|
albertassociate (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
the best line of this video."I know something about religion and i reject it" Damn
Likemypie99 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Why does there HAVE to be a reason that we are here?Why do people HAVE to believe in something?Im an Atheist. When I say that, the most common response is "you belive in evolution? HAHAHA! Yeah we were all apes! hahaha!"Anyone ever thought that maybe there is no TRUE reason yet? That we have no discovered why we are here?And like I said. Why does there have to be a reason? Are people not happy just living their lives? They need to be special?
Drewdood (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Gnostic = I KNOW there is a god.Agnostic = I DON'T KNOW if there is a god.Theist = I BELIEVE there is a god.Atheist = I DON'T BELIEVE in a god.Simplified, but, fairly accurate in my opinion. It's hard to compress these philosophical concepts into one line descriptions (most dictionaries are proof of this). You could just as easily say we're not certain about whether Santa exists, so should we just be "agnostic" about it? In reality we are all "agnostic atheists" when it comes to Santa.
madhatter0719 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"More likely an agnostic, but really that is a minor detail"I think that everyone's agnostic, it's just to what extent. I mean, what is there that we're "100% certain about"? Christians can say they're "100% certain" about god, but they are no more "100% certain" than the muslims who claim to be so to. "P.S. What is all this nonsense about a ball and a sphere?"there was a talk earlier that the bible predicted the world was round, but after finding the bible verse, it just said "circle".
oglasmaglabagin (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
madhatter0719,My Thanksgiving was great as well. Thank you for asking. I do have to contest the idea that just thinking "there's not enough evidence" makes you an Athiest. More likely an agnostic, but really that is a minor detail. I will say that I most likely didn't word myself clearly, I was meaning to ask, what evidence is typically examined so that one can be certain that there is no god(s).P.S. What is all this nonsense about a ball and a sphere?
madhatter0719 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"i don't know if i would laugh or cry at your observation"I don't know how you can't understand sarcasm. And sorry i'm not an expert on the history of the hebrew language, but wouldn't you just assume there would be a word for something as simple as "sphere" or "ball"?oh, and just for the sake of it, i also looked up "sphere" too, and it came out כוכבwhich is still entirely different from הסתובב(circle, which was the word used in the bible)
madhatter0719 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Have a nice Thanksgiving?"I had a wonderful thanksgiving, thank you very much. Family came from all across the country to celebrate this year. How was yours?"what is the foundational concept(s) behind concluding that there is, in fact, no god(s)?"Atheism is not a belief, but the lack of one. To say "there is no god" you just have to weigh the evidence that there could be one, and not find it credible or just think there's not enough evidence.
Drewdood (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"because writers of those biblical verses were not men of science but men of god"There have been plenty of great thinkers in the past who were religious, and no atheist I know dismisses their contributions a priori due to their religious beliefs.Your claim is rejected because the evidence does not support it, and even if the Bible did say the Earth was round this, once again, does not imply divine inspiration. Your argument is asinine.
Drewdood (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"the holy bible was the first to have revealed that scientific knowledge"1) It doesn't.2) Even if it did, there is no way to show it was the first.3) Even if it did, and even if it were the first, none of this implies divine inspiration.4) You continue to ignore the blatant and obvious scientific observations the Bible gets wrong."put science in a shameful position"Science waits for a preponderance of evidence before coming to its conclusions.
robotichivemind (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yeah, but the Epicurean paradox has been debated for centuries, and has had multiple responses on both sides of the fence and has involved almost every philosopher from Plotinus to Nietzsche. Epicurus' paradox deals with the Problem of Evil, or how to resolve the existence of evil with an omnipotent and omniscient god. The issue didn't just END in 306 BCE. You've gone to the start of the argument and not bothered to move forward from there, that's bad form. Please continue to discuss, and read. | 
