601. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79748 by phasmagigas on October 18, 2007 at 12:18 pm

You're right. How about flagging Dianelos for spamming? Anyone?

DG is a spammer of sorts by constantly making assertions and asserting that any other positions are not valid as they are not his personal ontological beliefs and by asserting that his worldview is just somehow closer to truth than anybody elses. the whole exercise becomes incredibly tedious. i think we all get sick of having definitions of definitions of definitions pushed all over the place.


eg.

I don't know what you mean by "heaven"

DG knows exacly what i mean by heaven, if he doesnt know what i mean by heaven (and im not the one asserting heaven is a 'real' place) he needs to jump to a christian formum and debate the intricies of the afterlife with them as it seems central to many peoples beliefs.

602. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79743 by phasmagigas on October 18, 2007 at 11:58 am

dianelos:

I submit that the fact that so many people are naturalists is explained by the fact that they have not actually studied what naturalism implies

im not sure what to make of that comment, does anybody?

603. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79719 by phasmagigas on October 18, 2007 at 10:15 am

Personally, I don't really approve of flagging anyone as a troll

to my mind trolls need to be abusive

604. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79712 by phasmagigas on October 18, 2007 at 9:46 am

But, still, for a naturalist to play the ethics card is like a donkey saying to a rooster that it has big head

dianelos, do you feel that without your religious beliefs you would be more immoral (in the generally accepted sense of the word-whatever that may be)? if so, just what do you think you would do or not do that is different now.

you could try an experiment.

Go to an atheist convention in the USA and wear a big t shirt saying 'i believe in god' and walk around saying it repeatedly, record the result on videotape and study it later.

Go to a christian megachurch in the USA and wear a big t shirt saying 'i dont believe in god' and walk around saying it repeatedly, record the result on videotape and study it later.

Go to a large mosque in london UK (i dont know of any as such in the USA)and wear a big t shirt saying 'i dont believe in god' and walk around saying it repeatedly, record the result on videotape and study it later.

edit. the experiment might show something like 'the reaction of various groups to an individual not sharing their ontological worldview and presenting it in an annoying and obvious way.

605. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79708 by phasmagigas on October 18, 2007 at 9:31 am

dianelos

I mean neither you nor I believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, so we both expect to find errors in it.

please corroborate this with other christians, I hear every description of the bible from literal to metaphorical and all inbetween, on what basis is it not the word of god, many christians beleive it is, although most muslims i have met say the same thing about the quran instead of the bible and even then they themselves have not come to a common concensus on how it is to interpreted. i am getting more and more confused.

606. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79707 by phasmagigas on October 18, 2007 at 9:20 am

Donald:

nice post. good old cognitive dissonance from the flea.

607. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79695 by phasmagigas on October 18, 2007 at 7:42 am

steve99

It is basically a carefully-crafted delusion that allows one to hide from the uncomfortable truth.

in fairness that post wasnt thrown at DG, i didnt want to open a multifarious and nefarious can of worms regarding animal souls, pain, experience, or even what does one mean by rough herbage and sunny days.

delusions could be quite useful though:

'phasmagigas what are you doing on the floor again?'

'erm, im not sure, i was just walking a moment ago'

'but you have no legs, remember, they were blown off in that london attack'

'bollocks, I only have no legs in the accepted, neo capitalistic, dogmatic physician, quasi scientific western sense'

(the above is all fiction by the way but i just felt like writing it)

608. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79687 by phasmagigas on October 18, 2007 at 7:03 am

steve99

Dianelos is also master of the false dichotomy. If there are flaws in our current understanding of naturalism (or, rather in Dianelos' straw-man version) this MUST mean the only alternative is theism. There is at least one other option: We don't know everything yet. However, for Dianelos, "I dunno" is not good enough.

theistic vs uncaring universe:

if one spends an hour sat still amongst some rough herbage on a warm summer day one can see 'evidence' for that uncaring universe, each and every intricate creature and leaf is doing its very best to avoid being eaten and those doing the eating are doing their best to do the eating. lastyear I remember disturbing a large grasshopper that jumped close to a praying mantis that i hadnt even seen (the large non-native chinese mantis that we get around here) anyway, the mantis got the grasshopper and over a horrible hour, ate the thing from the back end forward. Now lets ignore all notions of mans special place/awareness but i thought if there was a god couldnt it have had the hopper get eaten front end first or even had the mantis dispatch it quicker with those nice sharp squewers at the front of its tibia, no, the mantis nibbled, yes, nibbled with its strong though quite small mandibles until all that remained was a still twitching head!! Insects, like humans dont die that quickly, i suppose its something to do with the amount of oxygen they can get and how quickly they use it.

anyway, if the universe was a caring one we'd see a world with the type of wishful thinking nonsense that you find on jehovas witness pamphlets, you know the lion and the lamb lying together, the child and the panda playing together(do pandas eat children in the real world??).

the above is all mere musing, please take it as such.

609. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79683 by phasmagigas on October 18, 2007 at 6:42 am

bluejway.

You have no clue and do not have the intellectual tools to make sense of the very solid and tangible points he made in his first 20 minutes

What are we missing? its important to educate not insult, please explain those points by mc grath that we are failing to understand.

If somebody says to me 'evolution is nonsense as it says we come from monkeys' i dont tell them they lack the intellectual ability to understand it, i will literally find a piece of paper/pen and draw a rough family tree and explain how evolution predicts that we do not come from monkeys but share a common ancestor with them, that ancestor might have been 'monkey like', i will tell them thats the prediction, I will also say (if they are still listening)that their initial statement (irrespective of their acceptence/non acceptence of evolution)that 'evolution is nonsense as it says we come from monkeys' was therefore false. (i use this as an example as ive heard this argument several times)

if they accept it fine, if not, fine, its upto them.

the point im making is that if you hear somebody say something and you feel they are honestly misunderstanding it then one should step in and engage in some explaining.

PS and when I do my explaining bit i dont do it all smugly and 'im right' but in a more 'well this is what the theory as it stands predicts' youd be suprised at the positive response you can get!!

610. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79678 by phasmagigas on October 18, 2007 at 6:24 am

whan a theist asks 'where do you (atheist) get your morals from?' I should reply 'thats a very good question, just where do my morals come from? its not from god or scripture (i dont believe and I dont read scripture), but they come from somewhere and as long as i have them thats enough for me.'

611. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79675 by phasmagigas on October 18, 2007 at 6:13 am

dianelos:

I'll do that (prove god)just after you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that an uncaring, universe-directing "physical" mechanism exists

im not sure DG is interested in truth, just carrying on the schoolground tradition.

It is you who are ADDING something that we dont accept is there so i think the onus is on you to do the first bit or proving.

the uncaring universe is perhaps a more reasonable default setting to be falsified (and dont start with all that ontological business, weve had it all before), well its not proof but when i see people and other animals happily going about their lives i just know (in the traditional sense of the word that most people tend to use on a day to day basis, you know, that time iterval drawn between complete revolutions of the earth, just incase you were wondering what my ontological version of day meant) that every single one of them (except a lucky few where the end is obscured by hospital opiates (or whatever they use) are going to meet with a rather miserable and unhappy end, happy spring birds by cat, by cold, by parasite, by starvation. Oh and even that pastor/minister or whatever he was with the 2 wetsuits and dildo death (he did at least use a condom, thats grace for you) you can of course say that they (oh,no, only people and only those that fulfil specific criteria) will bypass that suffering for eternal bliss.

if christians died and they suddenly turned into a twinkling beautiful vapour that swept upwards and muslims bloated and decayed unceremoniously like any ather animal i'd be quite certain to believe that some unknown force that christians had the right idea about was at hand, but of course it doesnt happen like that.

DG can i suggest that before you inundate us with more arguments that you spend some time talking to fellow theists, the problem is we non believers have a hard time understanding just what part of theistic belief to accept, they all feel they have it right, as do you. IM not sure if i should accept your non acceptance of hell, or fred phelps acceptance of it, and thats quite a big issue, please go to the godhatesfags website and talk it out with him, once youve ascertained if there is a hell or not (and please dont start rambling on about what constitutes reality or how we perceive it) comeback to us. hell is a big deal for most believers so i feel this is important.

anyway in a nutshell, come back when you have figured out through long discourse with various believers which god we are talking about, also was jesus devine? is there a hell? is there a heaven? is the komba god just a baka myth or the one true god? what constitutes a sin? did god guide evolution or simply make us very similar to apes just for the fun of it. how should the bible be interpreted (whatever the hell 'interpretation' means). get back to us in a few years when you have come to a general agreed concensus with your fellow believers and then maybe we can start talking.

612. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79550 by phasmagigas on October 17, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Obviously, because we don't know whether gods exist or not

I agree.

Indeed: the moral Zeitgeist has slowly but steadily come closer to Jesus' ethics.

ah, back to jesus. if the zeitgeist exactly matched jesus ethics (what are they and how would one ascertain they did match) of what significance is this?

613. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79547 by phasmagigas on October 17, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Theists need an asshole like Hitchens to shake you guys out of your comfort zone.

maybe theists need as asshole like Hitchens to shake THEM out of their comfort zone.

actually another theist asshole is that bill donahue, remember his words to hitchens: 'when the irish man is talking, the english man must listen'. Try substituting the word english for mexican/italian/african/iranian and see how far that would get donahue.

i agree though that ad hominem attacks on AM are not needed aside from the fact that he evaded just about every question thrown at him and turned it into a sermon.

614. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79462 by phasmagigas on October 17, 2007 at 10:17 am

so its a case of your BS is as bad as our BS but listen to ours anyway.

ugh, that horrible americanism (as it has come to seem to me) 'for your gift' it makes me cringe just like 'unconditional love' 'i believe' 'grace'......... sounds like an (soap)oprah show, shudder.

615. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79404 by phasmagigas on October 17, 2007 at 7:22 am

For me a cry-baby is somebody who at the face of a great number of people who are in much worse situation makes a big fuss about their own situation.

holy moses, this was written by the king of ontological ontology???????

To my judgment an atheist gay man living in Britain today decrying the Aglican Church's discrimination against gays when that Church is one of the most advanced in this issue and when in atheist regimes homosexuals fared much worse – displays a classical case of cry-babyhood

yes, that crybaby homosexual should be grateful he doesnt live in iran eh?? dianelos, you know for a fact that no atheists here (id be suprised if there were) would advocate a social system that discriminated against homosexuals, that is pure BS.

I personally know christians in my very neighbourhood who discriminate and dislike homosexual behaviour and even the people themselves and their main argument 'its against god' or 'its adam and eve, not adam and steve'. enough said.

616. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79399 by phasmagigas on October 17, 2007 at 7:06 am

perhaps C.H. could debate Joel Osteen; he's not aggressive, still, I'd like to see Joel taken down a peg or two:

bluebird, thanks for that link. looking at that stadium makes me almost feel physically sick. interesting how that which can produce almost orgasmic feelings in some is poison for others.

617. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79397 by phasmagigas on October 17, 2007 at 7:00 am

Let the Hitch get right into these mega church leaders and publicly destroy them. Like really take them apart and make sure that their followers know it

AM is just too gentile to be flayed publically, people are going to side with him irrespective of his ramblings because hes just so timid. A yelling, red faced, wealthy, seething and scripture hurling demagogue is just what believers need to see, just as long as hitch keeps his cool, he could seriously do some damage.

618. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79396 by phasmagigas on October 17, 2007 at 6:53 am

his non-evidence-based rants equate to a Sun editorial on immigration. No evidence from a man who claims reason.

walk through a southern town in the USA with a T shirt saying 'I love allah'.

walk through a mainly islamic area in London UK with a T shirt saying 'i hate allah'

see how long it takes before you are physically attacked.

ok, maybe not religion per say but ingroup/outgroup mentality, once could get similar results by wearing the wrong football shirt in the wrong pub.

619. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79390 by phasmagigas on October 17, 2007 at 6:40 am

i think hitchens is wasted on AM (AM isnt an asshole), as said before he needs to go up against one of those aggressive american christian demagogues. I suggest this as they are the types who feel so empowered by their flocks acceptance of their nonsense that to actually face some opposition will reveal the weakness of their arguments.

edit: we might also see horns growing from their heads as they get more and more frustrated as their rants become more and more ineffective

PS, this debate was so much better than the lennox/dawkins affair in part because of the better format.

620. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79376 by phasmagigas on October 17, 2007 at 5:31 am

Hitchens was weakest when he spoke about needing to destroy all enemies, which doesn't sound compatibile with the ideals of western civlisation that he upholds. In a civilised country, the cycle of violence stops when perpetrators are brought to justice by an objective dispassionate arbiter, rather than the never ending vendettas of tit-for-tat violence.

when hitch starts with this stuff it makes me uncomfortable. Interestingly its the only thing he says that might get the christian right agreeing with him.

621. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79375 by phasmagigas on October 17, 2007 at 5:28 am

a good deal of AM waffle was indistinguishable from actual preaching.

622. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79374 by phasmagigas on October 17, 2007 at 5:25 am

hope it's not heresy to say, but I'm starting to think Hitchens is a better debater than Dawkins.

I feel each of the 'famous atheists' is best within their own speciality, hitchens is beating religion (ignoring god) itself, dawkins is evolution.

What a grotesque shame that two intellects have to waste their time against the same people, one arguing against religion and one against creationism. The fact that evolution has somehow got itself wrangled up in this mess is one of the most massive injustices in our history. A testament to the simple minded fundamantalism and crowd following mentality that the religious mind tends to have.

imagine if the bible had mentioned that the apple adam ate fell from the tree by gods will, would physicists be battling anti gravitationists???

evolution got caught in a roller coaster ride of ignorance and now there it just isnt going to be able to get out, its one thing that disheartens me over many things.

623. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79256 by phasmagigas on October 16, 2007 at 3:28 pm

AM on atheism: wishful thinking. what a prat.

hes suggesting it takes away limits and creates nihilism, not many drug taking, homosexual, chocolate eating christians out there eh??

wishful thinking, we die and thats it, no justice either, what a prat.

624. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79254 by phasmagigas on October 16, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Donald.

Also gives an origin of the term "scapegoat" which I had not heard before.

if im not mistaken there are some cultures (i thik in east asia) that still do this, one with an oxen or similar animal and one god fobid with a monkey that they crucify and parade it alive through the village absorbing the sins. the oxen is quickly dispatched thankfully but im not sure about that poor primate. religion poisons most things.

625. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79243 by phasmagigas on October 16, 2007 at 2:51 pm

oh jesus, 42 mins in hes telling a joke? about 2 catholic nums, I need to put my fingers in my ears, invariably jokes about nums are rather distasteful.

626. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79237 by phasmagigas on October 16, 2007 at 2:38 pm

that business about health and religion, more a case of religious individuals feeling part of a big social network, reaffirming each other beliefs which true or not probably reduces stress and so ups health.

according to AM, jesus is the image of the invisible god, right. 33-35 mns he starts preaching without even knowing.

627. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79139 by phasmagigas on October 16, 2007 at 9:22 am

It seems that some naturalists (Dawkins included) imagine that the God hypothesis refers to some big physical thing, which must therefore conform to their classical intuitions about big physical things: one must be able to see or touch God, if God thinks then God must be a complex thing, and so on. Don't you see that's a very primitive way of thinking?

so a non classical intuition is far superior and less primitive, Umgawa!!

628. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79138 by phasmagigas on October 16, 2007 at 9:20 am

Many many things exist that no one has ever seen or touched, for example electrons, numbers, physical laws, time, logic, justice, beauty, other peoples' minds, your own mind

but people dont suppose that those things will send you to heaven or hell or give a person an ABSOLUTE reason for hating homosexuals.

629. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79135 by phasmagigas on October 16, 2007 at 9:01 am

steve 99

Easy.

We don't understand objective reality and how it works. Therefore there is a God, and Jesus rose from the dead.

good answer steve, so jesus will serve me my block of cheese in the shop. :)

630. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79134 by phasmagigas on October 16, 2007 at 8:58 am

dianelos:

can you or somebody else explain just what this means in laymans terms and how could it apply to me say buying a block of cheese at the store...


Past death too. Theoretically one can only think about the phenomenal reality one experiences whether in this life or in the afterlife without thinking about what kind of objective reality produces it, but that's only theoretically. In the praxis we all form some idea about how objective reality is; the obvious but by now demonstrably false idea is that objective reality is just how it looks when we look around.

actually i can agree with the last sentence, if one was on LSD (i suspect the brain not on LSD gives a 'better' model of what matter immediately surrounds it, hows its moving etc)

631. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79132 by phasmagigas on October 16, 2007 at 8:50 am

dianelos:

OK, let's think about what the main motivator is for suicide bombers blowing themselves up in the midst of civilians. You bet that the main motivator is their belief in God who will reward their actions, and I bet that the main motivator is anger born out of a sense of national injustice and humiliation.

actually yes, i agree that the initial motivation is the anger etc but the idea that pushes it into killing action is that belief in god and the afterlife, (A typical person in a good situation isnt just going to stand up and say i believe in god and blow themselves up)

1)angry young man says 'god is great' BOOM.

2)angry young man says 'there is no god' BOOM.

id be suprised if #2 happened but not if #1 happened.

632. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79128 by phasmagigas on October 16, 2007 at 8:41 am

dianelos:

can you or somebody else explain just what this means in laymans terms and how could it apply to me say buying a block of cheese at the store...

Past death too. Theoretically one can only think about the phenomenal reality one experiences whether in this life or in the afterlife without thinking about what kind of objective reality produces it, but that's only theoretically. In the praxis we all form some idea about how objective reality is; the obvious but by now demonstrably false idea is that objective reality is just how it looks when we look around.

633. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79126 by phasmagigas on October 16, 2007 at 8:37 am

dianelos:

I also believe that the fact that naturalism removes one reason for behaving ethically plays a significant role in explaining that historical fact

and that reason would be god, so i should suck sky daddies nipples and that will help me be good??

and if i dont anyway i wont go to hell anyway as you say

Hell is just such a stupid idea. I wonder how long it will take for Christianity to outgrow it

but there is a heaven yes?

most people here would consider heaven to be an equally stupid idea, but of course you possibly have the evidence for the place, so fire on.

634. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78892 by phasmagigas on October 15, 2007 at 9:37 am

Dianelos:

So I agree that belief in religious fundamentalism has played some role in some peoples' murdering others, but by the same measure belief in naturalism has also played some role in some peoples' murdering others (even though in all cases other factors such as greed, anger or politics are probably the main motivators). But if one compares theism in general and naturalism in general in this respect the result I think speaks against naturalism, so that's maybe a path you don't want to go.

so the naturalistic belief system can lead to murder, well if what you mean is that real life generally can lead to murder then yes, we all agree on that one, murder for revenge, jealousy, gain, maybe even food but what we dont need is one EXTRA reason under a theistic belief system.

I'm still not sure that murders are commited 'because there is no god', they would be carried out with the default as no god, just like they carried out murders with the default as no hobgoblins in my shed ontological belief system.

so anyway i think what you are saying Dianelos is that 'naturalistic' murders eg partner jealously or whatever are far more numerous than theistic ones, well on the whole they quite likely are but it doesnt take away the issue that theistic belief can further justify a killing and maybe almost entirely be the reason for it, as I said we dont need ANOTHER reason to kill, we do it admirably as it is.

635. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78885 by phasmagigas on October 15, 2007 at 8:58 am

Dianelos:

Indeed, only some knowledge about phenomenal reality is quite sufficient to get one through life.

but not past death eh??

Well, incidentally, the same people think that my soul will also suffer eternally because of my ontological beliefs. But I find such is more of a curiosity than actually annoying. I mean who cares what these people think.

one would care if that somebody felt that it justified killing you (or another ) for it. Actually it does bother me, you never had a smug christian tell you you are going to hell and they arent?? I usually wonder at that point if pleated front pants are allowed into heaven (the whole heaven and hell idea to my mind is preposterous beyond any kind or reasonable conversation so i have to end it it there with a silly thought to myself)

:-) Right, it's funny to consider all the many a theistic sects which teach that only they have gotten it right and that everybody else is going to hell.

its bloody hysterical. BTW, you are in the right one yes?

636. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78881 by phasmagigas on October 15, 2007 at 8:43 am

dianelos

Nobody has done such and thought 'this is because there is God' either

lets get technical, maybe they didnt actually think those very particular 6 words but you can bet their belief in god was very much at the forefront of why the murder was commited. maybe they were thinking 'this is for god' 'this if because i believe in god' 'god is great' 'god wants me to do this' 'god allows me to do this'.

Im not talking bloody naturalism vs theism (thats what you are talking about), im talking about the main motivator in the psyche of the murderer IS god, you can deny that all you want. If you could talk to one of these murderers and ask them why they did such things, id be VERY suprised if the answer didnt include god or their belief in god. I restate my case that i bet no person has ever killed another with the main push being the fact that they (the killer) doesnt believe in god.

637. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78532 by phasmagigas on October 13, 2007 at 1:35 pm

dianelos:

In other words no matter how well a naturalist writes a book on ethics, that book will not make as much sense as a book on ethics written equally well by a theist

im not sure this even deserves a response.

But this is a quarrel I have with my fellow Christians, which I suppose is irrelevant for people in this thread.

agreed, and thats why most on this thread are here in the first place.

638. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78529 by phasmagigas on October 13, 2007 at 1:13 pm

steve99:

I am gay. The majority of religions condemn me

the homophobia I notice here in america is bad enough but to know that there are people who would see your orientation as death deserving is incredible and available mainly at the religious shopping mall.

639. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78528 by phasmagigas on October 13, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Dianelos:

Sam Harris argues that one's ontological beliefs affect one's behavior very strongly, but I doubt it noting that naturalists and theists display very similar behavior on average

behaviour is possibly similar on average, im sure i enjoy my meals as much as any believer but I can bet that throughout the entirety of human history, nobody has ever manually sliced completely through the hot bloody neck of a crying, defacating and vomiting adult male and thought 'this is because there is no god'.

640. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78520 by phasmagigas on October 13, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Dawkins for example thinks that naturalistic ontology is the more reasonable one and indeed that the probability of the theistic ontology being true is very low indeed. But if you personally judge that there is not sufficient evidence to decide one way or the other (i.e. you remain in the "I dunno" state) then you are declaring yourself agnostic in this issue, which is an entirely valid cognitive position.

in my day to day goings on I do not incorporate any theistic belief whatsoever, if there is a god then i'll have picked the wrong way to look at the universe/outside the universe and all inbetween, still i manage anyway. My issue is when people around me actually think that my 'soul' will suffer eternally for it!! (if there is a god i'd be suprised, but even more suprised if there is a heaven and hell)heck, even those westboro baptists are going to hell according to many muslims!!

641. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #78516 by phasmagigas on October 13, 2007 at 12:20 pm

northern bright:

Personally I always learn a great deal from the posts that attempt to flesh out the science and logic of the discussions and am grateful to people like steve99 and others for posting as they do.

a good way of looking at things. I recently posted a few remarks on DG postings which are not worthy of any rebuttal themselves. I do read the posts but ive got to the point with some (esp DG) where they add no value (well at least im not seeing how they show god does exists if thats what they are trying to do ultimately), maybe for other they do. Its all a bit like saying lets see who can run 100 meters the fastest (of 2 friends), one in fact can do that but then my problem lies in the 5 hour debate on exactly what does the word 'won' actually mean. If you see what i mean!!

642. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78488 by phasmagigas on October 13, 2007 at 7:53 am

Well, again, suppose that God exists. Then God could easily arrange the state of affairs in such a way that His/Her existence were easily detectable by science (i.e. by objective observation). But clearly God has not done that (for some reason or other we can discuss later if you like).

im going to have to stop reading this thread, its beginning to seem a waste of time...

'but clearly god has not done that' (clearly)

'(for some reason or other we can discuss later if you like)' (so there IS a reason???????)

assumptions, assumptions, assumptions, I thought this was a 'suppose'.

643. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78399 by phasmagigas on October 12, 2007 at 4:45 pm

dianelos:

But I understand you don't wish to discuss naturalism and its implications. And it appears that nobody else here wishes to answer this question either. Which I suppose is answer enough

the implications of naturalism, im not sure what you mean by that, can you explain.

thanks.

644. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78397 by phasmagigas on October 12, 2007 at 4:35 pm

steve99

but you have no basis on which to describe any author

i like that sentence, sometimes after reading too much pro god/pro esp/pro medium/pro astrology/pro creation nonsense I have to remind myself to take several steps back and think 'hang on, why the hell would anybody even start to believe this shit to start with??'

(the only exception to the rule is the baka god komba which i particularly like the name of)

645. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78207 by phasmagigas on October 12, 2007 at 6:54 am

revcort. (warning, this is a rambling post)

remember 9/11?

Its interesting to think that whilst that was happening live on tv were you praying? were millions of americans (and others)praying for the people in the towers? im sure they were. now, im sure there were also many praying for the towers to fall and kill all inside, most of those would have been muslim, I guess that there were less people wanting a bad outcome for several reasons (most peole just arent that 'bad' to want people they dont know to die).

The people praying for a better outcome were thinking several things eg 'how can god let this happen' 'god please stop this' 'god help us' and the people praying for a more destructive outcome were thinking things like 'god is doing this' 'kill all the infidels' 'god has helped the pilots fly the planes into the towers' 'we pray the towers fall'.

the towers of course fell (although some people on this forum (no names needed) could explain to us that its all a mere metaphysical naturalistic illusion). if there is a god (or maybe there are actually two or more) then which set of prayers were answered and why?? maybe the pilots were praying harder just before they went into the building.

what i saw were 2 buildings, some pilots and they fly the planes at the building and they fell, end of story. as the outcome matched the prayers of the muslims who wanted destruction I must side (all other things being equal) with the assumption that allah is a more powerful god than yours or perhaps even THE god (if there is one). of all events in recent history this is the one which quite possibly had more people praying simultaneously than any other, and interesting experiment that would according to those with belief systems suggest that allah is the true god.

a similar but smaller situation (and i mention these events as they were covered worldwide and have religion as a central issue), the various people who have had their heads unceremoniously (or ceremoniously) removed as one would a chicken for a meal (eg the british man ken bigley) would have had prayers directed at god for weeks, maybe the prayers of the executioner were stronger in this case, i know of no divine intervention as that blade cut through bone and sinew and its possible the last thing that ran through kens mind as it permenently got deleted was 'god help me'. once again, allah must be all powerful. and again, its so much easier and makes so much sense when there is no god, one man merely kills another (as dreadful as it is and i am not one of those ghouls who could ever watch such monstrous footage).

anyway whay am i posting this you may ask? actually im not sure but I get fed up of massively contradicting nonesense daily when people talk of god will and all the metaphysical junk that goes with it. what is tough as an atheist is that when i consider the plight of a beheadee there is a final outcome and thats it, a believer will think that somehow god will (once again) intervene and bring justice to the beheader (in hell), and once again the beheader and the beheadee are praying for 2 different outcomes, the beheader is indeed doing the beheading for/because of god and believes he will go to heaven for it!!! incredible is the only word.

its time we replaced the letters GOD with PBS (P is for pure), when i say 'we', i dont mean you, i mean generally. i did a long time ago.

646. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78003 by phasmagigas on October 11, 2007 at 12:59 pm

walk

Phasmagigas, here's a thought. Seeing as how each believer thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong, heaven must be a VERY lonely place!

walk, I reckon in future i wont engage with any religious believer until they have battled out their own differences(no pun intended!) so that at least I know exactly what im not believing in!! yes, hell actually is the place to go, by argument from popularity its a very full place as EVERYBODY goes to hell by the time youve spoken to about 4 different religious people, but accoding to nobody (well nobody i know of) does everybody go to heaven, so hells the place to find all your loved ones and maybe not so loved ones, hey thats rather like the place we find ourselves in right now.

647. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77985 by phasmagigas on October 11, 2007 at 12:08 pm

I have numbered those points because they are the essential ingredients for one who desires to obey that Holiness command. I recommend it to you because I think you may be one of the disciples who shows a desire to go the 101% with the carpenter from Nazareth.
If you DO want to go that distance with the Saviour -it WILL take you to a Calvary experience sooner or later. I am not there yet but will be some day - If you DO want to walk that walk to which we are called, then work on living those 7 steps. They are trustworthy. You should recognise their source.

nothing personal here but this is the type of writing that makes my stomach turn, i have an instinctive negative reaction to it, it means nothing and offers nothing, its rather like a literal lobotomy.

648. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77981 by phasmagigas on October 11, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Why are there several thousand Religions/denominations/beliefs in the world, but the claim of one true God by most..theirs!?..

not only that, notice how each individual religious person thinks they have it right but the minute of their beliefs must be different from each and every other believer in the world even those of the same denomination. i think what really gets my goat is that ive yet to meet a religious person who feels that they are going to hell, oh no, they have it right even though all those atheists and all those other religious types have it all wrong.

religion to my mind is pure mental junk.

649. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77770 by phasmagigas on October 10, 2007 at 12:53 pm

revcort, I think you're taking LOTR and Star Wars too seriously. The spiritual aspects of these films are fantasy and I think you're perceiving a threat where there isn't one. I crack up everytime I hear someone moaning about the spiritual implications of Harry Potter.

well we all saw jesus camps condemnation of harry potter, a warlock who should be stoned to death!! I enjoy the supernatural film/book genre, a modern example would be 'the others' or some hp lovecraft stories (actually the entities in those are often natural, just alien and often ancient) but its more the appreciation of the artistry than any notion that im missing out on any mystery from being a rationalist. I hear a creak upstairs and as far as im concerned its NOT a ghost but i still like to read a good ghost story, something short and sharp like 'the monkeys paw'!

650. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77767 by phasmagigas on October 10, 2007 at 12:47 pm

revcort.
i think youll find the science of dating techniques and all that it leads to very illuminating, even the relatively simple dendrochronolody using tree rings can take us far back when you overlap equivalent rings from a series of trees, actually im not sure just how far back it can take us, maybe past 6000 years!!

Accepting god is one thing (and a matter of faith for sure) but ignoring evidence for evoluton is another. I'd be suprised if you didnt find an evolved biology MORE interesting than created biology (even if you dont believe it!). At some point you could well read dawkins evolution series: selfish gene>ancestors tale, id be VERY suprised if you read that and then said, well thats a load of nonsense I can balance that weight of knowledge with 'god did it in mysterious ways'.