because it implies something came from nothing without a hint of shame that Christians proceed to argue for a creator with no explanation of where that came from.
You will say the creator is eternal without a shred of proof
So that T shirt is actually mocking those idiots who present the unmoved mover argument
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the arguments of the religious lack so much rigour
I mean, how mad do you have to be to believe the bible?
You might eventually move up to books
I love your ridiculing atheism because it implies something came from nothing without a hint of shame that Christians proceed to argue for a creator with no explanation of where that came from.
You will say the creator is eternal without a shred of proof
So that T shirt is actually mocking those idiots who present the unmoved mover argument
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the arguments of the religious lack so much rigour
I mean, how mad do you have to be to believe the bible?
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Now Dog
I have tried to explain this to you before but clearly without success
If your 'proof' for the existence of something has the same status as the proof that it does not exist then it does not exist
I have to say I am seriously unimpressed by this boards appointment of monitors
It would seem that the entrance exam is as follows
Are you right wing?
Are you religious?
Are you a bit thick?
If you answer no to any of the above you are disqualified
I have tried to explain this to you before but clearly without success
If your 'proof' for the existence of something has the same status as the proof that it does not exist then it does not exist
I have to say I am seriously unimpressed by this boards appointment of monitors
It would seem that the entrance exam is as follows
Are you right wing?
Are you religious?
Are you a bit thick?
If you answer no to any of the above you are disqualified
perhaps you should re-read my response. I claim no proof.
you said
and I noted that you have no proof its not true.
its unprovable not unlike the Big Bang Theory.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
You are of severely limited intelligence
iT IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE NON-EXISTENCE
Have you got that?
iT IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE NON-EXISTENCE
Have you got that?
prove any of your beliefs then.
If You’re Trying to Be an Ass, You’re Probably Succeeding
Some people thrive on their own arrogance. They’re self-important, holier-that-thou, know-it-alls who seize every opportunity to make others feel small. The funny thing about these kinds of people is that they’re:
- Often wrong,
- Actually don’t know what they’re talking about,
- And use arrogance to mask their lack of confidence.
It always struck me as odd that secular scientists -- who would never dream of making a blanket statement of fact concerning a topic they know nothing about and for which they had no empirical evidence -- are completely comfortable making blanket assertions-- as fact -- like “there is no God.”
The atheist’s blanket proclamation that there is no God, or that the works of mankind are nothing more than water, carbon and electrical impulses is actually a much more difficult position with far less empirical evidence in support than is the Christian position.
The atheist position is one of total negativity. There is no evidence to support atheism. There are no ‘proofs’ that God does not exist. The entire atheist argument rests on the absence of any evidence whatsoever. It is that absence of evidence that forms the body of argument supporting atheism.
The Christian has the Bible, two thousand years of Christian history, various and sundry Christian denominations, prayer books, liturgical worship standards, and the support of history.These are things that can be seen, handled, examined and analyzed. In a word -- evidence.
What can he offer in evidence of his position? atacks on the Bible, Christian history, the various denominations, prayer and worship and history. Your only defense is an attack. You cannot offer anything in support of your position except your own doubts.The only way that your position is in any way intellectually defensible is in the abstract, you could argue that it is at least possible that God does not exist.
His entire argument rests on that possibility. and this is key .. it depends on his possibility being the only possibility.Atheists have another major problem with their worldview that immediately exposes the philosophical bankruptcy of their position. Even if they were successful in refuting evidences offered in favor of the existence of God, that in no way offers any support to atheism.
Even if the atheist refutes all the evidences placed before him, he still loses the debate, IF the standard is really as they claim, that of reason and logic. At best, one can only argue that so far, they’ve not seen convincing evidences.
Guys like you cannot say there are no evidences for God, because you cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, you can only say that the evidence presented so far has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be sufficient evidences presented in the future.
If are intellectually honest, you will acknowledge at this point that you have lost the debate, since your only alternative is to deny that there may indeed be evidence as yet undiscovered which then becomes the foundation of your argument.
Spelled out in words, it would read like this:
“Your position is that you know beyond all possible doubt that which is unknowable, based on a total lack of evidence in support of my position.”
Your opponent’s argument in summary is this one:
“The age and existence of the Bible, the historical failure to stamp it out, together with the faith and inspiration it has engendered, and the billions of people that believe it -- all qualify as hard evidences that can be examined, debated and interpreted, but not refuted, since all exist in the real world and can be demonstrated.”
Every single debate between a Christian and an atheist follows the exact same pattern. The Christian presents evidence, the atheist attacks the Christian’s presentation. The Christian go first because without the Christian’s prior assertions, the atheist has NOTHING to say.
Picture the debate as it would unfold if the atheist goes first.
“There is no God because I can’t see Him.” That’s ALL he’s got. He can’t add anything to that without reaching into the believer’s evidence bag for something to attack.
And since I have no evidence of my own, the only evidence I am going to offer in support of my position is that your evidence doesn’t convince me.”
The defense rests.
each side believes what it will solely on faith as its unprovable.
that's why its faith. to pretend otherwise is pointless.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Cash, I have never read such drivel in my life
The spurious logic which goes ...you can't prove doesn't exist so he does obliges you to believe in anything that is conceivable including a sadistic god who created the world to enjoy the infliction of suffering on a weak and feeble species he duped into thinking he is loving.
As for atheism being based in negativity...are you for real.
Atheism shouldn't exist
There should be no need to have a movement that is driven by asserting non existence
In the sane world the onus is on proving existence and your reference to empirical evidence for the existence of god proves that you don't live there
I shouldn't be surprised as you have to have a screw loose to buy the half wittery of religion
The spurious logic which goes ...you can't prove doesn't exist so he does obliges you to believe in anything that is conceivable including a sadistic god who created the world to enjoy the infliction of suffering on a weak and feeble species he duped into thinking he is loving.
As for atheism being based in negativity...are you for real.
Atheism shouldn't exist
There should be no need to have a movement that is driven by asserting non existence
In the sane world the onus is on proving existence and your reference to empirical evidence for the existence of god proves that you don't live there
I shouldn't be surprised as you have to have a screw loose to buy the half wittery of religion
Werbung:
The greatest christian that ever lived hated religion