Atheism - Discussion thread (2 Viewers)

[shuttle_bus5]

Clearly you do not understand the nature of Divine grace. .

So 'divine grace' is a reason why it must be faith as opposed to chance?
You sound like you have been brainwashed.
I feel sorry for you dude. Your delusional.

 

[occer]

Rofl, you could just admit you're wrong and that there is a God

Anyway, if you start a thread entitled "Atheism - Discussion Thread" you can't not expect a theological attack, its inevitable.

If I made a thread "All About God" or w/e I would expect you guys to come and play.

I wouldn't bother because religious debates just devolve into shit-slinging arguments.

 

[Name_Taken]

So 'divine grace' is a reason why it must be faith as opposed to chance?
You sound like you have been brainwashed.
I feel sorry for you dude. Your delusional.

ShuttleBus ty for the link, was a good debate I found it quite entertaining, though in all honesty I can't see how anyone could possibly come to the conclusion that Dawkins emerged as the victor, Lennox walked all over him.

 

[Will Shakespear]

Clearly you do not understand the nature of Divine grace. *Face Palm* This is why people like Richard Dawkins should stick to being a biologist- you people don't know the subtle, nuanced sophistication that is Theology.

The study of made up stuff?

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

ShuttleBus ty for the link, was a good debate I found it quite entertaining, though in all honesty I can't see how anyone could possibly come to the conclusion that Dawkins emerged as the victor, Lennox walked all over him.

No matter what, religious folk will see this outcome.

No matter what, non-religious folk will see the opposite.

Both sides provided very strong arguments, and therefore both appear as successfully 'walking all over' the other to each side.

This and every thread like it is futile.

Arguing against religion is futile because they are so stubborn and blind-sighted. To a degree, same to Athiests/Agnostics.

It's arguing for the sake of arguing which is pointless.

 

[Will Shakespear]

Clearly you do not understand the nature of Divine grace. *Face Palm* This is why people like Richard Dawkins should stick to being a biologist- you people don't know the subtle, nuanced sophistication that is Theology.

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

 

[Name_Taken]

No matter what, religious folk will see this outcome.

No matter what, non-religious folk will see the opposite.

Both sides provided very strong arguments, and therefore both appear as successfully 'walking all over' the other to each side.

This and every thread like it is futile.

Arguing against religion is futile because they are so stubborn and blind-sighted. To a degree, same to Athiests/Agnostics.

It's arguing for the sake of arguing which is pointless.

Buddy, most athiests I know would be more passionate at preeching their "faith" to others if prompted than most Christians.

Other than that, you are more or less correct. We both are bias.

Aruging is not entirely pointless. It allows us to understand and gain exposure to other view points in society, which is very important. It also allows us to clarify to ourselfs exactly what it is we believe in (or don't believe in, for that matter).

It can also be good fun, provided people play nice.

 

[Name_Taken]

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

Which is more important, the buisnessman and scientist, or the author or artist?

It is all well and great having a nice life, but without having something to live for, that life (be it comfortable or not) becomes somewhat meaningless.

For all it's great achievements, science has been unable to answer the three most basic questions, those asked by by every child:

- Who am I?
- Why am I here?
- Why can't I do that?

It's a worthy pursuit no doubt, but there are limits to what it can teach us.

 

[shuttle_bus5]

It is all well and great having a nice life, but without having something to live for, that life (be it comfortable or not) becomes somewhat meaningless.

We don't have to life for 'god' or any kind of spiritual being.
Why can't we just live for the sake of living and just try and be a good person.
Religion doesn't always provide meaning to ones life.

 

[Name_Taken]

We don't have to life for 'god' or any kind of spiritual being.
Why can't we just live for the sake of living and just try and be a good person.
Religion doesn't always provide meaning to ones life.

Rofl.

Your purpose I guess doesn't have to be entirely religious, but it would be difficult to justify one non-religiously.

If you reject the notion that God exists, and accept that humans are no different from every other animal and don't have a soul, you abandon the notion of morality altogether. The conecpt of "good" and "evil" become moot.

If a rock falls and kills someone, you would not say the rock is evil. Likewise, if humans are souless assortments of atoms (like the rock, only different atoms) you can hardly call a person evil for killing another.

The void of no truth spawns nothing but fallicies and contradictions.

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

It is all well and great having a nice life, but without having something to live for, that life (be it comfortable or not) becomes somewhat meaningless.

I dunno. I don't mind my life being meaningless... I don't have anything to live for and I know it.

 

[bio_nut]

Rofl.

Your purpose I guess doesn't have to be entirely religious, but it would be difficult to justify one non-religiously.

If you reject the notion that God exists, and accept that humans are no different from every other animal and don't have a soul, you abandon the notion of morality altogether. The conecpt of "good" and "evil" become moot.

If a rock falls and kills someone, you would not say the rock is evil. Likewise, if humans are souless assortments of atoms (like the rock, only different atoms) you can hardly call a person evil for killing another.

The void of no truth spawns nothing but fallicies and contradictions.

The soul and morality aren't inherently linked.

What separates us from animals is our consciousness. Morality moves on from there.

 

[kelly tully]

This thread is a fucking embarrassment.

 

[Name_Taken]

The soul and morality aren't inherently linked.

What separates us from animals is our consciousness. Morality moves on from there.

But the fact that we have a consciousness, and no other animal does, is indicative of the innate difference between humans and other life.

 

[Ethanescence]

But the fact that we have a consciousness, and no other animal does, is indicative of the innate difference between humans and other life.

It depends on how you define consciousness. Other animals could be described as possessing consciousness, albeit it may be limited.

 

[bio_nut]

But the fact that we have a consciousness, and no other animal does, is indicative of the innate difference between humans and other life.

Not necessarily linked in any way to existence of a soul, however.

Playing the we don't know why so it must be God card is not a valid argument.

 

[bio_nut]

It depends on how you define consciousness. Other animals could be described as possessing consciousness, albeit it may be limited.

Yes, was about to say that too.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

It depends on how you define consciousness. Other animals could be described as possessing consciousness, albeit it may be limited.

Rolf. When was the last time you saw a koala or turtle run for president or build a ten tousand seat stadium..?
Humans can do these things because we are different, we are in the presence of God's Grace. The very fact humans exist is proof of a creator, according to Athiests everything should just be an abyss of nothingness, but we are here, we are alive, and none of it just 'poofed' out of nothing.
The holy trinity actually gives an explaination as to why we are here rather than not here, it's the only answer to the question, and as far as I'm concerned you Athiests haven't disproved it at all, you've merely started your own dogmatic church of Charles Darwin.

So get back to me when you've come up with an actual rival theory, or evidence that disproves Gods Grace, because it's only then that you'll be worth listening too.

Right now you merely attack us because we are free and rich and we love liberty.

 

[Name_Taken]

Not necessarily linked in any way to existence of a soul, however.

Playing the we don't know why so it must be God card is not a valid argument.

Nah I'm not trying to play God of the gaps.

It just is an undeniable fact that humans, by the existence of their consciousness are distanced from other forms of life, and that the religion of rational scientific invesitigation has yet to explain the reason/s for this, despite asserting that such reasons exist.

 

[bio_nut]

Rolf. When was the last time you saw a koala or turtle run for president or build a ten tousand seat stadium..?
Humans can do these things because we are different, we are in the presence of God's Grace. The very fact humans exist is proof of a creator, according to Athiests everything should just be an abyss of nothingness, but we are here, we are alive, and none of it just 'poofed' out of nothing.
The holy trinity actually gives an explaination as to why we are here rather than not here, it's the only answer to the question, and as far as I'm concerned you Athiests haven't disproved it at all, you've merely started your own dogmatic church of Charles Darwin.

So get back to me when you've come up with an actual rival theory, or evidence that disproves Gods Grace, because it's only then that you'll be worth listening too.

Right now you merely attack us because we are free and rich and we love liberty.

He said levels of consciousness you idiot. Not as advanced as humans.