RE: Hawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster

RE: Hawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: Hawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1/8/2007 4:50:33 AM)
It amuses me to read the claim that if you have a religious belief and seek to influence political events then somehow that is wrong, however if you are non believer then influence to your hearts content. Double standards ? Many things that have got on the statute books over the last few years due to the influence of rational secularists have gone totally "belly up" A perfect example in the UK is Pro Abortion Laws which were originally conceived as only allowing Abortion under quite limited circumstances. Now abortions are peformed as a form of contraception or so the couple, if they still live together, a big IF, can buy a new car or go on a better holiday next year. !!! LadyE: you will peruse my contributions in vain for arguments based on spirituality. My approach to the existence or otherwise of a Deity is based on the incomprehensible mysteries underlying Nature. Spiritual attitudes/beliefs are a completely personal "thing"

meatcleaver -> RE: Hawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1/8/2007 4:56:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave LadyE: you will peruse my contributions in vain for arguments based on spirituality. My approach to the existence or otherwise of a Deity is based on the incomprehensible mysteries underlying Nature. Spiritual attitudes/beliefs are a completely personal "thing" Our ignorance doesn't mean what we don't know are incomprehensible mysteries. I think most scientists would agree that they are probably only at the beginning of unravelling the mysteries of the universe and that we will probably never know everything but that is no reason not to try. The idea of a diety throuws up more problems than there not being a diety and that is part of the argument why many scientist don't believe in one.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Hawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1/8/2007 5:08:41 AM)
Meatcleaver: there are at least two levels of not knowing. Level 1 Can a formula to predict all prime numbers be derived ? Level 2 Is it likely that the problems surrounding the first cause of things will be unravelled ? Level 1 problems are capable of solution one way or the other. Level 2 problems in my estimation are not. I can only repeat myself now....so I wont !

luckydog1 -> RE: Hawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1/8/2007 10:57:29 AM)
Interesting Side note, Richard Dawkins was a character on South Park( comedians have already been introduced into the thread by someone one else) last night, anyone catch it. Its a cliff hanger. The final battle between the United Athiest Leauge, the Allied Athiest Alliance, and the Intelligent Sea Otters was just starting. When the fighters would die, they would scream, "Oh my Science!!" This thread can never end, but here's my final thoughts. Number one "religion" has been used on this thread to mean a "Formal organized institution" and "some form of spiritual beliefs( I personally think Christians anthropomorphise God far too much, but that in no way changes my belief in a spiritual realm)". Religious theory has indeed changed over time, if you argue it hasn't your wrong. If you base your argument against the existance of "god" on a paticular sect's dogma of unchanging doctrine ( or any other Dogma), you are not making a rational argument and can not claim rationality as your basis. Most of the arguments(against God) presented on this thread have been based on defining religion into a simple box of the attackers making, and then attacking that. One poster bragged he haddn't given it a serious thought since he was 8 years old, but an 8 year old cant do science yet either, and accepts it on faith. This is like a Fundy saying we did not come from apes so Evolution is incorrect. It's not a valid argument, its rhetoric. a Koan is a paradox to consider, the trinity is nonsense to be discarded, ( personally I think it is wrong but a usefull teaching tool). It has been alleged that Religion has caused a lot of attrocities, logically this would mean with out religion they would not occurr. Association does not imply causuality. Countless examples of attrocity from Athiests have been cited on this thread, so this is a unsupported false assertion, to use it makes your argument non rational. It also demolishes the implied argument that Athism makes you a moral person. As South Park showed quite clearly thinking that Dawkins is right does not make you rational or good person, but is a form of faith. WE don't know... both sides are operating on faith, based on our subjective realties limited by time and space.

Chaingang -> RE: Hawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1/8/2007 11:34:03 AM)
I think the spiritual believers are also expressing this idea: Physical evidence is not important. It just seems like a very odd claim to make. I know some of you are going to cry "straw man" and so forth, but at the heart of it you must think that some kind of emotional or spiritual truth is just as important, or even more important, than the actual physical evidence available in the world and universe around you. With a bullshit purely abstract idea like god there is no evidence whatever. At least with a "spiritual" idea like Ubuntu you have the observable social relationships between people. Certainly a cultural anthropologist would see very real evidence upon which to base the Ubuntu philosophy.

mgdartist -> RE: Hawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1/8/2007 12:11:12 PM)
quote: WE don't know... both sides are operating on faith, based on our subjective realties limited by time and space. From this threads inception, I presumed it would end with similar. So why even debate? Because we as humans, with souls almost assuredly, have need, dire need of truth in this matter. Raised a PK(preachers Kid) I find it impossible to forsake the doctrines I was taught. I have a version of "truth" as I suppose all religions seek to impose theirs. yet I don't seek to teach it to anyone, especially here, nor do I live it, being as blackhearted a being as the PK cliche implies. Not only do I believe in god, but in fact, blasphemously feel need to take issue with him, for leaving us with such a mystery, feeling his "great is the mystery of godliness" scriptural reference just damn well not good enough. Faith I have, and far more than a mustard seed, and tho I my live as a sinner in his eyes, he has never denied me a single request, once beseeched in prayer. I could say I've seen things which would make anyone know beyond any doubt of his reality, but I do not seek to convince, and know I couldn't anyway. Further, I believe, according to his King James version, that it is all but impossible to achieve salvation in this modern world, and most specifically in the USA, so once knowing my truth, would find one perhaps farther from heaven, if indeed it is truth. My basis for this, can be found in the parable of the rich young man.who"went away sorrowful, as he had many houses and lands." and further, as the scripture flatly states one "cannot serve God and Mammon." (money) Here in this crucible of freewill, we must be tested in darkness, and being "shapen in iniquity" do so here, in the domain of he who was cast down, along with 1/3 of gods angels. Just a theory, but the only one that makes sense, I believe our souls are but chards and remnants of those better angels, which god wishes to reclaim, but which must first be tested and purified, in the aforementioned crucible. Fuck science, and fuck man's limited wisdom and reasoning. Then all thats left is a God who's biblical attributes firmly establish his personna as very akin to that of a 9 year old kid. Jealous, spiteful, and in need of worship and attention, among other things. Studying scipture deeply enough will show that the ONLY reason for our brief existance here is but to worship him. Anyone here have a 9 yearold? I don't, but nonetheless have a bit of a problem with the concept of worshipping anything, much less that. MGD (the man who dares bitch at God)

meatcleaver -> RE: Hawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1/8/2007 1:01:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Interesting Side note, Richard Dawkins was a character on South Park( comedians have already been introduced into the thread by someone one else) last night, anyone catch it. Its a cliff hanger. The final battle between the United Athiest Leauge, the Allied Athiest Alliance, and the Intelligent Sea Otters was just starting. When the fighters would die, they would scream, "Oh my Science!!" This thread can never end, but here's my final thoughts. Number one "religion" has been used on this thread to mean a "Formal organized institution" and "some form of spiritual beliefs( I personally think Christians anthropomorphise God far too much, but that in no way changes my belief in a spiritual realm)". Religious theory has indeed changed over time, if you argue it hasn't your wrong. If you base your argument against the existance of "god" on a paticular sect's dogma of unchanging doctrine ( or any other Dogma), you are not making a rational argument and can not claim rationality as your basis. Most of the arguments(against God) presented on this thread have been based on defining religion into a simple box of the attackers making, and then attacking that. One poster bragged he haddn't given it a serious thought since he was 8 years old, but an 8 year old cant do science yet either, and accepts it on faith. This is like a Fundy saying we did not come from apes so Evolution is incorrect. It's not a valid argument, its rhetoric. a Koan is a paradox to consider, the trinity is nonsense to be discarded, ( personally I think it is wrong but a usefull teaching tool). It has been alleged that Religion has caused a lot of attrocities, logically this would mean with out religion they would not occurr. Association does not imply causuality. Countless examples of attrocity from Athiests have been cited on this thread, so this is a unsupported false assertion, to use it makes your argument non rational. It also demolishes the implied argument that Athism makes you a moral person. As South Park showed quite clearly thinking that Dawkins is right does not make you rational or good person, but is a form of faith. WE don't know... both sides are operating on faith, based on our subjective realties limited by time and space. You know. You talk nonsense on this issue. Atheism doesn't make anyone a moral person and neither does religion. Objective studies point towards our moral compass being developed through natural selection since morals are similar across all religions and cultures and even in cultures that have had no contact with the modern world. You keep talking about atrocities in the name atheism but there has been no atrocities in the name of atheism. Hitler wasn't an atheist and although Stalin was, he learnt his morals in a seminary and his crimes were commited in the name of communism and dragging Russia into the 20th century too fast. However, I could make a list as long as you like of crimes commited in the name of religion. At 8 years old I was old enough to see the nonsense that was being peddled to me as some sort of truth when it patently wasn't. I can't help it if at the age of 8 I could spot someone feeding me a dummy but it really wasn't that hard to spot. Read the bible, the god of love, the omnipotent, the omniscient, is a vitriolic vengeful sadistic madman who orders genocide, iand ethnic cleasing and all sorts of other nasty and mean horrible crimes and the trinity which did it for me was obvioulsly absurd, yep, even to an 8 year old's mind. You have a blind belief in something for which their is no evidence outside you own imagination. You've been fed a lie and its lodged fast. I bet you daren't look for evidence in case you realise you have spent your whole life believing in a yarn that someone has fed you. If I am given evidence of a god, no matter how late in the day I'll accept it but my guess is I could live for a 1,000 years and there would be no evidence forth coming.

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Hawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1/8/2007 1:40:54 PM)
This isn't going anywhere. Play somewhere else.

Page: << < prev 13 14 15 16 [17]

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.4335938