POLL: What is the World's Most Evil Religion?

[Rearden Metal]

"We have improved the quality of material life, but what has science done to improve the quality of man's inner spiritual life?"

Religion provides your opiates.
Science has provided mine

(No, I'm not a fan of Marx-obviously. I just like his one quote.)

 

[TriPack]

What exactly was I proving? Stating that it is mindblowing that an atheist is applying his morality to God requires a definite proof according to axeman's requirements in order to be valid as a statement of irony on a message board? Saying that it is a conceit to judge God means I gotta prove God's existence first? Um, maybe you should lighten up axeman, this isn't debate class.

And the irony of this latest exchange is that it turns into the old song and dance about "you have the burden of proof". I think you missed the point. The fact that you can't even entertain a hypothetical where God exists shows that you're not capable of seeing the other side of the coin. In science, that's known as bias.

peace,

TriPack

Quote from axeman:

Clearly Tripack, you havent the FAINTEST clue where
the burden of proof lies do you?

People dont have to prove negatives.
I am no more required to prove that god does NOT exist
then you are required to prove that I am NOT god.

Can you prove ZEUS does NOT exist?
Can you prove that I am NOT god?

No you cant.
Which is why the question is so silly.
It shifts the burden of proof to the wrong person.


Asking someone to prove something DOESNT exist
is something only very inexperienced debators try to pull.

Sorry...doesnt work. If you assert gods existence then YOU
must prove he exists. No one has to prove that he doesnt.
Pretty basic stuff.


peace

axeman

 

[Cutten]

Quote from TriPack:



Its only not mindblowing if you first ASSUME that God does not exist, and therein lies the problem.

You have never proved that God does not exist.

TriPack

So you are saying that assuming something does not exist, until proven otherwise, is irrational?

Replace "God" with "Little Green Men" or "The Loch Ness Monster" in your argument. Would you accept such a line of reasoning and therefore believe in Little Green Men and the Loch Ness Monster, because they have never been proven not to exist? Of course you wouldn't. So using exactly the same chain of logic for God is intellectually dishonest.

When trying to establish whether something exists or not, we start with the assumption that it does not exist, and then look for compelling evidence to the contrary. We don't start by assuming it does exist, without having evidence, and then start looking for evidence that it doesn't, because that would imply that anything about which we had no information whatsoever, would automatically be assumed to exist - a clearly absurd position.

 

[axeman]

Yeah... probably a good call Gordy.

Insanity is a good description for what these guys believe.

Could it be any more blatantly fabricated and false???

Im stunned that anyone could read such a stupid book
and consider it true. Little red riding hood is more believable.

I cant believe how many hours of my life I have WASTED
reading that idiotic book, as well as other theistic books.

Think ill get back to my trading system development.
Its looking sweeeet.


peace

axeman

Quote from Gordon Gekko:

i officially retire from dealing with this religious crap. can not take any more of the insanity.

 

[axeman]

Make it $250K and im all in

But if your cheap... ill take your $50 as well



peace

axeman

Quote from marketsurfer:

axeman,

a wager---- i bet you $50.00 that within 20 years you become a theist of some sort. what do you say ??

surfer

 

[Specul8r]

Quote from marketsurfer:




science has enabled man to improve the quality of his inner spiritual life by providing man THE TIME to work on his spiritual side. because of science and progress, the common man, no longer has to stress out and fight for food ( an example ). almost everyone now has access to spiritual information, instead of just the scribes and elites as in the past due to science. science gives us FREE TIME to study spiritual pursuits that were once only the domain of the elite. science allow us to be educated so that we can CHOOSE the spiritual path instead of being forced fed dogma. science enables man to feed his soul instead of being obsessed with feeding his body.

best,

surfer

Surf,

This is one of the most spiritually bankrupt locations in the universe. This entire nation has turned almost "anti-spiritual" and "anti-mastery". Who wants growth? They want it now! Who has time to master a craft or explore the realms of ones own being?

Everything is external these days. Our pursuit of material growth has replaced almost everything meaningful. It's all about what your two hands can grab. You can delude yourself into believing what you wrote, but you need only to turn on your MTV for a reality check.

Kids dont want to meditate, they want to pop E. Who wants to read The Gita or St. Thomas Aquinas when you can watch MTV Kribs yo! Who wants to master an arduous game like Chess when you can shoot civilains and bang hookers on Grand Auto Theft???

Your friend...

 

[TriPack]

Quote from Cutten:



So you are saying that assuming something does not exist, until proven otherwise, is irrational?

Replace "God" with "Little Green Men" or "The Loch Ness Monster" in your argument. Would you accept such a line of reasoning and therefore believe in Little Green Men and the Loch Ness Monster, because they have never been proven not to exist? Of course you wouldn't. So using exactly the same chain of logic for God is intellectually dishonest.

When trying to establish whether something exists or not, we start with the assumption that it does not exist, and then look for compelling evidence to the contrary. We don't start by assuming it does exist, without having evidence, and then start looking for evidence that it doesn't, because that would imply that anything about which we had no information whatsoever, would automatically be assumed to exist - a clearly absurd position.

See the post above your reply. Both you and axeman failed to catch the irony.

 

[axeman]

"The fact that you can't even entertain a hypothetical where God exists shows that you're not capable of seeing the other side of the coin"

Nonsense. Being an ex-theist, I think I saw the other side
of the coin for about two decades quite well, thank you very much.

So now your saying that it was HYPOTHETICALLY ironic??

Lets be honest here. You were being serious when you
said it was IRONIC. But the irony is directly dependent
on the existence of god.

If god DOESNT exist, which is the CORE of this debate, then
in fact, the statement is not ironic at all, but quite silly and
full of holes.

Just more reason to end this thread. Just more theistic silliness.

Time to get some work done. This is a waste of time.

Even darkhorse doesnt want to debate his position.
He wants to hold hands, eat cookies, and have a book review instead
Just another elegant dodge.


peace

axeman

Quote from TriPack:

What exactly was I proving? Stating that it is mindblowing that an atheist is applying his morality to God requires a definite proof according to axeman's requirements in order to be valid as a statement of irony on a message board? Saying that it is a conceit to judge God means I gotta prove God's existence first? Um, maybe you should lighten up axeman, this isn't debate class.

And the irony of this latest exchange is that it turns into the old song and dance about "you have the burden of proof". I think you missed the point. The fact that you can't even entertain a hypothetical where God exists shows that you're not capable of seeing the other side of the coin. In science, that's known as bias.

peace,

TriPack

 

[Specul8r]

Quote from Cutten:



So you are saying that assuming something does not exist, until proven otherwise, is irrational?

Replace "God" with "Little Green Men" or "The Loch Ness Monster" in your argument. Would you accept such a line of reasoning and therefore believe in Little Green Men and the Loch Ness Monster, because they have never been proven not to exist? Of course you wouldn't. So using exactly the same chain of logic for God is intellectually dishonest.

When trying to establish whether something exists or not, we start with the assumption that it does not exist, and then look for compelling evidence to the contrary. We don't start by assuming it does exist, without having evidence, and then start looking for evidence that it doesn't, because that would imply that anything about which we had no information whatsoever, would automatically be assumed to exist - a clearly absurd position.

Yes, but only morons insist something does not exist without having proof to the contrary and the fact that you have not seen or witnesed God yet, is not ample proof to infer that he definately isn't there...

Hume taught this years ago in a "Treatise on Human Nature"...

 

[Cutten]

Quote from TriPack:



See the post above your reply. Both you and axeman failed to catch the irony.

For there to be irony, your post would have to show that axeman's argument could not stand up to the very same reasoning it used to attack yours. Ypur post failed to do that, since it relied on equating proof of existence with proof of non-existence - we "failed to catch the irony" because you failed to successfully provide it.