|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 216 of 432:
| 
Feb 14 18:11 UTC 2006 |
Chuck Norris uses Tabasco Sauce for eye drops.
It's widely believed that Jesus was Chuck Norris' stunt double for crucifixion
due to the fact that it is impossible for nails to pierce Chuck Norris' skin.
In the Bible, Jesus turned water into wine. But then Chuck Norris turned that
wine into beer.
Chuck Norris was the fourth wise man, who gave baby Jesus the gift of beard,
which he carried with him until he died. The other three wise men were enraged
by the preference that Jesus showed to Chuck's gift, and arranged to have him
written out of the bible. All three died soon after of mysterious
roundhouse-kick related injuries.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 217 of 432:
|
Feb 14 18:20 UTC 2006 |
If St. Paul was really an opportunist -- why would he have done what he did,
putting himself in great danger from all sides? I don't find any claim that his
actions (after the event on the road to Damascus) were his own idea credible at
*all*.
I didn't say that one could believe and doubt and have peace about it, just
that one could believe and still have doubts. Someone in that position is
usually praying for the doubts to go away.
Reminder: Atheists don't withold judgment, they give their verdict to the
opposite extreme. Theists believe that there is a God, atheists believe that
there is not, and agnostics refuse to believe one or the other. And there is no
absolutely indubitably convincingly sufficient evidence for proof of *any* of
these three choices.
If God exists, it is eminently possible that he is simply choosing to avoid
those people who persist in saying that he doesn't exist.
|
tod
|
|
response 218 of 432:
|
Feb 14 18:22 UTC 2006 |
agnostics refuse to believe
You sound like Bill O'Reilly. His quip for all things contrary to his
elementary beliefs are "you don't understand"
|
happyboy
|
|
response 219 of 432:
|
Feb 14 18:55 UTC 2006 |
"if god exists it is possible that he is avoiding, etc..."
so god is a man with avoidant personality disorder?
neat!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 220 of 432:
|
Feb 14 18:56 UTC 2006 |
...and, and it's the fault of far left liberals.
Re #217: fiddlesticks. The hypothesis of the existence of gods has no
empirical support, so why consider it further? Everyone does this with
other fantastic hypotheses, like the Tooth Fairy, etc. What's different
about gods?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 221 of 432:
|
Feb 14 18:56 UTC 2006 |
The Reverend slipped in with #219.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 222 of 432:
|
Feb 14 18:59 UTC 2006 |
Re #214: I don't understand this analogy at all, and since you didn't do
me the courtesy of answering my question I'm not going to answer yours
either.
|
tod
|
|
response 223 of 432:
|
Feb 14 19:04 UTC 2006 |
<opens the coffee can of Donny's ashes>
|
kingjon
|
|
response 224 of 432:
|
Feb 14 19:05 UTC 2006 |
And since when does the hypothesis of the *non*existence of God have any
empirical support?
You're talking about God as if he were a mineral or a supernova. The existence
of any one particular person, who can only be met by a human being on *his*
initiative (i.e., sitting around for hours saying "God, if you exist, prove it
to me" won't do a thing if he doesn't want to do so) can't be proven or
disproven by "empirical" (read: peer-reviewed double-blind experiments) means.
|
tod
|
|
response 225 of 432:
|
Feb 14 19:12 UTC 2006 |
There's more proof that sasquatch exists.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 226 of 432:
|
Feb 14 19:16 UTC 2006 |
god is a mineral...or are you saying that god is separate from
what god creates?
|
tod
|
|
response 227 of 432:
|
Feb 14 19:24 UTC 2006 |
HEY KOOL AID
|
happyboy
|
|
response 228 of 432:
|
Feb 14 19:36 UTC 2006 |
/watches god knock down all of the pins as he busts thru
the back of the bowlin' alley
|
rcurl
|
|
response 229 of 432:
|
Feb 14 20:58 UTC 2006 |
Religionists always create specious arguments to prevent rational inquiry
about gods. They even did that about cosmology and other testable hypotheses
way back. Now they stick to untestable hypotheses.
There is no "hypothesis of the *non*existence of" gods. No-one, out of the
blue, asked "do gods exist?" *until* someone said they did. Why even raise
the question when there is no evidence - except false positives related to
coincidences and complexity?
|
edina
|
|
response 230 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:03 UTC 2006 |
It's kind of funny how to me it's simply a matter of faith. Does this make
me stupid?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 231 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:17 UTC 2006 |
Re #229: I can make the same sort of broad claims too: Anti-religionists always
dismiss arguments that look even faintly religious out of hand, nearly always
claiming the opposite. And anti-religionists make the same sorts of specious
arguments, except that they claim that their hypotheses are testable and have
been tested.
"Why even raise
the question when there is no evidence - except false positives related to
coincidences and complexity?"
If the evidence is only related to coincidences and complexity, and it's all
false positives, then investigation will show this. But you can't know that all
the evidence is false positives until either the question has been raised and
investigated or you assume that all positives will be false. You can't say that
"all the evidence is invalid" until you admit that there is some evidence to
begin with, at which point an investigation is warranted.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 232 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:17 UTC 2006 |
No, just misled. Why have you adopted this "faith" in something unknowable
and untestable?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 233 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:20 UTC 2006 |
What is your "no, just misled" responding to?
Like I've said before, God is only unknowable if you define knowledge to
exclude him. I believe God exists for the same reason I believe my parents
exist.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 234 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:22 UTC 2006 |
Re #231:
Jon slipped in - #232 is in response to Brooke.
Well, Jon, humans have been looking everywhere, from quarks to distant
galaxies, and not an iota of evidence of gods, or any supernatural event
or process, has ever been observed. One has to make up fanciful notions
for the supernatural as it just isn't *there*.
|
edina
|
|
response 235 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:23 UTC 2006 |
Re 232 Because it is not unknown or "untested" to me. Why do I believe in
God? Because I feel his/her/its presence has been made known to me and I have
found it gratifying.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 236 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:25 UTC 2006 |
Re #234:
Like I said before, you're looking for the supernatural using natural methods.
If I handed you a box of marbles and said "there's exactly one red marble, but
it isn't in the box", and you looked through the box and didn't find it, would
that be conclusive proof that no such marble existed?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 237 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:26 UTC 2006 |
Re #235: Exactly!
|
tod
|
|
response 238 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:55 UTC 2006 |
re #236
I'd agree that you've lost your marbles, d00d ;)
|
marcvh
|
|
response 239 of 432:
|
Feb 14 22:07 UTC 2006 |
A red marble is a pretty mundane thing, and so the level of evidence
required to support it can be pretty mundane as well. If, instead of
a red marble, you claimed that there was one magic marble which was the
king of all the marbles that are and ever were and ever will be, and
this magic marble was both inside the box and not inside the box, and
that this magic marble loves all the other marbles and has a plan for
their marble-lives, and that this magic marble teaches that eating ice
cream is wicked and all people must stop doing it, you would be closer.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 240 of 432:
|
Feb 14 22:11 UTC 2006 |
You'll notice that he didn't say anything about "God" in the response I was
responding to -- just "any supernatural event or process".
|