Quote: Gavin @ January 22 2009, 8:24 PM GMTIt's nice he thinks of me when not on here.
Cheers big fella.
General, General Thread Page 1,771
It's because he's stopped trying to e-hug you, right Gav?
Quote: Scatterbrained Floozy @ January 22 2009, 8:33 PM GMTIt's because he's stopped trying to e-hug you, right Gav?
yeh I sometimes am cautious of the both of you trying to sneak a hug in. But you can keep your skins based diseases to yourselves, I'm to old and busy to deal with them. 
Quote: SlagA @ January 22 2009, 8:03 PM GMTUsing that same logic so are atheists. No one can't take the intellectual high ground in a debate that the greatest minds in history have discussed for millennia and still failed to solve satisfactorily one way or the other. There are no 'proofs' for or against. Each side has 'evidence' but that's not the same as empirical proof. For a man to say there is no God requires omniscience.
Slaggy, I can say what I said with a clear conscience and feel secure in my own 'belief'. You are king fence sitter! And you can't solve the question of a God one way or another as the best trick religion ever created is the idea of blind faith; that you can't have any concrete proof, you just have to believe. How could you ever properly prove the non-existence of a God if part of the whole deal is supposed to be a lack of anything concrete and blind faith?! That's why you can't prove that God exists. Or doesn't. And so we go on and on and on and . . .
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 22 2009, 8:38 PM GMTSlaggy, I can say what I said with a clear conscience and feel secure in my own 'belief'. You are king fence sitter! And you can't solve the question of a God one way or another as the best trick religion ever created is the idea of blind faith; that you can't have any concrete proof, you just have to believe. How could you ever properly prove the non-existence of a God if part of the whole deal is supposed to be a lack of anything concrete and blind faith?! That's why you can't prove that God exists. Or doesn't. And so we go on and on and on and . . .
Isn't the point of religion to impose a set of rules on a set of people to obey?
Quote: Gavin @ January 22 2009, 8:40 PM GMTIsn't the point of religion to impose a set of rules on a set of people to obey?
Well, a lot of organised religion yeah, same as any other organisation really.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 22 2009, 8:43 PM GMTWell, a lot of organised religion yeah, same as any other organisation really.
Mmmmm. Doesn't seem a divine. Seems like the plans of man to me.
Gaviiiin! 
Quote: Gavin @ January 22 2009, 8:44 PM GMTMmmmm. Doesn't seem a divine. Seems like the plans of man to me.
Yep, Matt, that's my point pretty much spot on... and shorter.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 22 2009, 8:38 PM GMTAnd you can't solve the question of a God one way or another as the best trick religion ever created is the idea of blind faith; that you can't have any concrete proof, you just have to believe.
But if religionists are condemned for their blind faith by believing in the absence of proof, then atheists who also believe in the same absence of proof are no different. Because they too are exercising blind faith.
Ooh, yes, I love that fence. Got me down to a tee. 
Religion you can keep. Wars and death come along with them. But divine being I'm not so sure about. My next door neighbour has some strange habits. It could be him.
It's a correct fence.
Quote: SlagA @ January 22 2009, 9:28 PM GMTBut if religionists are condemned for their blind faith by believing in the absence of proof, then atheists who also believe in the same absence of proof are no different. Because they too are exercising blind faith.
Yes! Exactly! I argued this against a male "friend" who goes to debating with me, and he just rolled his eyes and looked unimpressed!
Quote: Aaron @ January 22 2009, 9:30 PM GMTIt's a correct fence.
Hopefully with a pointy top.