CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4229
PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:11 pm
 


Delwin Delwin:
And I think anyone in this day and age with all the information available who believes that the notion that all of the order in the universe was born out of the random chaos of an explosion, and believes that that is a perfectly sufficient explanation for our existence without the assistance of God or intelligent design, is both intellectually lazy and naive.


Think of the absurdity of your logic: You appear to believe that all matter in the universe originating from a single event on it's own is impossible but rather an intelligent omnipotent being who just happened to always exist created trillions of solar systems and in this particular one, after close to a 5 billion year incubation period, created humans but only made itself known to those human beings after roughly 200000 years of their existence (modern humans are thought to be roughly 200K).

8O Wow.

About 10K years ago in the fertile crescent of Syria it is thought that "civilisation" emerged when both agriculture and organised religion both suddenly appeared at precisely the same time. Anthropologists are divided over which came first and whether one gave rise to the other.

How do you not see religion as anything other than a human construct?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21378
PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:26 pm
 


There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Wise words from Shakespeare.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:02 pm
 


grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
andyt andyt:
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:

For clarification I am an atheist and believe any adult living in the 21st century with access to the internet who still believes in god(s), heaven, hell, angels, fairies, pixies, leprechauns, unicorns, magic powers, ghosts, goblins, Santa and the Easter Bunny is either mentally deluded or deliberately ignorant.


So you're just as ignorant as the religious crusaders, is what you're saying.


I said no such thing. Clearly you have both simple cognition and structured comprehension issues but that actually explains a lot of your posts.



Calling belief in god mentally deluded is saying exactly the obverse of the religious who are so certain of their belief they think it's the truth. Two sides of the same coin. Just as much reassuring yourself of your certainty, having it all figured out as they are.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4229
PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:43 pm
 


andyt andyt:
Calling belief in god mentally deluded is saying exactly the obverse of the religious who are so certain of their belief they think it's the truth. Two sides of the same coin. Just as much reassuring yourself of your certainty, having it all figured out as they are.


Good on you for using the word "obverse". Don't see it used enough these days for my money.

On the topic of the mental delusion of the religious; "Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of God(s)

The fundamental argument for atheism is that there is no evidence or proof for God.

There is no solid or tangible evidence for God nor a logical argument for God. The existence of God is taken on faith and not by evidence.

-God can not be proven by science which is the main way we study and understand our universe or natural world. There is no theory of God.

-There is no conclusive logical argument for the existence of God. His/her existence is continuously debated."

As such, anyone who believes God exists solely based on faith is no less deluded than someone who genuinely believes Smurfs exist deep in some forest somewhere. The essence of faith in both cases is the same. The scientific proof for both is identical. The only difference is the percentage of people who believe in one over the other.

No my dear andyt; my being certain of something, without any evidence to the contrary, as not existing is certainly not the obverse of faith but more accurately its converse.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4814
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:58 am
 


grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Delwin Delwin:
And I think anyone in this day and age with all the information available who believes that the notion that all of the order in the universe was born out of the random chaos of an explosion, and believes that that is a perfectly sufficient explanation for our existence without the assistance of God or intelligent design, is both intellectually lazy and naive.


Think of the absurdity of your logic: You appear to believe that all matter in the universe originating from a single event on it's own is impossible but rather an intelligent omnipotent being who just happened to always exist created trillions of solar systems and in this particular one, after close to a 5 billion year incubation period, created humans but only made itself known to those human beings after roughly 200000 years of their existence (modern humans are thought to be roughly 200K).

8O Wow.

About 10K years ago in the fertile crescent of Syria it is thought that "civilisation" emerged when both agriculture and organised religion both suddenly appeared at precisely the same time. Anthropologists are divided over which came first and whether one gave rise to the other.

How do you not see religion as anything other than a human construct?
First off, you seem to not know whether you are agnostic or atheist, which, to be fair, I kind of expect since your belief system seems to be based on blind faith like the worst kind of zealot. You see an agnostic, believes that the existence of God can not be proven or disproven whereas an atheist believes there is no God.

If you are agnostic, then I would assume that you have weighed both sides of the argument and have concluded that no reasonable conclusion can be drawn from either argument. If you are an atheist, and believe God does not exist, then I would assume your belief system is based on some kind of evidence.

I am not trying to get into a semantic argument, rather a philosophical one but I think most would agree it is an important distinction.

Once we establish that, we can proceed.

Secondly, what is absurd are the assumptions you make when trying to establish your logic. At no point did I state the big bang did not occur or that it was the result of an omnipotent being who happened to always have existed,(strawman) if you read my statement that should be evident.

Moreover, I accept nothing on blind faith. My beliefs in intelligent design are based on logical evidence found in nature which I would like to discuss once you figure out what you actually believe. Shouldn't take long, it sounds pretty superficial.

The question being asked of course is how we got here. You don't seem to think we were always here so I assume you have some kind of belief other than. "Not God"?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8681
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:14 am
 


Paging Mr. Topic, paging Mr. Topic, please pick up the blue courtesy phone in the lobby.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:22 am
 


grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
The fundamental argument for atheism is that there is no evidence or proof for God.


Which is why it is called 'faith'.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21378
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:41 am
 


We all have faith. Some choose to invest it in the supernatural, others in science. Myself, in both.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:47 am
 


How do you square that circle? By saying the two realms are separate? Don't they have to meet at some point? I think they do, but that point is beyond our current ability to understand.

Anyway, according to GFPB you're just deluded or ignorant.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 11:10 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
We all have faith. Some choose to invest it in the supernatural, others in science. Myself, in both.


I suppose we're pretty close in this regard. Myself, I refuse to believe that the universe and the miracle of Scarlet Johansson are accidents and I believe that science is the method for understanding these miracles.

Not that I expect any scientist to be able to explain this:

Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12353
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:12 pm
 


If you believe in God that's fine. However if you need organised religion to educate or bolster that belief, then you're screwed.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:15 pm
 


PluggyRug PluggyRug:
If you believe in God that's fine. However if you need organised religion to educate or bolster that belief, then you're screwed.


Nothing wrong with wanting to join with others of similar beliefs. Even with having your beliefs bolstered by holy books or other people or what have you. Where it all goes sideways is when these groups insist only they possess the truth and see others as lesser, or worse yet, start trying to tell others how to be. That's why all references to religion should be banned from the public sphere.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2366
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:33 pm
 


I'd like to turn to the anti-firearms groups for this one;

If it will only save one life we must ban Islam, it's just common sense legislation. The right to a freedom of religion is just a hold over from times long past and has no meaning in today's society.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:00 pm
 


$1:
For clarification I am an atheist and believe any adult living in the 21st century with access to the internet who still believes in god(s), heaven, hell, angels, fairies, pixies, leprechauns, unicorns, magic powers, ghosts, goblins, Santa and the Easter Bunny is either mentally deluded or deliberately ignorant.


I agree wholeheartedly.


$1:
Now your reference to both South Africa and Ireland implies that the conflict was more religious than political which it was not. Just like the Israel Palestine issue which is more political than religious, these types of conflicts are very distinct from religious groups such as Al Qaida, Al Shabab, Boko Haram and ISIS who everyday murder, rape and destroy property in the singular uncompromising pursuit of promoting their interpretation of god's will.


You're wrong here. EVERYTHING is politics. Politics is the quest to gain and maintain power. You make it sound as if these groups just want to kill off the others and then go back home to their old lives; they don't. They want to seize power and maintain it and in that respect they're no different than the Khmer Rouge, the Contras, the Viet Cong, the IRA, the RPF or any number of other militants throughout history.

Which brings me to my next point, which I hope NFiddle, Martin and some of the other right-wingers pay special attention to: who is it who is spilling their blood fighting these groups on the ground? Who is it that is being crucified, beheaded, raped and murdered? The vast majority of people who are being killed by ISIS and their ilk are MUSLIMS. The people who are fighting them on the ground in Iraq and Syria, and in many cases have been fighting them for decades in places like Somalia and Afghanistan are MUSLIMS. I think it's easy for people on the right to forget that inconvenient fact.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: These radical militant Islamists are just one small subset of Muslims. The fact that all Californians are American doesn't mean that all Americans are Californian and so people from Alabama don't need to answer for what Californians do. Similarly non-militant Muslims don't need to answer for what militant Muslims are doing; especially since THEY are the primary victims of these militants.

So many of the right-wing blanket statements about Muslims (much of which can be found in your OP) effectively say that:

- the people being massacred by ISIS (and who are fighting them on the ground as you read this) are answerable for the crimes being committed AGAINST THEM

- that YOU, snug as a bug in your North American home and far from any danger, are the real victims (and also the real heroes, fighting terror by posting on the internet and all)

- that the people being slaughtered by ISIS, owe YOU an apology and assurances, because THEY are being slaughtered (even though you'll just throw it back in their face with sarcasm anyway).


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:06 pm
 


BeaverFever BeaverFever:


$1:
Now your reference to both South Africa and Ireland implies that the conflict was more religious than political which it was not. Just like the Israel Palestine issue which is more political than religious, these types of conflicts are very distinct from religious groups such as Al Qaida, Al Shabab, Boko Haram and ISIS who everyday murder, rape and destroy property in the singular uncompromising pursuit of promoting their interpretation of god's will.


You're wrong here. EVERYTHING is politics. Politics is the quest to gain and maintain power. You make it sound as if these groups just want to kill off the others and then go back home to their old lives; they don't. They want to seize power and maintain it and in that respect they're no different than the Khmer Rouge, the Contras, the Viet Cong, the IRA, the RPF or any number of other militants throughout history.

Which brings me to my next point, which I hope NFiddle, Martin and some of the other right-wingers pay special attention to: who is it who is spilling their blood fighting these groups on the ground? Who is it that is being crucified, beheaded, raped and murdered? The vast majority of people who are being killed by ISIS and their ilk are MUSLIMS. The people who are fighting them on the ground in Iraq and Syria, and in many cases have been fighting them for decades in places like Somalia and Afghanistan are MUSLIMS. I think it's easy for people on the right to forget that inconvenient fact.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: These radical militant Islamists are just one small subset of Muslims. The fact that all Californians are American doesn't mean that all Americans are Californian and so people from Alabama don't need to answer for what Californians do. Similarly non-militant Muslims don't need to answer for what militant Muslims are doing; especially since THEY are the primary victims of these militants.

So many of the right-wing blanket statements about Muslims (much of which can be found in your OP) effectively say that:

- the people being massacred by ISIS (and who are fighting them on the ground as you read this) are answerable for the crimes being committed AGAINST THEM

- that YOU, snug as a bug in your North American home and far from any danger, are the real victims (and also the real heroes, fighting terror by posting on the internet and all)

- that the people being slaughtered by ISIS, owe YOU an apology and assurances, because THEY are being slaughtered (even though you'll just throw it back in their face with sarcasm anyway).



R=UP


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.