Da_Latios
-
Posts
2484 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Da_Latios
-
-
-
Edit: And to everyone who keeps saying the Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient, I applaud you're promotion of eurocentric thought. The concept of a perfect God-being theology comes from Greek corrupts on Semitic concepts, which have been perpetuated by Western Christianity until about the 19th Century. See Whitehead, Process Theology, Weak Theology, Teilhard DeChardin, complexity-consciousness, etc. Perfect Being Theology is one of many belief systems. I like how people generalize an entire religion by one type of outdated theology, regardless of popularity.
There are so many 1000's of interpretations of christianity, while most christians I talk to whether catholic or baptist all believe in an Omnipotent/Omniscient God. You can write it off as an outdated idea (I agree with you that it is an outdated idea) however it is a near fundamental idea of Christianity not an obscure one that is misleadingly categorizing a whole religion.
It is almost a central idea that God is all knowing and all powerful, and I have been pointing out some logical flaws with the belief
What if god is beyond our logic? Therefore our logic can not make sense of it.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? > No. > Guess we're done with that, then.
-
-
Because people play RuneScape, and people are [puncture]s.
EDIT: Come on TIF Admins, not even Jagex censors "[puncture]".
-
Wait a minute, isn't this just a VNC program? This has been possible for years now. It's nothing new. Why are you acting like you've stumbled on the Holy Grail?
-
-
My god, these are hipsterrific. :roll:
First image: I'm not sure I like your post-processing on this one. You've managed to blend the centered person in with the trees. The only other thing I have to say is that it's not a particularly interesting photo.
Second image: Again, not a fan of your post-processing. Your unnatural vignetting makes this look like a photo of a photo. I also dislike the shadow on the house, and the whole composition of the photo. A more interesting shot would probably have been a dead-on photo of the front of the house(side with the window).
Third image: What, no fancy post-processing? This photo isn't anything special. Shadows are too sharp, not to mention there are shadows at all in the first place. It's just an average touristy photo.
Fourth image: This one's not bad. Could have had the angle slightly lower, but it does well without it. Another thing you could have done is an even longer shutter speed. But, I still kinda like it.
Fifth image: Missy, you keep bringing up the blacks. Why? Crushed black are often good; they make colours more vibrant. It's blown highlights that are bad. Other than my dislike for your post-processing(which I've already said a number of times) this is also an okay photo. I'm not too fussed with the "tent" cover at the top of the photo, but I probably would have tried to do something about it.
Sixth image: *another rant about your post-processing* Boats are a little too dark, basically.
Seventh image: More boats would be nice. No, really, shifting the angle of view a bit to the left probably would have been good. Also, remember that it's okay to crop. There's a little too much sky and you could even get away with chopping a bit off the bottom of the image too, and some of the right side.
Eight image: Good use of a silhouette. I'm not too fussed with the colours here. Couldn't hurt to straighten the horizon a bit, but that's easily fixed in Photoshop.
Ninth image: Probably my favourite. Again, you've creamed the highlights and brought up the blacks, and you've probably de-saturated it too(unless China or wherever the hell this is, is really that dull).
Try something along the lines of:
or
The horizon might also need a little fixing.
So apart from the supermassive yellow "Nippon Centre Superstore" sign and your hipsterrific editing, it's not a bad photo.
Tenth image: Tourist photo, nothing special. BUT AT LEAST YOU DIDN'T HIPSTERFY IT.
I'm not a fan of black & white. You can take any photo and desaturate it and it becomes "art".
(photos often turn out better when you don't need to worry about the colour)
-
Okay, I guess it's time for me to step in and be the party pooper.
First image: Green-cyan car, green grass, green trees, cyan sky. This whole image is cyan, I don't know where I'm supposed to look, and it's boring. Furthermore, there's no room to breathe; the photo is squashed and cluttered.
Second image: Definitely better than the first as far as crop goes, and there's more breathing room, but it's still boring and the only focus point I can think of (the right-hand(or starboard) light) is almost centered and isn't anything special.
Third image: I realise what you were trying to do, but it didn't really turn out too well. Firstly, this is a portrait-oriented shot with way too much head and foot room. Secondly, you can't see the left side of the car, which is really annoying. I find mysef trying to visually rotate the car to see the left side. I really do not like this photo.
Fourth image: Same as the first two, but at least you've separated the car from the background a little.
Fifth image: Extremely cluttered; I have no idea where to look or what this photo is trying to achieve. Then again, I know nothing about cars.
Sixth image: Focal point should be the center of the logo, and you should probably think about cleaning it of dust first.
Overall thoughts: You need to separate the car from the background. Put it on a bitumen road, at sunset or during twilight, turn the headlights on and take photos with the angles used in #2 and #4. Try to keep the lights as dim as possible. Do not use flash when doing this. You may also want to have the car facing the sunset(although I would probably do the opposite).
I'm assuming you're using a point-and-shoot(bad chromatic abberation, huge depth of field on every shot, invariable focus, relatively soft edges and a less-than-desirable dynamic range). I haven't commented much on the depth of field, dynamic range etc. since it's your camera's fault and not you. Really, these photos look like they belong in a car thread, not the gallery.
Hope I didn't offend by saying I didn't like the photos; I'm pretty much the wet blanket of The Gallery's photo threads and will point out the negatives in EVERYONE's photos.
-
Umm, you know, as their home?Sums up what I said, and another thing, if God knows Adam and Eve will eat the apple before they eat it why create them only to have them suffer forever? "Why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune?" Surly God would have had to have known how miserable so many people he created would be, why did he create them knowing that suffering would be the end product?
It points to one of two things, that God is malicious or that God doesnt exist.
Maybe to enjoy true happiness we need to experience suffering first?
What would be the point of having the Garden of Eden before anyone suffered then?
Besides, according to many Christian pastors there are other worlds out there untouched by sin. Wouldn't that mean that they are all Garden-of-Eden-esque worlds with no suffering? That would make your point moot.
Our world is supposedly the only one touched by Sin. There are probably hundreds of thousands of other planets with life. Is Satan on those worlds too?
-
You're probably right. I should add red warning labels.27 Jan: People shot by police on video.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/raw-video-man-shot-in-egypt-protest-23989401
Saw that earlier, wasn't sure if posting it here would get the mods worked up or not.
-
27 Jan: People shot by police on video.
WARNING: Graphic imagery
http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/raw-video-man-shot-in-egypt-protest-23989401
-
never heard of this news broadcast...channel. Its interesting to watch.
Al Jazeera's pretty awesome. One of the few places you'll get REAL world news.
-
Well, that wouldn't excuse his crimes, would it?
Imagine a serial killer(or a rapist), who tortured his victims relentlessly, using that excuse.Sums up what I said, and another thing, if God knows Adam and Eve will eat the apple before they eat it why create them only to have them suffer forever? "Why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune?" Surly God would have had to have known how miserable so many people he created would be, why did he create them knowing that suffering would be the end product?
It points to one of two things, that God is malicious or that God doesnt exist.
Maybe to enjoy true happiness we need to experience suffering first?
Done. What about it?
-
This is an old video, from before they cut off the Internet:
I'd imagine it would have escalated since then; I've been following the story for a while.
EDIT: I just heard someone say this:
"Reporters have seen some police rip off their uniforms and join the protests.
And the army is on their way, and it's widely beleived the army will side with the protesters."
But as of now I've seen no sources to indicate either. Does anyone know if either of those are at all true?
-
Imagine a serial killer(or a rapist), who tortured his victims relentlessly, using that excuse.Sums up what I said, and another thing, if God knows Adam and Eve will eat the apple before they eat it why create them only to have them suffer forever? "Why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune?" Surly God would have had to have known how miserable so many people he created would be, why did he create them knowing that suffering would be the end product?
It points to one of two things, that God is malicious or that God doesnt exist.
Maybe to enjoy true happiness we need to experience suffering first?
-
You again seem to be confused on what atheism even is. An atheist doesn't look at religion and say like "Well, this is good, this is bad, the moral part is good, some of these morals are prejudice..." etc. The only trouble atheists have with religion is simply if a religion encourages belief in some supernatural explanation for real things that happen. Thats it.
I'm sure some atheists idea of atheism is limited to that. I can say for certain many atheists have far more expansive ideas. If you've ever read Hitchens or Dawkins I'm sure you'll concede that point fairly easily.
@Ring_world: The basic problem with that is that knowledge of what is going to happen does not mean you have control over it. If God exists, his lack of intervention in our world is merely doing what he promised us...giving us free will.
If God was going to intervene constantly on our behalf, what would be the point of life? (from a religious perspective).
True free will is free will without punishment. Is it "free will" if, they choose the option less desirable, would be killed or exiled? That isn't free will.If God exists, his lack of intervention in our world is merely doing what he promised us...giving us free will.
But so many religious people think He does. Everything is a "miracle" to the vast majority of Christians I've met. It's a "miracle" if someone survives cancer, it's a "miracle" if a plane crashes and everyone dies but a baby is found alive. It's a "miracle" if you lose your wedding ring and two days later find it. Such ordinary, easily explainable things become "miracles" and "proof of God" to many Christians.If God was going to intervene constantly on our behalf, what would be the point of life? (from a religious perspective).
Many Christians don't read the Bible and oppose abortion. However, you wouldn't say that Christianity is about not reading the Bible and opposing abortion, would you? Just because a number of people who label themselves as "Christian" or "Atheist" have certain similar views, it doesn't mean that's what Atheism or Christianity is. Atheism is simply a "lack of a belief in a god or gods" nothing more, nothing less. You do not have to approve of same-sex marriage if you are an atheist. It's just that many atheists also happen to be humanists, or have humanistic views, and tend to be liberal/left-leaning, politically.I'm sure some atheists idea of atheism is limited to that. I can say for certain many atheists have far more expansive ideas. If you've ever read Hitchens or Dawkins I'm sure you'll concede that point fairly easily. -
Do you want me to shoot you in the head? Do you? No. You don't. Why? Because you think a bullet will come out, enter your skull, and kill you. THIS IS NOT A FACT. The only time it would become a fact is once it has already happened. Before I shoot you, you do not have PROOF that you WILL get shot. It is impossible to PROVE that any future events will ever happen.
You're wrong though.
I can assign a weight assignment, statistically speaking the probability that each of the events are going to occur, and sum them.
If you hold a gun up to my head, and pull the trigger, one of several things may happen:
Case 1 - There is no bullet in the gun.
Case 2 - There is a bullet in the gun.
In Case 1, there is some percentage that you forgot or just didn't put a bullet in the chamber. This outcome is negative, no positive. If you pulled the trigger, I'd be freaked out and jumpy, emotionally distraught with good reason. Even if I had no emotion this case at best is neutral.
In Case 2, there are two more cases.
Case 2.1 - The bullet is a dud,
Case 2.2 - The bullet goes off.
I can find the probability that the bullet is a dud through repeat testing, in fact most bullets are rated this way. 2.1 is slim to none. The outcome in 2.1 is the same though as in 1, and I'd be freaked out. Negative outcome, neutral at best.
In Case 2.2, there are several more cases.
2.2.1 - Your aim sucks, and you miss.
2.2.2 - You shoot me.
What's the probability you miss? Don't know, but the outcome is the same as 2.1, and its Negative, neutral at best.
In 2.2.2, there are even more cases.
Case 2.2.2.1 - I survive with half my face being blown off
Case 2.2.2.2 - I die.
Both of those to me are negative, in the extreme.
You argue that there might be more cases, some of which are "positive," for some people. If you ask those people if they want to be shot in the head, they may say yes, but they'll have different reasons (like they're tripping on acid).
When you sum up the probabilities multiplied by their expected results (positive or negative), the expected result is grossly negative. You don't even have to make a guess at the probabilities for any one of those outcomes, all the expected results for each probability are negative. There is absolutely no positive for me to be shot in the head, which is why without having ANY certainty in the matter at all, I can tell you I don't want you to hold a gun to my head and shoot.
I don't see how that example, with a thousand or more variables, is the same saying there is no proof for the axiom against triviality. Why does it upset you that math, at it's very core, is a set of large assumptions?
He said shoot. SHOOT. IN THE HEAD. Not "do you want me to pull a trigger on a gun which may or may not have a bullet in it?" or "do you want me to shoot AT you?". He said SHOOT YOU IN THE HEAD, which involves the gun firing and the bullet penetrating your skull. You sound like a 5 year old kid playing fantasy games; "I shot you! You're dead!" "No you didn't, I have my shield on!" seriously, what the hell.Do you want me to shoot you in the head?While it's true that you may survive a shot to the head, or that the bullet will not be shot at a speed fast enough to penetrate your skull, these extremely rare occurrences are so unlikely they can be completely ignored when determining whether to gamble your life when a man has a gun pointed to your head.
-
*sigh* I'm really, really tired of your ignorance, your absolute lack of ability to understand what it is you're trying to debate, and your childish "you're not debating properly!" remarks. I don't give a damn whether or not I'm debating "properly". I care about the truth. I care about humanity. I care about the universe and I certainly don't care about your cry-baby remarks. I know I'm being an [wagon], but don't use that to weasel your way out of this. You've failed to show even one flaw in atheism, having claimed there are many.
You've failed to identify what atheism is. You've failed at...
Lol. Come on. Really?It was structured like a joke, and I didn't find it funny.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.I think atheists are just as likely to be immoral as religious are, if not more so.
I am currently hitting my head with both hands, trying to un-read the stupid."Up to 5% have been involved in abuse." My point is that no matter how you swing it, 5% is not even close to being representative of the whole. That's identical to stereotyping ethnic groups as criminals because a minuscule percentile are.
fsgdfslfaskdf'sdfweiufJF;lkf;safas;falskdfjalsdkjflkj;sa;fkl oiuruljkbh jkjkjklmkOk. And religion is "I do not believe a god or gods does not exist". It's a play on words.
Like I said further up, I don't care to debate. I just enjoy tearing apart your half-assed "arguments" which you've clearly sleep-typed. I don't care if I'm being an [wagon], because that doesn't make me any less right. It just makes me less desirable to talk to, and I don't give a damn about that. At the end of the day, all your arguments have amounted to... nothing. You've still not provided a flaw with atheism, nobody has given a reason that one should believe in a god or gods, sees_all1's arguments are still completely irrelevant, and you still have no idea what the hell you're on about.But I think I'm actually going to leave things here. You've shown time and time again despite the numerous chances I've given you that you've no interest whatsoever in debating like a mature adult, and I really have better things to do.From what I've gathered in this thread:
>If there was evidence of a god, then it wouldn't be faith.
But why would a god require faith?
>Science can't be proven, or something like that.
sees_all1, you're really annoying. Your "arguments" are completely irrelevant and, even though I've pointed that out to you... time and time again... you keep bring it up. Stop it. I can't believe anyone would even try to use those arguments.
There is so much wrong with religion, and since I'm more familiar with the Christian religion. I will use it as the prime example.
>Why does Yahweh demand faith, and worship?
>Adam and Eve: The incest story. I mean come on.
>Adam and Eve were kicked out for wanting to know the difference between good and evil, but didn't know the difference between good and evil yet? Then how were they to know the snake was "evil" and God was "good"? They wanted knowledge. Christianity begins by telling us that humanity was banished from paradise for wanting to know more.
>Why is homosexuality wrong? Other than "The bible says so." Where is the reasoning for this?
>God kills 42 children for calling Elisha bald(Kings 2:23-24). This is your idea of a moral god?
>There is so much pain and suffering in the world; children in third-world countries who will never live past the age of 5. Don't worry though, God is loving and watches over each of us.
>God is "jealous". This is a petty human emotion and definitely not an attribute of a supreme being.
>God has 'rules' which he's not supposed to break. Well, if you're not allowed to do anything, just [bleep] off.
>Why was a boat necessary in the story of Noah's ark? And why floods? Why drown everyone? Couldn't He have just made all the "evil" people disappear? Surely that would have been far less messy. And what did all the animals do to deserve death? Some people on this thread have claimed dolphins and certain monkeys can show empathy.
>"...I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."(Matt 17:20) Where are all the dancing mountains?
>Mark 11:12-14 "The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14Then he said to the tree, 'May no one ever eat fruit from you again.' And his disciples heard him say it." Jesus was mad at a fig tree for not having fruit on it, so he basically killed it? (other versions say the tree withered and died)
>In the story of the Hebrew slaves fleeing from Egypt, why did Adonai wait until the Egyptians were in the Red Sea before closing the waters, killing them all? This was an unnecessary massacre. And why didn't God just, you know, teleport the Hebrews to the other side of the sea? This Biblical God seems to be all show-off and not enough efficiency.
>There is no mention of an afterlife, or a hell, until the New Testament. Why?
>Why does God have a "chosen people"?
>Are there other life forms in the universe? Are they made by God? If so, are they sinless? Why? If our light or radio waves can reach them, why not Satan?
>My (former) pastor told me that Lucifer is not beyond redemption. He's supposed to be an angel; surely he can;t be holding a 4 billion year old grudge?
>Lucifer managed to persuade 1/3 of all the angels in heaven to join him rather than God. Guess God wasn't all too convincing.
>In Genesis, God had to ask Cain where Abel was. I think this speaks for itself.
>In Genesis, God gives Cain a "mark" saying that anyone who comes across him will kill him. However, later on it's revealed he has is own damn city.
These are just a few I could think of off the top of my head. It's almost 4am and I need sleep. I'll find more to post tomorrow, and try to include verses along with them.
-
No, but good luck trying to make a direct link between that and the statement, "I do not believe in a god or gods."Oh yes? So you beleive sex before marriage is immoral? You beleive gay marriage is immoral?
This is my face IRL: -.-If, as you claim, you'd actually read any atheist literature you'd see that practically all of it condones releasing the "sexual shackles imposed by religion". Thus, an increased atheism releases such and the logical consequences are what I described.I mean COME ON! Many atheists also happen to be humanists? Wow! I guess there aren't any religious humanists!
You quoted:
I think subtlety is wasted on you. Since your quotes claimed religious moral superiority, I pointed out a case where religious leaders followed very immoral practices, and my reply was to suggest the immoral clergy were atheists... ugh. My reply was structured like a joke. Cleatly, you didn't "get it."Nope, can't blame religion for that; it has to be the ATHEISTS!
Firstly, it's 5% (http://coloradoindependent.com/39228/vatican-defense-%E2%80%98only-5%E2%80%99-of-clergy-sex-abusers-and-most-of-those-gay).So you chose to take an example from the 1% of priests who are not successful with celibacy and ignore the 99% that are? Ok.Secondly, really? I mean, seriously? I was convinced of your stupidity but now... well, perhaps it's more than that.
You're like a serial killer at a murder trial saying, "Oh, I knew you would bring up THAT murder, and THAT murder, and THAT murder... why don't you ever bring up the fact that I send my father a birthday card every year?"
Or, another analogy: If you found a little dung on your piece of chocolate, would you still eat it?
No. It is not. Clearly all this time you've been confused as to what atheism is.Atheism is simply one core belief - "God does not existAtheism is saying, "I do not believe a god or gods exist." NOT as you put it, "God does not exist."
Those two are VERY different. Read: VERY DIFFERENT. The latter is a belief, in such a way collecting stamps is a hobby. The former is a lack of belief, NOT A BELIEF, in the way not collecting stamps is NOT a hobby.
sees_all1: I've already been convinced you're a troll, so if you're going to stop replying, that's a dream come true. Thank you.
-
Look, nobody cares about your "flaws of maths and science" right now; that's not what we're talking about.
Lol, stop trying to sway from the point.@Y_Guy: Atheism has no doctrine; you have failed.
Congratulations, you've successfully demonstrated how not to debate. I've done you the good service of making valid points and actually attempting to prove them. Clearly you aren't interested in reciprocating, so I think we can assume you have no desire to actually debate on the topic.
And they say the religious are closed-minded.
I asked you to show me a flaw in atheism, and you haven't provided a single one.
I've shown you a "flaw" in math and science, which is the same "flaw" for religion.
Math can't prove that one does not equal zero, religion can't prove that a higher being exists.
Math and science can't show everything you want to know about the Universe (like how it came to be), while religion can. However, religion can't show everything you want to know about God.
Duh, there are so many gods and so many religions. What were you even trying to prove?However, religion can't show everything you want to know about God.Y_Guy:
Says who? You can be an atheist and still believe in sex after marriage, marriage between a woman and a man only etc.The point is not that atheists uniformly beleive that unbridled sexual experiences are the way to go
Yes, arguments made by atheist authors seem to be somewhat consistent with each other.Have you ever actually read any book or other literature written by an atheist? This is a consistent argument made by many leading atheist writers.In other news, there's only a limited amount of doctrines within religions, which lead to a limited number of possible arguments. Your ignorance astounds me.
Huh? Blaming atheists for problems in the church? What the hell are you on about?Where did I say you should blame athiests for the problems with the church?
Dude, celibacy. It's a Catholic thing. Come one, at least TRY to follow along here.But of course, they (the small number it is) only rapes children because they're catholic, right?I'll assert again that you really don't seem to know what atheism is. You keep trying to give atheism a doctrine, or a unified set of beliefs, when there aren't any. Stop it. You're just making yourself look dumb.
-
All your arguments make the assumption that atheism is a belief system; that there is a doctrine.I quite clearly made a post detailing one flaw and providing reading material that goes over others in great detail. Forgive me for not wanting to waste hours of my time restating what others have done far better than I, especially for someone who obviously has no interest in actually having an intellectual conversation.
I don't think you have any idea what atheism is, and you say I'm the one who doesn't want to debate? You don't even know what you're trying to debate against.
Invalid argument; atheism has no doctrine.Atheists like to use the thought of "unbridled sexual experience" as a draw towards losing the "shackles" imposed by the church (and religion as a whole). They like to paint a picture of a world where our sexual desires transcend all else and restrictions on such would be nonexistent. They say that the current attitude of the church is fruitless and old fashioned, and unnecessarily restrictive. They say "we should try the atheist way".
Invalid point; atheism has no doctrine.And this brings us to why Athiests run the risk of losing among this younger generation when You talk about sex the way new Atheists all have so far: because everybody on the godless team writes about sex and freedom from the religious moral rules as if all the years from 1960 on never even existed. As if the sexual revolution hadn't been staggering along for nearly a half century now! Hello? Well, for better or worse from the point of view of our side, it has. And what that means is that all kinds of people now know that if we try to make a selling point out of trashing Christian sexual morality - as Atheists have been doing since the beginning - a whole lot of Dulls(sic: christians) today are going to raise their hands and call us losers on the subject of sex and say that we don't know what you're talking about. So it this letter i'd like to draw your attention to just some of the legacy of the Sexual revolution, in the hopes of making our movement less vulnerable to the unfortunate facts.
This is so [developmentally delayed]ed that I seriously wonder if the author isn't actually a Chihuahua.And if the campuses don't do it for you, take a look at what secular sex is doing in post-Christan western Europe! Pornography is everywhere, over-the-counter medicines for STD's are front and center in every convenience store, red-light districts showcase poorer and younger people (mostly from the East) being paid for every possible combination of sex by richer and older people (mostly from the West), the age of consent keeps getting pushed lower - and marriage and children and families are disappearing
This is a bad thing?over-the-counter medicines for STD's are front and center in every convenience store
Please, he makes an assertion without even attempting to make a connection between secularism and prostitution. I'd point out all those mega-church pastors who were paying for buttsex *cough*TED HAGGARD*cough* but I suppose they aren't "real Christians". Or how about the nearly 5% of all Catholic clergymen who have raped and molested children, which the Catholic church covered up. Nope, can't blame religion for that; it has to be the ATHEISTS!take a look at what secular sex is doing in post-Christan western Europe!Really, you have absolutely no idea what you're trying to debate. Stop acting like a damn child, you ignorant ass.
-
Where are the many flaws with atheism that you claim there are? Come on, you claim there are many. Let's see them.
Lol, stop trying to sway from the point.@Y_Guy: Atheism has no doctrine; you have failed.
Congratulations, you've successfully demonstrated how not to debate. I've done you the good service of making valid points and actually attempting to prove them. Clearly you aren't interested in reciprocating, so I think we can assume you have no desire to actually debate on the topic.
And they say the religious are closed-minded.
I asked you to show me a flaw in atheism, and you haven't provided a single one.
How on earth am I swaying from the point? Certain people like wep and rainbows actually bothered to reply to my post and point out their objections. All you're doing is making blanket statements with no attempt to actually debate.
-
Lol, stop trying to sway from the point.@Y_Guy: Atheism has no doctrine; you have failed.
Congratulations, you've successfully demonstrated how not to debate. I've done you the good service of making valid points and actually attempting to prove them. Clearly you aren't interested in reciprocating, so I think we can assume you have no desire to actually debate on the topic.
And they say the religious are closed-minded.
I asked you to show me a flaw in atheism, and you haven't provided a single one.
-
You missed the point by about, hmm, five miles?
We've sent another of our species to the moon.Yeah, but animals aren't sapient. Humans are.
Pretty sure that science is debunking this one - humans aren't the only intelligent species. Prove to me that we're special.
There, happy? I don't think you will be, for some reason.
Right, so then humans up until 1960 weren't special at all.
That would contribute, yes. But then realising that religion is silly and there is no supernatural force guiding our world would make us special among the other intelligent species.So the questions that lead us to religion make us special?
:wink:
religion
in Off-Topic
Posted
But it would be so extremely stupid to believe in a god just because, "Oh, he MIGHT be beyond logic!" and, "It's POSSIBLE that he exists!".
Well that's settled, then.