"If there were no God, there would be no atheists

[kut2k2]

Quote from Ricter:

How about the purely scientific, social Darwinists and other social engineers? No pesky God messing up their clear thinking.

It shouldn't be hard to deal with social Darwinists, that's a flawed theory.

Unfortunately we've always had other social engineers. Aren't tax deductions for home mortgages but not any for rent payments a form of social engineering?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from kut2k2:

It shouldn't be hard to deal with social Darwinists, that's a flawed theory.

Unfortunately we've always had other social engineers. Aren't tax deductions for home mortgages but not any for rent payments a form of social engineering?

My point is that the scientific camp has its extremists too, with Chairman Mao as perhaps their most "successful" member.

Religion's positing of a greater authority than Man and science has, along with problems, been very useful too.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from Ricter:

My point is that the scientific camp has its extremists too, with Chairman Mao as perhaps their most "successful" member.

Religion's positing of a greater authority than Man and science has, along with problems, been very useful too.

You can't be serious positing Mao as a scientist. Mao may have been an atheist (more likely an antitheist) but he was no scientist.

The people who believe in their own infallibility are not scientists, even if they were once scientists in the past. Science is all about constant testing: every fact must be independently verified, every theory must be solidly fact-based or it gets replaced by one that is.

And if two competing theories account for all the facts in a study, Occam's razor says to choose the simpler one. So far that works perfectly.

Individual scientists may be arrogant or flawed in other ways but the scientific community has the methods to weed out emotionalism form the final conclusions.

 

[Ricter]

Well, no, he himself was not a scientist. He ran with the ideas of other scientists.

 

[stu]

Quote from jficquette:

God doesn't exist in time and space so the idea of "Before" is not applicable relative to our frame of reference.

Then God had no time to exist.
Without existence, nothing exists . Now you may want to go Bernard Roberts road into blind ranting sophistry, and then blame me for being a sophist. That's the usual religious response.

But maybe you have something less absurd to say. I'm an eternal optimist.
Nevertheless, eternity needs existence and so would god.

The irreducible principle, the first cause cannot be god . It would have to be existence.
Nothing exists without existence .

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from stu:



The irreducible principle, the first cause cannot be god . It would have to be existence.
Nothing exists without existence .

+1

nothing else is possible

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from stu:

...Without existence, nothing exists . ... eternity needs existence...

The irreducible principle, the first cause cannot be god . It would have to be existence.
Nothing exists without existence .

Wow, that's uh...that's...really deep man.


I just wish I had some dope to smoke, so I could read it again AND "understand" it...yeah.




You think a bunch of beer would be just as good?

 

[killthesunshine]

nothing else is possible

"it's not what you "know" it's what you can prove"
-training day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Training_day_ver1.jpg

 

[stu]

Quote from Lucrum:
Wow, that's uh...that's...really deep man.

I just wish I had some dope to smoke, so I could read it again AND "understand" it...yeah.

You think a bunch of beer would be just as good?

...maybe a lobotomy may help in your case, who can tell...

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from BernardRichards:

I like Pascal's proof of the supernatural.

You think Pascal's wager is "proof" of the supernatural? Well that explains a lot.