|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: schill_danschill_dan Date: Jul 19, 2008 23:01
After a bunch of arguing with the atheist discussion group, the whole
thing came to a crashing halt after I asked someone a simple question:
"Hey Mark, do you need to prove to yourself through the scientific
method that you exist in order to believe that you do?"
Atheists have no response to questions of that line of thought. It's
funny how even the simplest of logic can leave a lot of room for them
to doubt their disbelief in God.
|
| |
|
| | 27 Comments |
|
|
Author: colpcolp Date: Jul 19, 2008 23:20
On Jul 20, 6:01 pm, schill_...@ yahoo.com wrote: > After a bunch of arguing with the atheist discussion group, the whole
> thing came to a crashing halt after I asked someone a simple question:
>
> "Hey Mark, do you need to prove to yourself through the scientific
> method that you exist in order to believe that you do?"
>
> Atheists have no response to questions of that line of thought. It's
> funny how even the simplest of logic can leave a lot of room for them
> to doubt their disbelief in God.
It's a good way to stop a debate that is going nowhere. Ask them a
question that they obviously should be able to answer, but are unable
to because of a fallacy in their argument.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Jul 19, 2008 23:28
On Jul 19, 11:01 pm, schill_...@ yahoo.com wrote: > After a bunch of arguing with the atheist discussion group, the whole
> thing came to a crashing halt after I asked someone a simple question:
>
> "Hey Mark, do you need to prove to yourself through the scientific
> method that you exist in order to believe that you do?"
>
> Atheists have no response to questions of that line of thought. It's
> funny how even the simplest of logic can leave a lot of room for them
> to doubt their disbelief in God.
Actually it is a hard argument like this one, see if you can find the
flaw in "I think therefore I am"
Cogito, Ergo Sum (The Circle Game) Descartes
THE CIRCLE GAME: "Descartes was a philosophical disaster!" Attacking
Descate's Cogito from within Descartes's own logical structure rather
than from a modern context.
|
| Show full article (7.65Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Jul 19, 2008 23:58
On Jul 20, 2:20Â am, colp wrote:
> On Jul 20, 6:01 pm, schill_...@ yahoo.com wrote:
> >> After a bunch of arguing with the atheist discussion group, the whole
>> thing came to a crashing halt after I asked someone a simple question:
>
>> "Hey Mark, do you need to prove to yourself through the scientific
>> method that you exist in order to believe that you do?"
>
>> Atheists have no response to questions of that line of thought. Â It's
>> funny how even the simplest of logic can leave a lot of room for them
>> to doubt their disbelief in God.
>
> It's a good way to stop a debate that is going nowhere. Ask them a
> question that they obviously should be able to answer, but are unable
> to because of a fallacy in their argument.
philosophically you present childish arguments that have been
considered thousands of years ago.
lets just take for example "the cross" in Christianity:
"The sun cross, a cross inside a circle, is one of the oldest and most
widespread of symbols. The Neolithic symbol combining cross and circle
is the simplest conceivable representation of the union of...
|
| Show full article (2.83Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: colpcolp Date: Jul 20, 2008 00:15
On Jul 20, 6:58 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:> On Jul 20, 2:20 am, colp wrote:
>
>> On Jul 20, 6:01 pm, schill_...@ yahoo.com wrote: >
>>> After a bunch of arguing with the atheist discussion group, the whole
>>> thing came to a crashing halt after I asked someone a simple question:
>
>>> "Hey Mark, do you need to prove to yourself through the scientific
>>> method that you exist in order to believe that you do?"
>
>>> Atheists have no response to questions of that line of thought. It's
>>> funny how even the simplest of logic can leave a lot of room for them
>>> to doubt their disbelief in God.
>
>> It's a good way to stop a debate that is going nowhere. Ask them a
>> question that they obviously should be able to answer, but are unable
>> to because of a fallacy in their argument.
>
> philosophically you present childish arguments that have been ...
|
| Show full article (1.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Jul 20, 2008 00:24
On Jul 20, 3:15Â am, colp wrote:
> On Jul 20, 6:58 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Jul 20, 2:20 am, colp wrote:
>
>>> On Jul 20, 6:01 pm, schill_...@ yahoo.com wrote: >
>>>> After a bunch of arguing with the atheist discussion group, the whole
>>>> thing came to a crashing halt after I asked someone a simple question:
>
>>>> "Hey Mark, do you need to prove to yourself through the scientific
>>>> method that you exist in order to believe that you do?"
>
>>>> Atheists have no response to questions of that line of thought. Â It's
>>>> funny how even the simplest of logic can leave a lot of room for them
>>>> to doubt their disbelief in God. ...
|
| Show full article (1.37Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Jul 20, 2008 00:29
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:01:30 -0700 (PDT), schill_dan@ yahoo.com wrote:
>After a bunch of arguing with the atheist discussion group, the whole
>thing came to a crashing halt after I asked someone a simple question:
>
>"Hey Mark, do you need to prove to yourself through the scientific
>method that you exist in order to believe that you do?"
>
>Atheists have no response to questions of that line of thought. It's
>funny how even the simplest of logic can leave a lot of room for them
>to doubt their disbelief in God.
You are both wrong.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Jul 20, 2008 01:10
On Jul 20, 2:01Â am, schill_...@ yahoo.com wrote: > After a bunch of arguing with the atheist discussion group, the whole
> thing came to a crashing halt after I asked someone a simple question:
>
> "Hey Mark, do you need to prove to yourself through the scientific
> method that you exist in order to believe that you do?"
>
> Atheists have no response to questions of that line of thought. Â It's
> funny how even the simplest of logic can leave a lot of room for them
> to doubt their disbelief in God.
religion is a science. you have to study it. aka science.
the ultimate science basically boils us down and strips away all the
crap to the bare bones.
and it hurts.
your personal "jesus" is your ego projecting stories into which you
clutch for meaning.
ask yourself this. is your "jesus" the say as another mans "jesus".
if not. then how can it be objective? it's purely subjective.
|
| Show full article (1.03Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: colpcolp Date: Jul 20, 2008 01:16
On Jul 20, 8:10 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:> On Jul 20, 2:01 am, schill_...@ yahoo.com wrote:
> >> After a bunch of arguing with the atheist discussion group, the whole
>> thing came to a crashing halt after I asked someone a simple question:
>
>> "Hey Mark, do you need to prove to yourself through the scientific
>> method that you exist in order to believe that you do?"
>
>> Atheists have no response to questions of that line of thought. It's
>> funny how even the simplest of logic can leave a lot of room for them
>> to doubt their disbelief in God.
>
> religion is a science. you have to study it. aka science.
Having to study something does not make it a science.
Religion is based on belief. Science is based on testability.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Jul 20, 2008 01:21
On Jul 20, 4:16Â am, colp wrote:
> On Jul 20, 8:10 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:
>>> On Jul 20, 2:01 am, schill_...@ yahoo.com wrote: >
>>> After a bunch of arguing with the atheist discussion group, the whole
>>> thing came to a crashing halt after I asked someone a simple question:
>
>>> "Hey Mark, do you need to prove to yourself through the scientific
>>> method that you exist in order to believe that you do?"
>
>>> Atheists have no response to questions of that line of thought. Â It's
>>> funny how even the simplest of logic can leave a lot of room for them
>>> to doubt their disbelief in God.
>
>> religion is a science. you have to study it. aka science.
>
> Having to study something does not make it a science.
> Religion is based on belief...
|
| Show full article (1.02Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
