Quote: Gavin @ January 22 2009, 7:57 PM GMTGet f**ked, Bulma? are you insane?
ahem....I mean who's Bulma?
BUSTED!
General, General Thread Page 1,769
Shit the bed. Now people are gonna think I'm a proper Nerd. lol
http://my.mmosite.com/cozplayer/Blog/Item/8d0d50e70b00a1197c9a7853ffe5dfc7.html
Third one down. *cough*
that dude does kind of look like Gav.
From what pictures I've seen at least
Quote: PhQnix @ January 22 2009, 7:58 PM GMThttp://my.mmosite.com/cozplayer/Blog/Item/8d0d50e70b00a1197c9a7853ffe5dfc7.html
Third one down. *cough*
Quote: PhQnix @ January 22 2009, 7:58 PM GMThttp://my.mmosite.com/cozplayer/Blog/Item/8d0d50e70b00a1197c9a7853ffe5dfc7.html
Third one down. *cough*
Freiza soldier my ass.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 22 2009, 6:19 PM GMTWell, church goers have faith in an intangible concept that can't be proven. Ergo they are fools!
Using 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. Which ironically would make the man godlike.
On a side note: If I was going to join the Atheist society in the past, I could never now. Not after they recently shot themselves in the foot with their bus poster campaign.
The wording of the advert "There is probably no God etc" shows that the atheistic stance also exercises faith in believing there is no God. If they had demonstrable proof they could say "There is no God" but I suspect the reason they (like Carlsberg's 'probably the best lager') used the word 'probably' was to avoid being taken to the Advertising Standards.
The phrase "There is probably no God" is arguably an opinion which doesn't require rigorous substantiating. But the rather different phrasing of "There is no God" would be looked upon as a claim, not an opinion, and open the advertisers to the request that they substantiate the claim.
That they cannot substantiate such a definite claim is clear in the presence of the get-out clause "probably". The bus campaign is a bit of an own goal.
I know many churchgoers and many atheists. None of them I would dismiss as fools. I know of many scientists who disbelieve God and many who believe in God. Some of those scientists came to a belief in a God through their scientific work, not despite their work. Clearly intelligence or scientific background isn't a factor in belief.
In the absence of real tangible proof, whatever position you take on this debate, for or against, requires faith. Faith is not dependent upon intellect. Faith is dependent on many factors including upbringing, experience, and personal bias.
In this particular debate, you believe what you 'choose' to believe. 
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. Which ironically would make the man godlike.
On a side note: If I was going to join the Atheist society in the past, I would never now. Not after they recently shot themselves in the foot with their bus poster campaign.
The wording of the advert "There is probably no God etc" shows that atheists also exercise faith in believing there is no God. If they had demonstrable proof they could say "There is no God" but I suspect the reason they (like Carlsberg's 'probably the best lager') used the word 'probably' was to avoid being taken to the Advertising Standards.
The phrase "There is probably no God" is arguably an opinion which doesn't require rigorous substantiating. But the rather different phrasing of "There is no God" would be looked upon as a claim, not an opinion, and open the advertisers to the request that they substantiate the claim.
That they cannot substantiate such a definite claim is clear in the presence of the get-out clause "probably". The bus campaign is a bit of an own goal.
I know many churchgoers and many atheists. None of them I would dismiss as fools. I know of many scientists who disbelieve God and many who believe in God. Some of those scientists came to a belief in a God through their scientific work, not despite their work. Clearly intelligence or scientific background isn't a factor in belief.
In the absence of real tangible proof, whatever position you take on this debate, for or against, requires faith. Faith is not dependent upon intellect. Faith is dependent on many factors including upbringing, experience, and personal bias.
In this particular debate, you believe what you 'choose' to believe.
Thats all well and good. But. Do you think that dude looks like me?
Quote: Gavin @ January 22 2009, 8:05 PM GMTThats all well and good. But. Do you think that dude looks like me?
I was going to say that. 
YES!
Quote: PhQnix @ January 22 2009, 8:05 PM GMTI was going to say that.
I wasn't. Does that make me bad?
Quote: Gavin @ January 22 2009, 8:05 PM GMTThats all well and good. But. Do you think that dude looks like me?
In the absence of tangible proof, I can only offer you my opinion: yes.
Quote: Moonstone @ January 22 2009, 6:03 PM GMTStill though you've got to admire Dr Mato's faith.
I do not have as much faith in Obama as I do have hope for democracy which is what most civil governments are based on.
If he succeeds in half of what he has presented the land will be less sick as to what it is now.
Do Republicans not believe in democracy?
Quote: zooo @ January 22 2009, 7:26 PM GMTOnly Gav is on the same side as me.
Well I'm not opposing you on the existence of a god(s).