Question (and debate).

[davo]

Originally Posted by Veritas

Fine. Everything has a cause; except God. I've said that. I'm not claiming an absolute.

You just did!?!

[davo]

Originally Posted by Veritas

Gods failure to exist? Explain. God gives enough light for those to find who seek, and so that those who do not seek will not find.

Umm be careful going there Veritas, there are people on this board that DID look, were either preachers or on the way to being preachers, and didn't find. They looked hard.

They problem is I don't think you are doing much more than just accepting what you have been told, rather than actually weighing it up. You are just looking for stuff to bolster your choice.

I'm quite open to evidence, reasoning and logic and will change my position given that. Would you?

[ABridgeTooFar]

Originally Posted by Veritas

Fine. Everything has a cause; except God. I've said that. I'm not claiming an absolute.

Why exactly does the universe need a cause but God doesn't? Why are there different rules? There is no justification for your double standards seeing as you can't even name the properties of your supposed God.

[Veritas]

Four thousand out of 100,000 accused, and about 40% of those unsubstantial. And Jp II declared it a grave sin?

Yeah the church is obvious a vehicle for child raping.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

So Veritas, you are a nice guy aren't you?

If your god asked you to kill somebody then would you do it?

Simple YES or NO will suffice, and are the only options.

[Veritas]

You obviously misunderstand the arguement. God is the unmoved mover which put the universe into motion. That is the nature of God. Without him, there is the ever-illogical infinite regression.

[Veritas]

@crocodile: who is the person in question?

[Goldenmane]

Originally Posted by Veritas

And your atheism? You believe apparently that nothing suddenyl burst into something without any sort of cause to it. Things just happened.

My atheism (speaking only for myself) doesn't dictate fuck all about what might seem to be a reasonable explanation for the universe. It's completely non-dictatorial. It's descriptive, not prescriptive. It is merely a single response on a single issue: I don't believe in gods. Aside from the fact that I don't tend to do belief in the religious sense (because it makes no fucking sense to me), I've seen nothing which counts as evidence to support the existence of such beings.

I've seen several metric fucktonnes of claims, assertions, insistences, and foot-stamping, but not a single fucking shred of evidence. Indeed, every single time anyone has told me about their god and gone on to provide any description of said beastie, it always comes down to utter drooling idiocy and the rather simple demonstration that their god doesn't exist. The only way god-claimers manage to have gods that aren't readily shown to not exist is to keep them entirely undefined, which is to say utterly fucking useless.

So far, this thread is nothing new.

[simonecuttlefish]

Well, I personally don't require any of the following to reject the notion of the supernatural. I don't need chemistry, biology, bio-chemistry or evolutionary theory. I don't need physics, either theoretical or observable, astronomy or cosmology, or palaeontology or geology either. I like them as they explain the attempts to describe existence, and I respect attempts to understand things. It is one of the things that make us human, and goes a long way to pandering to our compulsion for pattern seeking, for understanding.

I don't need any of the scientific disciplines listed above to reject numerology, tarot cards, mind reading, telekinesis or astral projection as accepted realities. I don't require them to have no belief in astrology, daemonic possession, ghosts, a spirit realm, validity of ancestor worship or actual witchcraft, wizardry, or any form of magic, no matter how hard some people 'believe' in them.

I can have no faith or belief in all the above supernatural ideas without science at all. What I would need to take seriously any of the above supernatural claims is evidence, and this is where science comes in. Science may currently have trouble explaining some natural phenomena, however, 'faith' explains exactly 100% of nothing. Nothing at all. It is vacuous and hollow, as it allows, in fact it demands, no attempt at explanation as the explanation.

Faith equally proves the validity and factuality of every god that has ever been worshipped, every ancestor that has ever had offerings made to it, Scientology, Hinduism, shamanism and animism, the claims of the prophet Muhammed as well as the divinity of Jesus, the story of Set tuning into an hippopotamus to battle Horus, and for some the existence of Santa Clause, and it does so with equal authority and power; that is, none.

I like science as it shows that people are attempting to understand. I dislike faith, as it shows people have lost part of the very nature of humanity itself, the need for real answers and for actual knowledge.

As for what might be wrong with Catholicism, I may post that in another reply. I just wanted to make my standpoint clear in light of your 100% faith based claim, that it all happened by magic, via magical forces that can never be known. Our current knowledge of the universe is not only incomplete, but hampered by the as yet unresolved attempts to fully understand the nature of the universe before it's currently observable form. But at least some people are still being human some people are still looking for actual answers.

I do not believe in, and I do not have faith in magic.

[Veritas]

Originally Posted by Protium

ha ha ha... Pikkiwoki lives in mud... it's very dark, and if you look hard enough he will sneak up behind you and give you a wedgy.. does your imaginary friend do that?

I'm tired of your mocking and base slander. Does your illogical world of infinite regression do that?