Eveery argument in P&R boils down to:

[jem]

Quote from vhehn:

"not so. at least not the religious arguments. religious debates come down to do we give emotion, ie faith,belief, the same weight as evidence that we do testable scientific data.
no matter how many ways you slice it it comes down to this fact. believers believe in spite of the evidence and nonbelievers do not believe because of the evidence."
----------------------------------------------------------
right here we have the proof of my statement. jem cant point to any real evidence of any god. the best he can do is put his fingers in his ears and scream "you cant prove there is no god so that proves there is one". he wants to turn the scientific concept of evidence on its head and allow his emotional need to believe in superstition to trump all scientific conclusions derived from testable evidence that shows every test we have ever concieved to test for a god has failed.
people like jem start with the mindset that there must be a god because their inherited religion tells them so and as science answers more and more "god did it"questions retreat to a blank spot in our knowledge and places their god in that spot.
Can you imagine the ignorance level of someone who asks you to provide a formal proof for a negative?

I am not the person making statements about proof.... you are. I do not claim to have evidence... you do.

Not lets see your proof of no creator ... or revise your statements.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:

I am not the person making statements about proof.... you are. I do not claim to have evidence... you do.

Not lets see your proof of no creator ... or revise your statements.

you must have missed this part:
"Can you imagine the ignorance level of someone who asks you to provide a formal proof for a negative? "

 

[jem]

Quote from vhehn:

you must have missed this part:
"Can you imagine the ignorance level of someone who asks you to provide a formal proof for a negative? "

can you imagine the ignorance level of someone saying they have proof of a negative? once again I am not the one saying I have proof. you are.

Now do you get how ignorant you sound.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:

can you imagine the ignorance level of someone saying they have proof of a negative? once again I am not the one saying I have proof. you are.

Now do you get how ignorant you sound.

why do you believe something you have no proof for and has never been observed? the only answer can be that you believe because of stone age writings handed down and that you inherited. since you admit you have no proof and there has never been physical evidence to support your belief you cant claim a rational basis for what you believe. how intelligent is that?

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from nitro:

The freedom of the individual vs the balancing the rights of the collective. That is why Ayn Rand is all over these pages.

This is best stated by Colonel Jessep, from "A Few Good Men":



It is at the heart of the Conservative vs the Liberal debate. The wisdom comes from realizing that nature has selected (in the Darwinian sense, i.e., Evolutionary Biology) people for both these traits, creating a healthy symbiosis. That the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts individually.

Next time you put each other down, realize that each is the other side of the same coin. Instead, what each should consider is what measure Conservative and what measure Liberal is needed to solve a problem. We are like a receipe in a stew, not enemies accross lines.

that was just a movie nitro. why do many think that movie quotes are so profound?

you should be reading/referencing great philosophers not ... movie dialogue

 

[jem]

Quote from vhehn:

why do you believe something you have no proof for and has never been observed? the only answer can be that you believe because of stone age writings handed down and that you inherited. since you admit you have no proof and there has never been physical evidence to support your belief you cant claim a rational basis for what you believe. how intelligent is that?

This is an entirely different point.
Now you are saying I have no proof. I am not the one who is saying I have proof. I have faith.

However logically even your unicorn analogy is flawed.

A better one would be this.

You saw a unicorn.

You believe it was created by a man from a horse with a fake tusk.

I say wrong it was not created, it has always been. It was just here.


Then I try to tell you you are nuts because you have no proof of a creator.

 

[nitro]

Quote from killthesunshine:

that was just a movie nitro. why do many think that movie quotes are so profound?

you should be reading/referencing great philosophers not ... movie dialogue

The people that write these scripts are often themselves philosophers, or at least English majors and are often extremely well read. That line from that movie is so concise I could not quoted a philosopher that said it better.

It is often said that you could learn everything you need to know about life from pop songs.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from nitro:

The people that write these scripts are often themselves philosophers, or at least English majors and are often extremely well read. That line from that movie is so concise I could not quoted a philosopher that said it better.

It is often said that you could learn everything you need to know about life from pop songs.

Often movie script writers are famous philosophers .. name one

how about daytime TV, you consider them geniuses too

 

[jem]

I do not think he said famous philosophers. Just philosophers.

the guys who wrote the matrix.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:

This is an entirely different point.
Now you are saying I have no proof. I am not the one who is saying I have proof. I have faith.

However logically even your unicorn analogy is flawed.

A better one would be this.

You saw a unicorn.

You believe it was created by a man from a horse with a fake tusk.

I say wrong it was not created, it has always been. It was just here.


Then I try to tell you you are nuts because you have no proof of a creator.

rational educated adults,except you evidently, dont start out believing in negitives. if we did adults would all still believe in santa clause until there was positive conclusive evidence that he does not exist. do you still believe in santa clause? why not?