Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Atheism as a religion:

Pages: (11) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,05:48    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 29 2007,19:11) The argument goes that because the Universe exists and it is a universe of cause and effect and it is a finite Universe then there must have been a First Cause.  We may descend into semantics as to whether or not it is right to call this First Cause God but I'll bypass that for now.  Mind you this is not the God of the Bible or any other specific deity that mankind attempts to know but it lays the foundation, if that makes any sense. You're right, if God is the First Cause then he exists for both of us regardless of what we believe and the converse is true that if no God exists then no God exists for us all.  Having no way to actually access this knowledge forces us to rely on belief and that is neither right or wrong for anyone but the individual. I can see the logic in that, I understand why you think that. From a human point of view, it's very logical that there has to be a first cause (why would you call it God though, because what does "God" mean in that context?) because we're not used to something else. But what says there has to be a first cause? And also, like UnMark says, we don't even know if the universe is finite. Problem is, we can only comprehend things in a certain frame (like that we're used to cause and effect), fat chance the whole universe is not in that frame. There are also soooooo many other creation story's and gods. Why would you rationally beleive in only 1 of those, since they're all equal on the evidence ground, namely zero evidence.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,08:00    From that context God is simply that which created or set the Universe in motion.  From there you start to infer things about God like if it started the Universe it was not a product of the Universe and therefore outside of time and space and etc and so forth.  Also, from this starting point you can end up with many different creation stories which is why I say that everything after this is arbitrary.  That's when it comes down to personal experience, faith, emotion, spiritual experience, etc. Now from a rational standpoint you can only believe one of them or maybe view them all as parts of the same elephant but what you choose is an individual choice and not based on reason at all.  Maybe some theists don't realize this but it is unavoidable.

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,08:36    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,08:00) From that context God is simply that which created or set the Universe in motion.  From there you start to infer things about God like if it started the Universe it was not a product of the Universe and therefore outside of time and space and etc and so forth.  Also, from this starting point you can end up with many different creation stories which is why I say that everything after this is arbitrary.  That's when it comes down to personal experience, faith, emotion, spiritual experience, etc. Now from a rational standpoint you can only believe one of them or maybe view them all as parts of the same elephant but what you choose is an individual choice and not based on reason at all.  Maybe some theists don't realize this but it is unavoidable. But what do you mean with God then? Simply the start of the universe? Nothing more? What's rational about beleiving that, and what's rational about beleiving 1 option without any supporting evidence? Is beleiving itself rational?

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,09:17    not exactly, God as the start of the Universe is the only rational conclusion with the only piece of evidence being existence itself.  Certainly there's very little utility in that from a religious standpoint but all the rest is man's attempt to understand God in a personal sense.  Believing in a personal God is not rational but it could be argued that believing in a First Cause is.   I'm not sure if I'm doing a good job of differentiating between the rational and irrational,let me know.

rhmc Posts: 340 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,09:31    once you start creating entities or beginnings with no proof of either, it's kinda hard to credit you with any rationality at all. one can make up anything.  that does not make it true.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,09:39    "Ian, it is perfectly rational to say I see no evidence and stop there.  It's when you go further and make positive claims or, in the case of your specific question, make value claims that you are no longer engaged in reason-based arguments." Err....sort of. The rational thing to do would be to say "I see no evidence for this, therefore I don't believe it to be true, because there is no evidence. If evidence is presented then I shall believe it, and I certainly will not hold on to the negative position if the positive is demonstrated to be correct. Therefore I shall state that at the current position of knowledge, idea X has not been shown, and can therefore be stated to be untrue until shown otherwise. " It is irrational to state "I see no evidence for X, therefore I can make no statement as to X's plausibility or it's actual existance." This is irrational because it allows for absolutely any position to be possible, and that is really, really illogical. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,10:09    skepti I may owe you an apology.  I've never read many of your posts and did not realize you're nothing more than a garden variety creationist troll.  You're just as dishonest and prone to cheating as all of your ID buddies. You contradict yourself, change the rules so you do not have to admit you're wrong, and you never admit you're wrong even when it is obvious to anyone, and you ignore evidence. For some reason I never put you in the same catagory as afdave , vmartin and the rest. You're the same lying, cheating creationist as the rest of those guys. My mistake for never paying close enough attention to notice.  For the most part I will disengage and let you get back to your trolling. Enjoy your bliss and trolling here! Cheers! -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,11:11    Well, apparently Chris, you've never read any of my posts or you're just unable to comprehend them.  But judging from your rhetoric I doubt if playing close attention is really going to help you significantly, you see what you wish to see and have very little use for any opinion but your own. Ian, I believe our disagreement comes down to our inclination and semantics.  I see a failure to prove as just that and nothing more whereas you willing to accept that a failure to prove represents proof of non-existence until such time as proof is indeed offered.  There's really not much difference here but the extrapolations take us to far different places.  I see no reason not to believe in God and you see no reason to do so, each of us without evidence supporting our position.  Go ahead, I'll flip and you call it in the air...

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,11:17    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,17:11) I see no reason not to believe in God Which is why you are not being logical. Logic dictates that we believe things we can rationalise based upon the evidence at hand. If there is no evidence then the item, idea or whatever it is cannot be dismissed out of hand, but NEITHER SHOULD IT BE CONSIDERED. Do you see no reason not to believe in Zeus either? -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,12:00    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Dec. 30 2007,11:17) Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,17:11) I see no reason not to believe in God Which is why you are not being logical. Logic dictates that we believe things we can rationalise based upon the evidence at hand. If there is no evidence then the item, idea or whatever it is cannot be dismissed out of hand, but NEITHER SHOULD IT BE CONSIDERED. Do you see no reason not to believe in Zeus either? Stupid beyond belief. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,12:09    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,09:17) not exactly, God as the start of the Universe is the only rational conclusion with the only piece of evidence being existence itself.  Certainly there's very little utility in that from a religious standpoint but all the rest is man's attempt to understand God in a personal sense.  Believing in a personal God is not rational but it could be argued that believing in a First Cause is.   I'm not sure if I'm doing a good job of differentiating between the rational and irrational,let me know. I really don't see the logic in that. We exist, yes (even that isn't 100% sure, who says we're not in a buffed up version of The Sims?), but what does that have to do with your image of the word God? Why do you think that existance is a piece of evidence for the existance of a God as First Cause? You make it sound if we can't exist without God as First Cause, how can you argument for that and thus be reasonable? Quote I see no reason not to believe in God And why is that? What about AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL the other gods in the world? Why don't you beleive in them? Bottemline is, you've grown up with your religion, it's embedded in you and part of your personality.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,12:10    Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 30 2007,18:00) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Dec. 30 2007,11:17) Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,17:11) I see no reason not to believe in God Which is why you are not being logical. Logic dictates that we believe things we can rationalise based upon the evidence at hand. If there is no evidence then the item, idea or whatever it is cannot be dismissed out of hand, but NEITHER SHOULD IT BE CONSIDERED. Do you see no reason not to believe in Zeus either? Stupid beyond belief. Me or him? If you meant me, then I'd like you to come for a meeting at my home. Be aware I used to be a marine, and I'm like, covered in muscles. I also have two really vicious dogs, and I'm 7' 2" tall....I have a number of chainsaws and I live out in the sticks. (only one of the above is true, and that's only part of the time) -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,12:15    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Dec. 30 2007,12:10) Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 30 2007,18:00) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Dec. 30 2007,11:17)   Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,17:11) I see no reason not to believe in God Which is why you are not being logical. Logic dictates that we believe things we can rationalise based upon the evidence at hand. If there is no evidence then the item, idea or whatever it is cannot be dismissed out of hand, but NEITHER SHOULD IT BE CONSIDERED. Do you see no reason not to believe in Zeus either? Stupid beyond belief. Me or him? If you meant me, then I'd like you to come for a meeting at my home. Be aware I used to be a marine, and I'm like, covered in muscles. I also have two really vicious dogs, and I'm 7' 2" tall....I have a number of chainsaws and I live out in the sticks. (only one of the above is true, and that's only part of the time) YOU'RE ONLY COVERED IN MUSCLES WHEN YOU'RE BOYFRIEND IS ROUND. HOMO Him, soft olly. "I see be reason to believe in X" Pure tard. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,12:18    Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 30 2007,18:15) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Dec. 30 2007,12:10) Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 30 2007,18:00)   Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Dec. 30 2007,11:17)   Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,17:11) I see no reason not to believe in God Which is why you are not being logical. Logic dictates that we believe things we can rationalise based upon the evidence at hand. If there is no evidence then the item, idea or whatever it is cannot be dismissed out of hand, but NEITHER SHOULD IT BE CONSIDERED. Do you see no reason not to believe in Zeus either? Stupid beyond belief. Me or him? If you meant me, then I'd like you to come for a meeting at my home. Be aware I used to be a marine, and I'm like, covered in muscles. I also have two really vicious dogs, and I'm 7' 2" tall....I have a number of chainsaws and I live out in the sticks. (only one of the above is true, and that's only part of the time) YOU'RE ONLY COVERED IN MUSCLES WHEN YOU'RE BOYFRIEND IS ROUND. HOMO Him, soft olly. "I see be reason to believe in X" Pure tard. You would know ALLLLL about being covered in your boyfriend, homo atheist church burner!!!!!!!1!! I guessed him, but I thought I had better  check, you know? With you, it could be anything..... -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,13:47    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Dec. 30 2007,12:18) With you, it could be anything..... *Raises handbag up to chin* -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,14:15    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,09:17) not exactly, God as the start of the Universe is the only rational conclusion with the only piece of evidence being existence itself.  Certainly there's very little utility in that from a religious standpoint but all the rest is man's attempt to understand God in a personal sense.  Believing in a personal God is not rational but it could be argued that believing in a First Cause is.   So, in summation, with all the word games removed: "We exist, therefore God must exist". Forgive me if I'm not exactly dazzled.   Quote And why is that? What about AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL the other gods in the world? Why don't you beleive in them? Exactly my question. Has Skeptic even alluded to an answer for this one? Quote Bottemline is, you've grown up with your religion, it's embedded in you and part of your personality. Indeed. Most Christians and Muslims are extremely reluctant to admit that there is anything cultural about their religious allegiance. To me, a Christian from, say, Texas saying he's a Christian because Christianity is true is about as worth taking seriously as someone from Saudi Arabia saying he's a Muslim because of the obvious truth of Islam. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Connatic Posts: 5 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,17:38    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,02:18) wow, aren't you a breath of fresh air. Potentially a gladsome side-effect.   You have yet to get with your own program and begin  your demonstration of the nonexistence of even the small sample group of deities I have provided for your convenience.  (The Hittite pantheon will be a bit easier than the Sumerian one, when you work your way over to it). If you're not going to perform the exercise, then you, as an honorable person who observes the moral strictures of the Christ and his apostles, should either (1) publicly reconsider your "whoso denieth the existence of any deity is bound to prove that deity's nonexistence" philosophical stance; or (2) publicly affirm the existence of all of the deities of the Sumerian pantheon, who are attested to by over two thousand years of literary tradition; or (3) engage in honest discussion; or, best of all, (4) find some other venue to infest. -------------- Doctrine, when it lets its hair down,    can trample, without fear,    even the most innocent of truths.            -- Frederico Garcia Lorca

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,20:05    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,11:11) I see no reason not to believe in God and you see no reason to do so, each of us without evidence supporting our position.  Go ahead, I'll flip and you call it in the air... To give you an idea of the utter absurdity of that statement as a defense of theism, let's make a few substitutions: I see no reason not to believe in God that Skeptic is a serial killer, and you see he sees no reason to do so, each of us without evidence supporting our position. So flip a coin. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,20:10    Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 30 2007,20:05) Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,11:11) I see no reason not to believe in God and you see no reason to do so, each of us without evidence supporting our position.  Go ahead, I'll flip and you call it in the air... To give you an idea of the utter absurdity of that statement as a defense of theism, let's make a few substitutions: I see no reason not to believe in God that Skeptic is a serial killer, and you see he sees no reason to do so, each of us without evidence supporting our position. So flip a coin. understanding of probability: zero. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2007,20:39    Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 30 2007,20:10) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 30 2007,20:05) Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,11:11) I see no reason not to believe in God and you see no reason to do so, each of us without evidence supporting our position.  Go ahead, I'll flip and you call it in the air... To give you an idea of the utter absurdity of that statement as a defense of theism, let's make a few substitutions: I see no reason not to believe in God that Skeptic is a serial killer, and you see he sees no reason to do so, each of us without evidence supporting our position. So flip a coin. understanding of probability: zero. probability of understanding: zero. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2007,09:52    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 29 2007,13:08) The only thing conclusion you can come to when the theist fails to present evidence for the existence of God is that the theist has failed to provide evidence for the existence of God. Which is exactly my position. Quote The mistake is made by making the next step and saying therefore God does not exist. No one is saying that.  We are saying, however, that the odds are against it, and that it is rational to live our lives as if there is no god since there is no evidence for it, just as we live our lives without being agnostic on the existence of invisible, pink unicorns. Quote There's the positive claim. It's still not a positive claim. Quote Imagine me asking a 12 year old to provide me evidence for the existence of an electron and then when he fails to do so I falsely claim that electrons do not exist.  Again, the only rational conclusion is no conclusion at all. Um, no, that is incorrect.  The rational position would be to be unconvinced and go about your life without including belief in electrons until someone could prove it.  Luckily for all of us, we have proven it. Quote why are you battling anything?  why do you care?  just curious. I care for a number of reasons.  One reason is that many believers try to impose their religion upon me.  Another reason is that my rights are at stake from many religious believers and I will battle to protect my rights.  Another would be that I find most religions to be unhealthy, so for compassion for my fellow man I battle against the unhealthy and hateful teachings of the given religion.  Note, you will probably call my reasons for battling irrational (although it is not irrational to protect my rights in the least, and I could argue that the others are quite rational, but why bother?) but that doesn't mean that my being an atheist is irrational nor are my reasons for being an atheist.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2007,09:53    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 29 2007,13:17) after examining the evidence (and lack thereof) I'm convinced there is no god.  in fact the whole idea is very very idiotic to me.  in light of new and compelling evidence I could be shown to be wrong.  but until that evidence is presented and verified I will just say no to believing in magical sky pixies, talking donkies, ghosts, goblins, zombies, virgin births, santa claus and the tooth fairy. Talking donkies?  HA!!!!!1111oneoneone!!! I've seen the documentary called, "Shrek" and I happen to know they exist.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2007,10:03    Quote (Connatic @ Dec. 29 2007,23:57) Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 29 2007,22:32) Sorry, Connatic, never heard of Ninhursag. Imagine that.  This is why your soul will shortly belong to Ereshkigal, and your fate will be eternally dismal. Long before those itinerant goat-herders appeared at the Eastern end of the Mediterranean, the sophisticated and literate Sumerians had it all figured out.  Ninhursag is the mother of all life on Earth.  She got that title 3000 or more years before your particular mythology gained any sort of currency. By the standards you have enunciated, it's up to you now to demonstrate that Ninhursag, Nergal, Enki, Ereshkigal and the rest of that pantheon don't exist.  You may also wish to provide convincing proof that your particular imaginary friend (or friends) do[es]. Have at it. I also read right here at ATBC an interesting tidbit related to this a little while back.  It seems that Abraham when he resided in Ur picked up a lot of the Sumerian myths and co-opted them into what became Judaism.  He just changed around some of the particulars and presto, a new religion.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2007,10:33    How about this track? Skeptic, let's say you are on a jury.  John Doe is accused of being a bad man (not in a Mohammed Ali sort of way, but in the way that district attorneys object to).  The prosecution presents no evidence and neither does the defense.  The prosecutions argument boils down to, "Well, the defense can't prove that he didn't do these bad things that he's accused of, so it would be irrational to find him not guilty, since you have no evidence that he didn't do it." Can you tell me what is wrong with this scenario?

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2007,10:42    Quote (GCT @ Dec. 31 2007,10:33) Can you tell me what is wrong with this scenario? No one swore on teh bibul. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2007,15:47    GCT, the role of the Grand Jury would have been enforced and no trial would have been convened but in that case the prosecution would still be investigating, if they believed a crime was committed, and quite possibly defense consul would still retained to advise the client.   Actually I've been trying to come up with an appropriate analogy myself to provide us something both concrete and real to work with and I think I have it but I'll be delayed until sometime tomorrow afternoon. Happy New Year all!

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2007,15:58    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 31 2007,16:47) GCT, the role of the Grand Jury would have been enforced and no trial would have been convened but in that case the prosecution would still be investigating, if they believed a crime was committed, and quite possibly defense consul would still retained to advise the client.   I think you know what I mean.  By your logic, the prosecuting attorney is correct.  Even though he has no evidence, there is no evidence exhonerating the defendant, so it would be illogical to come back with a "Not guilty" verdict. To get closer to the Xianity scenario, perhaps the prosecution came up with a bunch of ideas and they were all shot down by the defense, leaving the prosecution with no arguments.  But, the defense only denied the arguments put forth by the prosecution without asserting any evidence for the defendants innocence.  They were only able to destroy the prosecutorial evidence, so really there's no evidence either way.  John Doe could be guilty of the crime, in fact, he either is or he isn't.  According to you, with no evidence either way, then it's a 50-50 chance.  It's just as rational to believe that he is guilty than he isn't.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2007,18:50    Quote (GCT @ Dec. 31 2007,09:53) Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 29 2007,13:17) after examining the evidence (and lack thereof) I'm convinced there is no god.  in fact the whole idea is very very idiotic to me.  in light of new and compelling evidence I could be shown to be wrong.  but until that evidence is presented and verified I will just say no to believing in magical sky pixies, talking donkies, ghosts, goblins, zombies, virgin births, santa claus and the tooth fairy. Talking donkies?  HA!!!!!1111oneoneone!!! I've seen the documentary called, "Shrek" and I happen to know they exist. I believe it was Voltaire who said "If Talking Donkies did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Them" and to the delight of creationists the Xtian bible invented them. To not believe in talking donkies is irrational.  Winged humanoids too! -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2008,09:36    Skeptic, If you think logic requires that the universe has a cause, and you call that cause God, what caused God? Is/was there an Ur-God? And an Ur-Ur-God? Ad infinitum? Or, if God doesn't need a cause, why does the universe?

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2008,12:29    Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 01 2008,09:36) Skeptic, If you think logic requires that the universe has a cause, and you call that cause God, what caused God? Is/was there an Ur-God? And an Ur-Ur-God? Ad infinitum? Or, if God doesn't need a cause, why does the universe? Batten down the hatches, man!  It's turtles down, ALL the way! -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Pages: (11) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard