Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Final Fantasy Dreams

RegisterLoginControl PanelMembers

FFDreams is expanding. HTTP calls replaced by HTTPS January 7, 2020.

runboard.com       Signup
Login:   

Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 

 
Grenseal Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Ultima Weapon
 


Reg: 11-2003
Loc: Port City Baltimore
Posts: 1111
Greatness: 66 (+81/-15)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


quote:

Go on, Chlamydia, prove to me that landlocked and uneducated people thought the Earth was flat. Should we go back in time and ask them.



  Quit creating straw men. The point of Clematra saying that was to illustrate that belief does not constitute reality.


quote:

Let’s start again -
I think the designer argument is one of the strongest arguments. If things are weak, they are destroyed and people wouldn't use them but this isn't. Hume and Kant are the only two people which have come close to getting rid of this argument. The jumbo-jet idea can work both ways. Hyde(I think) said that the probability of life on Earth was a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard a putting together a Jet in perfect nick. The idea that complex life couldn't have come by chance. Dawkins himself said this argument is hard to counter, he says that we wear 'Designer Glasses'(heh), so that we everything and think it must have been designed. That is rubbish, Kant had a simual idea with 'Space-Time' googles, he idea that we wear these sort of googles which means we can never know the divine. Hume says that complex doesn't mean we need a designer but I see no other options on how we got here.
I think the chance that we live a perfect universe(call it what you want, not exactly you have another universe to compare it with.. it supports life... good enough) runs with the chance of there being a God.




    You seem to be confusing to separate things here, the first being the origins of our universe and the second being the origin of complex life on Earth. Let me tackle the second argument to start.

  Firstly don't think that I am trying to explain the origin of life on Earth, merely the origin of complex life on Earth, we're not talking abiogensis here. The driving mechanism for the evolution of more complex organisms is natural selection. This is the process by which favorable traits are passed down through generations while unfavorable ones are slowly eliminated. Think of it this way, lets say we have a frog that is born and its feet are webbed in such a way that it can swim faster and further than other frogs of the same species. This ability allows the frog to live longer and a result it is able to reproduce more than others of its kind. Because it is able to reproduce more its genes become more common and this trait will eventually dominate that population of frogs. As you can see this selection is not random or by chance as it clearly selects the frog with the greater reproductive capacity. I know this is a crude example but the general idea is what I'm trying to convey.

quote:

Irenaus point to show a way around the idea of an all loving God. You said somewhere that you could see a benevolent God making bad things in the universe and suffering. Irenaus got round that by saying that God created the Universe imperfect and humans imperfect but with the potential to become perfect. Evil and suffering is needed because without it, we wouldn't learn.



   I don't know about you but I think I could easily learn without evil being in this world. So I guess by using this line of thought I can safely write off the thousands of children that are killed each year due to disease and war. It was simply a learning experience for them and us. I fail to find this in any way loving.

---
Icewind Dale II talk

Ulbrec: ...Ennelia and Braston will meet you there, Targos's fate hinges on your success.

My response: I think Targos's fate hinges on how much Shawford can pay us from the Targos treasury.

8/Jun/07, 6:29 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM AIM MSN
 
General Queeaqueg Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Midgar Zolom
 


Reg: 01-2006
Posts: 554
Greatness: -41 (+23/-64)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


See, I don’t think the argument is dead. I think the argument is old fashion(was made up 500 years ago) but it is definitely not dead. Lots of scientist thinks the Designer argument works, it is what Dawkins was getting pissed off about. The guy who came up with the ‘big bang’ theory believed in God and the designer. Many scientists find themselves getting so involved in physics and going down to fine atoms, etc that they think there must be a designer. Origins of life on Earth or the origins of the universe, both as complex as each other, many would say that evolution is so complex that here must have been a creator. The designer has been described as ‘Creationism with a cheap tux on’. I don’t think God can be proved, like Kant. I am not saying there isn’t a God but if there is he would be beyond our understanding.

Merge I guess is the wrong word but science and religion are being kept apart. I have no evidence of an afterlife but many parapsychology units around the world are doing lots of research, especially in the fields of Near-Death and reincarnation stories plus other psychic stuff.

You saying that through suffering we don’t learn? When a baby touches something and gets hurt, it doesn’t learn not to do that again? If there was no suffering, people would not bother to discover. What would be the point? The laws of nature(which can be changed, I might add) would always be bent and have no structure. Get my drift?
The probably with this view, is that you can question ‘Why did God put us on Earth to learn, if we are all going to heaven?’. The answer to that is up to you?
8/Jun/07, 8:10 pm Link 2 this post  
 
Grenseal Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Ultima Weapon
 


Reg: 11-2003
Loc: Port City Baltimore
Posts: 1111
Greatness: 66 (+81/-15)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


quote:

See, I don’t think the argument is dead. I think the argument is old fashion(was made up 500 years ago) but it is definitely not dead. Lots of scientist thinks the Designer argument works, it is what Dawkins was getting pissed off about. The guy who came up with the ‘big bang’ theory believed in God and the designer. Many scientists find themselves getting so involved in physics and going down to fine atoms, etc that they think there must be a designer. Origins of life on Earth or the origins of the universe, both as complex as each other, many would say that evolution is so complex that here must have been a creator. The designer has been described as ‘Creationism with a cheap tux on’. I don’t think God can be proved, like Kant. I am not saying there isn’t a God but if there is he would be beyond our understanding.



    If these views are so prevalent in the scientific community why do you never see them crop up in any scientific journals or why are they not taught in universities.


quote:

You saying that through suffering we don’t learn? When a baby touches something and gets hurt, it doesn’t learn not to do that again? If there was no suffering, people would not bother to discover. What would be the point? The laws of nature(which can be changed, I might add) would always be bent and have no structure. Get my drift?




    So the all powerful god who created the universe couldn't think of a better way in which we could learn and discover??? If a god wanted us to discover and learn you could simply instill in us the desire to do so. I fail to see why pain and suffering are necessary to learning. I just can't understand how inflicting pain and suffering on living beings is in any way loving or essential to learning.
   The last time I checked those in fields that were making great discoveries weren't exactly writhing in pain and suffering because of their desire to learn. Thats a cute little anecdote but it fails to establish that suffering is essential to learning.
   And whats this about the laws of nature being bent??? I'm not too sure what you mean by that.
   Let me just put it this way. I don't understand how a loving creator could "create and design" diseases which cause human beings such pain and misery. What does a three year old dying from malaria learn??? As far as I can deteremine there is no love in that.


quote:

erge I guess is the wrong word but science and religion are being kept apart. I have no evidence of an afterlife but many parapsychology units around the world are doing lots of research, especially in the fields of Near-Death and reincarnation stories plus other psychic stuff.



  The majority of psychic stuff is easily debunked. There has yet to be any empirical evidence, and I repeat empirical, to establish the abilities of psychics. Also parapscyhology has not gained major acceptance in mainstream science, I wonder why...

---
Icewind Dale II talk

Ulbrec: ...Ennelia and Braston will meet you there, Targos's fate hinges on your success.

My response: I think Targos's fate hinges on how much Shawford can pay us from the Targos treasury.

8/Jun/07, 9:44 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM AIM MSN
 
General Queeaqueg Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Midgar Zolom
 


Reg: 01-2006
Posts: 554
Greatness: -41 (+23/-64)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


The designer has appeared in 'Nature' a few times. I got a copy on one.

Didn't you read the last bit of that(which you happen to miss off the quote).
"The probably with this view, is that you can question ‘Why did God put us on Earth to learn, if we are all going to heaven?’. The answer to that is up to you?"
I think suffering is needed for learning. We learn by doing things wrong, I know that is not really suffering but it is a little bit. Anyway, Ireanus said that the Universe and us are still not reach a level of perfection(I have no idea what that would look like since I don't a perfect universe to compare with). We and the universe are still evolving. Maybe(if Ireanus is right) a perfect universe would be a place with no suffering.

Parapsychology is gaining more reputation. Scientist can't keep ignoring it, it is becoming stronger. The no reason scientist want to ignore, is that they have a the 'laws of nature' and they are not willing to change there mind view but the 'laws of nature' can be subjected to change. I admit that there are a lot of charlatans in the world but some people are really good with this stuff. Actually, I had a really good book about parapsychology but I had to take it back to the library and I can’t find it anymore.
Oh, not everything is based purely on empirical evidence. Descartes told us this.
9/Jun/07, 12:43 pm Link 2 this post  
 
Cleamatra Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Guardian
 


Reg: 08-2005
Loc: Kuroishi -shi, Aomori Japan
Posts: 388
Greatness: 3 (+40/-37)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:

Go on, Chlamydia, prove to me that landlocked and uneducated people thought the Earth was flat. Should we go back in time and ask them.



You really have a difficult time answering straight questions. I already told you that your biggest mistake was assuming that educated people means that everyone knows it. The original position you tried to assert was that everyone knew the Earth was round. I gave a simple counter, and added that landlocked people would not derive a way to that knowledge, unless they had time to laze around watching stars and were sufficiently advanced in mathematics. I doubt anyone would just suddenly think, "oh! The world is round!" while working 16 hour days just to get enough to eat. In fact, the burdon of proof is on you; explain to me how people would take the time to even care, where does the time to answer such a question come from when you are struggling just to survive, which was the fate of 99% of the world's population for most of human existence? Your position is that, at no point in history, did the majority of people believe the Earth was flat. In fact, this derived from you trying to claim that the majority of people believing in something, makes it so. You really can't even stay on point, either...

quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:

A few retards might have thought the world is round like Mesopotamian but who is to say. Not my documents round suggesting that people thought the world flat(nor did they say the world was round, so most people assume these thought that it was flat).



The Mesopotamians thought the world was hollow, and flat on top. Guess that proves something there, huh? Even educated people thought the world was flat, thus proving my point, again, that at one point, a majority of people believed the Earth was flat. But I digress, we aren't supposed to stay on point, are we? That bores you.

quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
I think China thought the world was squarish and heaven was round, I think. Not even the Bible says it flat, they thought the World was sort of pear-shaped. Ask Stephen Fry, he'll set you straight(in knowledge ways).
There are even people now who say the world is Flat(they are not all religious BTW).



Well, I guess you and Stephen Fry are wrong there, although I don't think I am going to take what a comedian says about academic subjects too seriously, even if he is clever. emoticon The Old Testament is pretty much universally ackwoldged to be a Flat Earth book. The Judaic cosmology was taken from Egyptian cosmology, which by the way, was Flat Earth with a vaulted ceiling, which is widely quoted in the various books of the Bible. This isn't terribly surprising given that the Jewish peoples were shadowed by Egypt and Mesopotamia for much of their history.
Some Flat earth scriptures from the Bible on this page:http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm

Some scholars debate whether or not some of the later books are reflecting a flat earth idea of the world, or are using stylistic flavor, with such quotes as "Jesus was taken to the highest mountain where he could see every kingdom on Earth." Literally speaking, it suggest a flat Earth, but it may also just be figurative. However, the Old Testament is pretty much agreed to be a flat earth book; others insist the New Testament is, too.

quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
Anyway, you are still boring me...
Let’s start again -
I think the designer argument is one of the strongest arguments. If things are weak, they are destroyed and people wouldn't use them but this isn't. Hume and Kant are the only two people which have come close to getting rid of this argument.



No General, the designer argument is irrelevant because it is so weak that no one cares anymore. For the past several hundred years, philosophers either accept God, or don't. We no longer care about silly things like this. It's done with, and gone.

quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
The jumbo-jet idea can work both ways. Hyde(I think) said that the probability of life on Earth was a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard a putting together a Jet in perfect nick. The idea that complex life couldn't have come by chance.



As I said before, this arguement is blown away by it's insistence that the probability is weak, but conveniently forgets that it only has to happen once, in the span of conceptually infinite time and infinite space. We don't know how long the Universe has simply "been" or how many, if any, other Universes there are. For all we know, other Big Bangs can be happening millions of times every second. With an infinite time, and infinite space, it only happening once has great odds. The argument is inherently weak by assuming that it knows how much time has passed and that it knows the limits of where it can possibly take place. It assumes an awful lot that it, actually, can not know.

quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
Dawkins himself said this argument is hard to counter, he says that we wear 'Designer Glasses'(heh), so that we everything and think it must have been designed.



Everyone wears a kind of glasses, not necessarily those ones, but we do all have our biases that we approach things from.

quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
That is rubbish, Kant had a simual idea with 'Space-Time' googles, he idea that we wear these sort of googles which means we can never know the divine. Hume says that complex doesn't mean we need a designer but I see no other options on how we got here.
I think the chance that we live a perfect universe(call it what you want, not exactly you have another universe to compare it with.. it supports life... good enough) runs with the chance of there being a God.



Kant is quite correct. We can't know the Divine in space-time terms, or as we say now, empirical terms. Hume is also correct. Complex is a human category, looked at from a human perspective. We are used to creating complex things, so we anthropomorphise that anything else that is complex, must have had a designer. We forget that there may simply not have been one. You don't have to buy that; I personally won't be offended.



Last edited by Cleamatra, 9/Jun/07, 1:10 pm


---

9/Jun/07, 1:06 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM MSN YIM
 
Cleamatra Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Guardian
 


Reg: 08-2005
Loc: Kuroishi -shi, Aomori Japan
Posts: 388
Greatness: 3 (+40/-37)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
Irenaus point to show a way around the idea of an all loving God. You said somewhere that you could see a benevolent God making bad things in the universe and suffering. Irenaus got round that by saying that God created the Universe imperfect and humans imperfect but with the potential to become perfect. Evil and suffering is needed because without it, we wouldn't learn.



Irenaus wasn't the first to argue for that. The problem comes in one's conception of God as all loving, compassionate, wise and all-powerful. I don't see a loving God allowing needless suffering, such as ravaging diseases, mass genocide, and atomic weapons. It is a "way out" that emphasises more on the human condition and experience, which is all good, but it draws questions on the nature of God.

quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
The next point was when someone said that there is empirical knowledge disproving Religion which is complete rubbish.



I wasn't the one that said that, and I don't remember reading it. I said that science cannot prove or disprove religious claims. But I know how bored you get with me, so I'm not surprised that you didn't bother reading any of it.

quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
Science is now working with religion to try a least prove its claims which has led to the Materialist Christian Movement(must have said this a billion times now) and institutes se to prove the Afterlife... near-death, reincarnation stories and bed-side stuff is still very confusing. Some scientist thinks he will have the afterlife proved!



By science, I guess you mean some scientists who don't have much esteem in the scientific community. The paraanalyzers get lots of time on television, but their methods draw a lot of flack. But hey, if they get the money and want to do the work, I have no problem with it. They aren't hurting anything. As for your Materialist Christian Movement, the only thing I managed to find via Google is Christian Materialism, which seems to be one of those fundie nutjob movements. Funny that Google didn't bring up anything on this oh so influential movement.

quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
Next was the idea that Religious numbers are falling which I said was wrong, religion is still as strong as it has ever been. The Russia and Chinese underground churches are booming. Many people believe in God but don't conform to a religion, it is possible. Some people simple don't care and rather say no to religion and atheism. You can't deny this, though, 5.0 billion people worldwide follow a religion and even the other 1.0 billion people might still have a belief in God but don't choose to follow a religion. This has nothing to do with proving some right as I have said the 'Argument for masses' is rubbish.



You claimed that religious number were growing. I gave you data that showed they were stable, while nonreligious affiliations were growing. I never argued with you about Communist countries being oppressive against religion, nor did I eve claim that religion is not a strong force. I have, in fact, acknowledged it is a powerful force in pretty much everything that I have said. Again, you are ranting and not reading.

I've nixxed the redundant point that I addressed, since you apprantly don't care to address what I said about it. Repeating yourself doesn't make you right.

quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
I have read that depressed twat Sartre. I do know a fair bit about Kierkegaard having read his 'Concluding Unscientific Postscript'. I openly admit that I know nothing of Nietzsche(apart form the quote and what it means).

I haven't called you names, I called Sartre names. Anyway, I am glad your friends disagree with me... they are probably retards anyway.



Sartre actually wasn't that depressed; nore was he a twat. He was a stubborn, headstrong person, quite like yourself. YOu can't understand Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postcript without reading what he wrote before. It was the piece that brought everything together.
As Grenseal mentioned, referring to me as Chlamydia, is indeed, an insult, and doing so repeatedly shows that you really need to grow up and learn to respect who you try to discuss things with.

---

9/Jun/07, 1:07 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM MSN YIM
 
General Queeaqueg Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Midgar Zolom
 


Reg: 01-2006
Posts: 554
Greatness: -41 (+23/-64)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


Man, you are so boring...

No, we simply assume that these people thought the world was flat. These people never said it was flat nor did they say it was round. They probably didn't care.
The Bible does really say the world is flat, pear shaped is a better description. Top of the mountain was heaven and bottom was hell.

You have given little reason not to believe the designer argument. If I was a believer of Designer argument, you would not even have tempted me to think twice. I really haven’t heard a convincing argument against the Designer argument, Kant is the closest. As I have said, even Dawkins admits it is a hard argument to knock down Boring, you are...

Irenaus point: ah so it was God who started wars and made not atomic weapons, not humans. Sorry but I thought the majority of evil in the world(like wars, weapon n stuff) was human made. Actually, things only become bad or 'evil' when humans get in the way. A landside is not 'evil' but when a human is in the way... oh no! How can God do that! hehe

I never said you aid that about proving religion, etc. That was Grenseal.

quote:

By science, I guess you mean some scientists who don't have much esteem in the scientific community


quote:

those fundie nutjob movements



Heh, This comes from the guy who was complaining to me about being arrogant, name calling and making assumptions. This is what I expect from narrow minded people. Doesn't bother me, I think Dawkins is twat.

I came up wit my own source which states that Atheism makes up 1% of every population(apart from America, 13%). Accept the fact that Religion is still as strong as ever. More people become religious everyday and vice versa. Doesn't matter what you say, the argument for masses may prove nothing but 5 billion following a religion... sounds every unpopular religion does emoticon

Sorry for calling you a name, If you want I can give you number to a good councillor or maybe the Samaritans.
9/Jun/07, 3:08 pm Link 2 this post  
 
Cleamatra Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Guardian
 


Reg: 08-2005
Loc: Kuroishi -shi, Aomori Japan
Posts: 388
Greatness: 3 (+40/-37)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


If the name calling really bothered me, I wouldn't continue to address you. Just letting you know that you look silly.

I said that what I found via Google, Christian materialism, sounded like funies nutjobism, not your Christian Materialist Movement, but then, you obviously don't read, as you also don't give any new arguments. Google didn't give anything on a Christian materialist movement that engaged in even quasi-scientific research of the paranormal, or anything, for that matter. What I read on Christian Materialism was a philosophical shift away from Christianity's longstanding Idealist tradition, to materialism, because the clergy feels that they are losing followers since most of the Western World's population has a distinctive materialist mindset, so it is easier to retain followers that way.

No one assumes that these people thought that world was flat; for the most part, documents from the Ancient World, those that we find, largely show an ancient predisposition to the idea of a flat world. The evidence tells us such; and even if we did just "assume so," we get that assumption from someplace. Largely that unless you can see far off into the horizon, the world "appears" flat, which is why most would think the same. Just as most peoples believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
You are going to need to supply proof the the entire Bible states that the world was Pear Shaped. First time I've heard that one, and I've been studying it for a good many years -- never even seen a respected scholar utter that one.

As far as the Designer arguement, I've given very good reasons that show it is unsound -- it makes a good number of assumptions that it cannot, in good faith, make. That makes it inherently weak, and why no one cares anymore, except for people who really really want to believe in a Creator, and those who want to deflect on every point against them. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter since it doesn't convince anyone anyway; it simply resonates with those who want something to justify their preconceptions with. The rest of us know that it is inherently weak. And of course my argument wouldn't make a believer think twice about it -- they are emotionally attached to it because they want to think they have taken a logical position in something that has no logical and or/empirical evidence to support it. No one who is unattached will take any stock in it, and anyone with a mature faith doesn't need it in the first place. And that is precisely why it is irrelevant.

The point against Irenaus is not that God makes such things, but set up the world in such a way as to allow them to happen. If God is all good and omniscient, then God knows that this set up will bring evil into the world, but allows it to happen anyway, which, by definition, makes him less than pure good. If God is omniscient and all good, then God will vanquish evil at all times, otherwise he acts in a less than good way. Irenaus only avoided the logical fallacies in the metaphysical construction of God and focused on human experience and tried to justify the world from a different perspective. Nothing wrong with that as his arguement is interesting in itself, but it is weak in that it doesn't explain how God could possibly do that while maintaining the qualities associated with God.

You just say you remain unconvinced, which is fine. I don't expect to convince anyone of anything. As far as being narrow minded goes, you came in here with guns blazing and insulting everyone from the get go -- which simply screams narrowmindedness. Personally, I think I have shown remarkable restraint and done a good job of keeping this respectful from my side. I haven't attacked you once, except to point out some of your most "charming" qualities, which is more of an observation from your behavior during this discussion.

I don't really think you came into this for a discussion anyway; seems to me that you already think you know the truth that has eluded the world's brightest for thousands of years. I think I have challenged you and you aren't interested and/or you are uncomfortable that the facts don't neatly support your positions, which is why you call me boring, refer to me as chlamydia, and other such things. I think you are simply trying to squirm away from an uncomfortable reality; it happens to anyone who is truly looking for knowledge at some point.

---

11/Jun/07, 5:41 am Link 2 this post Email   PM MSN YIM
 
Grenseal Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Ultima Weapon
 


Reg: 11-2003
Loc: Port City Baltimore
Posts: 1111
Greatness: 66 (+81/-15)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


quote:

You have given little reason not to believe the designer argument. If I was a believer of Designer argument, you would not even have tempted me to think twice. I really haven’t heard a convincing argument against the Designer argument, Kant is the closest. As I have said, even Dawkins admits it is a hard argument to knock down Boring, you are...




 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI101.html

Check out that site for even more arguments against Design. Like Cleamatra says the design arugment assumes a lot, i.e it makes an argument from ignorance. I'd rather not believe in a theory so rife with logical fallacies.

Also you are taking Dawkins out of context. If you've ever read or seen any of his work you'd realize how anti-design he really is. Go check out his website if you don't believe me.


quote:

Irenaus point: ah so it was God who started wars and made not atomic weapons, not humans. Sorry but I thought the majority of evil in the world(like wars, weapon n stuff) was human made. Actually, things only become bad or 'evil' when humans get in the way. A landside is not 'evil' but when a human is in the way... oh no! How can God do that! hehe



  Go read what Cleamatra said in regards to this. I literally could not have said it better myself.


quote:

I came up wit my own source which states that Atheism makes up 1% of every population(apart from America, 13%). Accept the fact that Religion is still as strong as ever. More people become religious everyday and vice versa. Doesn't matter what you say, the argument for masses may prove nothing but 5 billion following a religion... sounds every unpopular religion does



   You still seem to think that this somehow lends religion some credence which is not the case. If you ever take a really close look at some of the major religions it becomes quite apparent just how false they really are.

---
Icewind Dale II talk

Ulbrec: ...Ennelia and Braston will meet you there, Targos's fate hinges on your success.

My response: I think Targos's fate hinges on how much Shawford can pay us from the Targos treasury.

12/Jun/07, 3:16 am Link 2 this post Email   PM AIM MSN
 
General Queeaqueg Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Midgar Zolom
 


Reg: 01-2006
Posts: 554
Greatness: -41 (+23/-64)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


God gave us Free will, so that means we do good and evil things. War n stuff was made by humans and not God. Nature events(landsides) only become evil when a human gets in the way. Some say taht God does stop some things but sometimes dosn't.
"If God always stopped stuff, people would always turn to him. if God never stopped stuff, people would drift futher away'. Ireanus thought hat God kept at a certain distance because if we knew for certain of his existence, there would be no free will.

I never said Dawkins agreed with the Designer Argument but he did say it is a hard one to knock down.

quote:

You still seem to think that this somehow lends religion some credence which is not the case. If you ever take a really close look at some of the major religions it becomes quite apparent just how false they really are.



In what way?
15/Jun/07, 11:54 am Link 2 this post  
 


Add a reply

Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 






You are not logged in (Login) Or Register an account

Local Business Directory, Search Engine Submission & SEO Tools