|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: VV Date: Jan 18, 2008 16:30
On Jan 14, 7:55 am, Jack gmail.com> wrote:> Richard Dawkins, in a debate ( http://tinyurl.com/28z6t4) with Alister
> McGrath, argues that our moral values cannot come from Religion
> because it's holy texts must be selectively weighted and applied and
> the basis for this selection (i.e. morality) must come from somewhere
> other than the religion itself.
He is right...BUT...what is logical is not always practical when it
comes to humans.
What he proposes will only happen in a 'perfect' world. Religion is
the lesser of two evils,with the greater evil being that of atheism.
Atheism shows us that atheism is far from perfect, in fact, the
imperfect heists at least tries to do right, Whereas the mind-
manacled, spiritually sick, defiance based atheist suffers from self
deification and thinks they can do no wrong.
I am all for atheists becoming better specimens of humanity. But it
just ain't going to happen. We can see that time and time again when
it comes down to the actions of the atheists.
Atheist can only be better people when it comes to lip service...and
most em them can't even do that.
|
| Show full article (17.93Kb) |
|
| | 24 Comments |
|
|
Author: PerfectlyAblePerfectlyAble Date: Jan 18, 2008 18:35
On Jan 19, 1:30 pm, V aol.com> wrote:> On Jan 14, 7:55 am, Jack gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Richard Dawkins, in a debate ( http://tinyurl.com/28z6t4) with Alister
>> McGrath, argues that our moral values cannot come from Religion
>> because it's holy texts must be selectively weighted and applied and
>> the basis for this selection (i.e. morality) must come from somewhere
>> other than the religion itself. >
> He is right...BUT...what is logical is not always practical when it
> comes to humans.
Who says atheist are not practical? Dawkins argues
against religion in a number of ways, not just logic.
Personally I find it hard to trust a person
who is religious since they can pick and choose
their religion and so their moral rules. Atheists
have no such luck, we have to be practical and
accept some of the prevailing moral rules!
and can't realistically impose ours on everyone.
>
> What he proposes will only happen in a 'perfect' world. Religion is
> the lesser of two evils,with the greater evil being that of atheism.
>
> Atheism shows us that atheism is far from perfect, in...
|
| Show full article (19.00Kb) |
|
| | 5 Comments |
|
|
Author: tgtg Date: Jan 19, 2008 03:55
On Jan 18, 9:35 pm, PerfectlyAble kol.co.nz> wrote:> On Jan 19, 1:30 pm, V aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 7:55 am, Jack gmail.com> wrote:>
>>> Richard Dawkins, in a debate ( http://tinyurl.com/28z6t4) with Alister
>>> McGrath, argues that our moral values cannot come from Religion
>>> because it's holy texts must be selectively weighted and applied and
>>> the basis for this selection (i.e. morality) must come from somewhere
>>> other than the religion itself. >
>> He is right...BUT...what is logical is not always practical when it
>> comes to humans.
>
> Who says atheist are not practical? Dawkins argues
> against religion in a number of ways, not just logic.
> Personally I find it hard to trust a person
> who is religious since they can pick and choose
> their religion and so their moral rules. Atheists
> have no such luck, we have to be practical and ...
|
| Show full article (10.70Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PerfectlyAblePerfectlyAble Date: Jan 19, 2008 12:45
On Jan 20, 12:55 am, tg earthlink.net> wrote:> On Jan 18, 9:35 pm, PerfectlyAble kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Jan 19, 1:30 pm, V aol.com> wrote:>
>>> On Jan 14, 7:55 am, Jack gmail.com> wrote:>
>>>> Richard Dawkins, in a debate ( http://tinyurl.com/28z6t4) with Alister
>>>> McGrath, argues that our moral values cannot come from Religion
>>>> because it's holy texts must be selectively weighted and applied and
>>>> the basis for this selection (i.e. morality) must come from somewhere
>>>> other than the religion itself. >
>>> He is right...BUT...what is logical is not always practical when it
>>> comes to humans.
>
>> Who says atheist are not practical? Dawkins argues
>> against religion in a number of ways, not just logic. ...
|
| Show full article (10.83Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat his own wasteLimbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat his own waste Date: Jan 19, 2008 13:12
On Jan 19, 3:55 am, tg earthlink.net> wrote:
> If you believe in a 'supreme being', it is rational to follow the
> rules of the supreme being.
> If you don't believe in a 'supreme being', then following arbitrary
> rules is a bit crazy.
>
I believe that god doesn't exist. But for the sake of argument, let's
assume that it does exist.
These rules from a god are obtained by people who claim to have heard
them from a god. You see the problem, don't you? To follow these
rules, you must assume that this prophet actually receive the rules
from a god, did not hallucinate the event or lied about the event.
How is this not arbitrary? You're basing our system of laws on the
probability that someone a couple thousand years ago heard the voice
of a god. So rules from a person who hears voice, either because a
god is talking to he or she, or because this person has eaten some
hallucinogenic food or suffers from some mental illness.
|
| Show full article (1.42Kb) |
| 5 Comments |
|
|
Author: tgtg Date: Jan 27, 2008 16:15
On Jan 26, 3:38 pm, PerfectlyAble kol.co.nz> wrote:>> On Jan 19, 4:12 pm, Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat his own waste
>
>>> On Jan 19, 3:55 am, tg earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>>> If you believe in a 'supreme being', it is rational to follow the
>>>> rules of the supreme being.
>>>> If you don't believe in a 'supreme being', then following arbitrary
>>>> rules is a bit crazy.
>
>>> I believe that god doesn't exist. But for the sake of argument, let's
>>> assume that it does exist.
>
>>> These rules from a god are obtained by people who claim to have heard
>>> them from a god. You see the problem, don't you? To follow these ...
|
| Show full article (3.53Kb) |
| 6 Comments |
|
|
Author: PerfectlyAblePerfectlyAble Date: Jan 27, 2008 18:37
On Jan 28, 1:15 pm, tg earthlink.net> wrote:> On Jan 26, 3:38 pm, PerfectlyAble kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> On Jan 19, 4:12 pm, Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to eat his own waste
>
>>>> On Jan 19, 3:55 am, tg earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>>>> If you believe in a 'supreme being', it is rational to follow the
>>>>> rules of the supreme being.
>>>>> If you don't believe in a 'supreme being', then following arbitrary
>>>>> rules is a bit crazy.
>
>>>> I believe that god doesn't exist. But for the sake of argument, let's
>>>> assume that it does exist.
> ...
|
| Show full article (3.84Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Christopher A.LeeChristopher A.Lee Date: Jan 27, 2008 18:42
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:12:52 -0800 (PST), Limbaugh unhinges his jaw to
eat his own waste gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 19, 3:55 am, tg earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> If you believe in a 'supreme being', it is rational to follow the
>> rules of the supreme being.
>> If you don't believe in a 'supreme being', then following arbitrary
>> rules is a bit crazy.
>>
>
>I believe that god doesn't exist. But for the sake of argument, let's
>assume that it does exist.
Careful what you say.
90%% of your audience interpret this as...
"believe the most supremely important and self evident thing in the
universe doesn't exist."
Even crazier than believing the Sun doesn't exist.
They can't grasp that it's in the same vein as "no fairies at the
bottom of the garden".
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GrayMichael Gray Date: Jan 27, 2008 21:14
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:37:32 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
kol.co.nz> wrote:
:
>I have a basis for right and wrong that you cannot
>refute, you'd be dead if it weren't true. But I
>am clearly not dead by not believing in God.
Go to a fundy Muslim country, and you may change your tune, mate.
|
| |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: PerfectlyAblePerfectlyAble Date: Feb 1, 2008 10:51
On Jan 28, 6:14 pm, Michael Gray newsguy.com> wrote:> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:37:32 -0800 (PST), PerfectlyAble
>
> kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
> :
>>>I have a basis for right and wrong that you cannot
>>refute, you'd be dead if it weren't true. But I
>>am clearly not dead by not believing in God.
>
> Go to a fundy Muslim country, and you may change your tune, mate.
Like I'm really going to measure myself by that standard.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
