Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Theists and atheists just the same


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 156 posts in this discussion
Posted on 28 Apr 2012 10:26:06 BDT
Mr. R. Evans says:
Theists atheists the same, look at Dawkins, made rich from his preaching (speaking) to his congregation (audience) peddling the word (selling books) of his god (Darwin). He fights other people who believe in a different god or religion to his... science, Darwin... as some hold Dawkins himself as a god chanting his name at the Reason Rally at Washington. How is he different? Because he says everythign comes from ''nothing''. No, that's just plain stupid....and it is only because he is a scientist, retired, that he gets away with it

Posted on 28 Apr 2012 10:44:58 BDT
Last edited by the author on 28 Apr 2012 10:45:20 BDT
Theists believe in a god that oversees everything from the formation of a gas nebula to what types of socks you wear.

Atheists...don't.

Fairly obvious difference, isn't it...?

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Apr 2012 10:53:50 BDT
Yes that's right, anyone who argues for or against anything is exactly the same and therefore a hypocrite. Nice.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2012 21:59:27 BDT
Spin says:
T: If you do not see there is more to say, you are simply, consciuosly or subconsciously, resorting the frame of mind you are opposing..There are ALWAYS questions...=)

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2012 22:01:50 BDT
Spin says:
Mr R: Is there not a big difference between the debate between theists and atheists, and the debate between Deists and atheists? I think Deists have the upper intellectual hand against both theists and atheists....But thats just me =)

In reply to an earlier post on 3 May 2012 01:17:03 BDT
Shakepen says:
TR: I'm coming into this discussion late, but didn't Descarte get over this hurdle by saying, "I think; therefore, I am?" Hence, establishing the self?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 May 2012 11:50:42 BDT
Jim Guest says:
Descartes was a Catholic, like you, wobbler. Which meant that he specialised in circular arguments. This was one of his finest.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 May 2012 16:38:00 BDT
Shakepen says:
JG: One must "wobble" in this day and age! So much changes: new discoveries cancel out the old. In sports it is an axiom that a body in motion can move faster than one sitting down! That's why I wobble! (I'm a master logician.)

In reply to an earlier post on 3 May 2012 16:40:43 BDT
Jim Guest says:
Master something.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 May 2012 19:36:32 BDT
Shakepen says:
JG: As Browning said, "A man must dig where he stands."

In reply to an earlier post on 3 May 2012 19:43:19 BDT
Spin says:
Shakespen: Many ridicule Descartes for his philosophical conclusion "Cogito ergo Sum" (I think therefore I am) very few realise that Descartes was a mathematical genius whose research forms the basis of our modern mathematics. In short, one plus one equals two. Thus, I think, therefore I am. (Sorry. I'm getting very pedantic and philosophically determined =) )

In reply to an earlier post on 3 May 2012 19:55:12 BDT
Jim Guest says:
There's no need for you to dig.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 May 2012 20:19:25 BDT
Shakepen says:
Spin: I lost an argument to a fellow once. I said that Descrates used calculus. He said, "Nope, it was solid geometry." He was right.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 May 2012 21:24:18 BDT
Spin says:
Shakespen: True. Descatrtes was fascinated by geometry. But his love of geometry led him to question the "angles" of the mind. Geometry and mathematics exists only in the human mind, a fact Descatres recognised and tried to justify. Cogito ergo sum is not a philosophical statement, it is a factual, scientific statement based on the logic of mathematics and geometry. He who refuses that principle refuses the fundamentals of their very consciousness. An empirsicist refusingt the fundamentals of his belief..Truly? I think, therfore I am. "I think" being the operative phrase...

Posted on 3 May 2012 21:25:46 BDT
Spin says:
PS; Then again, I must admit that are those who live by the doctrine "It is said, so it is true".

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2012 01:34:24 BDT
Shakepen says:
Spin: a very good point: math only exists in the mind. What is so interesting is that math can model the universe. I wish I were better at it!

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2012 02:52:18 BDT
Tom M says:
Hey Shakepen

How do you show that math only exists in the mind and what do you take mind to be?

I would think its abundantly clear that math and conceptual truths exist quite independently of the mind. Human minds, in any case.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2012 03:51:42 BDT
Shakepen says:
Tom: I cannot believe we are even having this discussion! Surely, you know that different cultures use different basis for their math. Some use base ten; others, a different base. Consider the Sumerians as an example. This ideation proves that math does not exist independent of the human mind. You are, unfortunately, slipping into that place where a person writes "beefsteak" on a piece of paper and feels he's had a meal.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2012 04:55:48 BDT
Last edited by the author on 4 May 2012 05:07:43 BDT
Tom M says:
Oh Boy Shakepen

We're going to have some fun with this one! Do you want to concede now or wait a while first?

So.. is mathematics then an invention of mankind?

C-a-r-e-f-u-l... over to you.. :-)

EDIT: Tip. .using a decimal or octogonal system is irrelevent indidentally, but I threw in the edit to ask another question.. .do you still believe there is such a thing as 'time'? or have we already covered that?

Have you got some freekin' books yet kiddo? Don't be so dang cheap. Brilliance doesn't hurt!

Start with !The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism Get moving!

It's not so much a refutation of atheism which is hardly a difficult task, but you will be enthralled with the intellectual journey into the nature of knowledge and reality.

Here's the deal.. if you don't like it, I'll buy it from you. But I will not be able to pry it from your hands. Like me and my Wilson Tour 90 tennis racquet.

Now order the dam-ned book!

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2012 16:29:39 BDT
Spin says:
Shakespen; I too find myself catching up on maths. (and other subjects) But I blame my earlier lack of interest to our teacher (a man who saw life through the bottom of a glass). It is only as one gets older that one realises the amount of knowledge one has missed due to faulty social engineering...=)

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2012 18:45:30 BDT
Shakepen says:
JG: I am the type of bloke to call, "a spayed a spade."

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2012 18:59:50 BDT
Jim Guest says:
Admirable. Many come here making out to be intellectual so that they can more credibly write falsities. But you don't bother with that sort of pretension.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2012 19:22:19 BDT
Spin says:
Shakespen: It depends on whether you are playing Poker or not...

In reply to an earlier post on 4 May 2012 23:26:14 BDT
Shakepen - the base used (decimal, binary, octal etc) affects only the symbols used to represent the numbers, not the underlying principles, which are universal.

Posted on 5 May 2012 01:59:01 BDT
Jim Guest says:
Many come here making out to be intellectual so that they can more credibly write falsities.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  17
Total posts:  156
Initial post:  22 Apr 2012
Latest post:  15 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions