Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Don't post beliefs if you're not willing to have them criticized. I told you that from the beginning.
When do you get a soul??
- Thread starter Kaendar
- Start date
Shannon Alexander
Well-Known Member
You realize that you all are going round in circles and that does nothing but up my post count, Which then makes me look like a bigger dick than I really am because young people sign up and read my shit seeing the large post count and expect more from me than they could ever really hope to get... You're all killing my credibility on this site and I demand that you stop this nonsense...
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
These words sound hollow coming from someone that posts what you did in a thread specifically directed at nonbelievers.
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
Every seed he casts to theists is a dud, never amounts to anything. Once in a blue moon he will convince an impressionable individual that their beliefs are irrational and they will turn atheist and thats what makes it all worth it for him. The same satisfaction a religious nut gets when they convert someone to christianity.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;bBUc_kATGgg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_kATGgg[/video]
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
I enjoy reading Heis' comments as well. He is a wise man. I just think the back and forth with CWE is an exercise in futility.
CWE is either trolling, or completely disinterested in hearing other points of view. Either way, it's a waste of time, imo.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
"In the first reason given by Russell for why he was not a Christian, he alluded to the dogma of the Roman Catholic church that "the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason."[1] He then turns to some of the more popular arguments advanced for the existence of God which are (supposedly) based upon this "unaided reason" and easily finds them wanting. It goes without saying, of course, that Russell thought that he was defeating these arguments of unaided reason by means of his own (superior) unaided reason. Russell did not disagree with Rome that man can prove things with his "natural reason" (apart from the supernatural work of grace). Indeed at the end of his lecture he called his hearers to "a fearless outlook and a free intelligence." Russell simply disagreed that unaided reason takes one to God. In different ways, and with different final conclusions, both the Roman church and Russell encouraged men to exercise their reasoning ability autonomously -- apart from the foundation and restraints of divine revelation.
[...]Russell simply takes it for granted that autonomous reason enables man to know things. He speaks freely of his "knowledge of what atoms actually do," of what "science can teach us," and of "certain quite definite fallacies" committed in Christian arguments, etc. But this simply will not do. As the philosopher, Russell here gave himself a free ride; he hypocritically failed to be as self-critical in his reasoning as he beseeched others to be with themselves.
The nagging problem which Russell simply did not face is that, on the basis of autonomous reasoning, man cannot give an adequate and rational account of the knowledge we gain through science and logic. Scientific procedure assumes that the natural world operates in a uniform fashion, in which case our observational knowledge of past cases provides a basis for predicting what will happen in future cases. However, autonomous reason has no basis whatsoever for believing that the natural world will operate in a uniform fashion. Russell himself (at times) asserted that this is a chance universe. He could never reconcile this view of nature being random with his view that nature is uniform (so that "science" can teach us)."
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
^ Would you be so kind as to provide the link you copied this off of please. I would like to read more. Thanks Eye.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...no problem, zs.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Perhaps the deterioration of my memory (it's getting bad ... I forget just how bad) is at the root, but I cannot remember another instance. I've always been amazed at your capacity to neatly fillet past the emotional adipose and get right to the logical meat of a matter. cnWe both know this isn't true.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
You may be too young to remember Oly's heyday or the exploits of SeanC, or BrotherBuzz. I have thick skin, but when it comes to spreading hate my tolerance wears thin, however I see it more as a characterization than steaming. I am a sorter, I like to put things in their place, it is how I make sense of the world. There are some people whos brains are not worth anymore than the shit that comes out of thier ass, IOW, it find viewing one is just as repulsive as viewing the other.
I have been checked and cleared for aspergers because I exhibit social indifference, obsess about one narrow topic (logic), talk about said topic even when others are bored, like to keep a routine, and like to label and sort things. The difference is aspergers usually causes the person to misunderstand or be oblivious to social cues and body language. In my case I am often more aware of a persons feelings and intentions than they are, making my condition match more closely with avoidant personality disorder that mimics some aspects of aspergers.
At the end of the day I am more concerned with defending logic and victims of intolerance than I am defending my own good name. After all, ones good name is earned by actions and conduct, and is it's own defense. Attacking the weak makes me emotional, attacking me just makes me giggle, unless the attack is valid, in which case it makes me a better person when I grow from it.
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
You do understand that Greg L. Bahnsen is a christian minister and apologist right?
You do know he states "The entire human race is dead and trespass in sin, falling short of gods glory. As a result no one seeks after god or has understanding"
^No one has understanding? Not even Greg Bahnsen?
I read the whole article, and is littered with biased personal testimony, which is usually what you can expect from an apologist.
I know you said you didn't want to post the link to the article, but i think everyone should be able to take a look at it, regardless of how it makes anyone feel. Ideas are meant to be shared. http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA103.htm
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I otoh have received the Asperger's diagnosis, and it seems to fit. I'm blind in re the collateral, nonverbal channels of human communication ... and that has frustrated me all my life. It's no fun to have a good attitude sabotaged by bad social instinct. For me, the text-only format online is something of a refuge.
From Lois Bujold's Vorkosigan novels comes a quote I like immensely.
"Reputation is what others know about us. Honor is what we know about ourselves." I'll gladly risk ruining my reputation, since ultimately it isn't mine to control. But honor; that's different. cn
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...yes, but like I do with 'atheist' articles, the title is less important that the message. It's funny how you claim the 'depths' but cannot get past the sour coating. Also, when I ask someone to keep something to themselves via pm, it's for a reason. Never again.
edit: zs, you've done nothing to refute his claims. As usual. Can we please proceed with that part?
I want to hear what you have to say about it.
Oscar Zeta Acosta
Active Member
Does this thread apply to ginger people?
Hepheastus420
Well-Known Member
The same can be said to you. Who do you think is actually gonna follow your views? MAYBE CWE. But even then, I doubt it. We share opinions and facts. Hopefuly somebody will learn along the way.
Kaendar
Well-Known Member
What a great example to set as a mod. A true demonstration of leadership.
Kaendar
Well-Known Member
No it cant. I dont go around telling everyone their beliefs are wrong over and over. I let them know how I feel and leave it at that like a mature adult should. I dont continuously run circles around people poking them trying to convince them that what they are saying is absurd. Thats something a child would do.