Ye Religion Thread

[DaHanG]

I don't see how he used the principle wrong at all.

[Whirlingdervish]

let me explain it for a third, and hopefully final, time.


Any theory that is based on sound evidence and that does not include a made-up being with made-up powers, is by definition simpler than any theory that includes these things because God's existence and that of his "powers" are assumptions that must be made for these theories to be applicable and/or possible.

Simpler (without as many required assumptions) = More likely to be true.

 

[Robot]

The biggest problem I see in this thread is you guys not giving clear definitions of some words you use, like "perfect", "logical", "special", "supernatural", etc.  I know what they mean, but it seems like you guys are using them differently than what's accepted as the dictionary definition, so obviously it makes discussion and criticism difficult.

[Whirlingdervish]

I get pissed when people pull out the dictionary and start acting like it has some amazing authority to validate their opinions by defining, out of context, one of the words they used to try and make their point.

but if it helps, I'm all for it.



lets just try and keep the logical fallacies to a minimum, while we're taking shit out of context..

 

[DaHanG]

I would only do such a thing if the word was used completely wrong.

For instance: Someone may claim a certain person isn't gay until they've decided to have sexual relations with a member of the same sex.

The word gay means, however, someone who is attracted to members of the same sex. Whether or not they act on it is irrelevant.

Luckily, this kind of silliness never occurs on the tastyspleen forums.

 

[jägermonsta]

I would only do such a thing if the word was used completely wrong.

For instance: Someone may claim a certain person isn't gay until they've decided to have sexual relations with a member of the same sex.

The word gay means, however, someone who is attracted to members of the same sex. Whether or not they act on it is irrelevant.

Luckily, this kind of silliness never occurs on the tastyspleen forums.

 

Ouch I remember that one. Looks like it hit home. 

[Whirlingdervish]

 


fine.. fine..


technically you are right. the DICTIONARY falsely stereotypes homosexuals by implying that they are gay before they ever did the deed. Of course, there is no word for "potentially gay", but this shouldn't matter...

 

I prefer to give sexually confused humans the benefit of the doubt until they act upon their confusion.
the dictionary doesn't.

It doesn't say that anyone who's ever wanted very badly to kill someone is a MURDERER, does it?

[DaHanG]

 

[Whirlingdervish]

[ReCycled]

...

[deft]

This is what DaHanG is thinking:

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

I've been keeping an eye on this thread for a while.
Reeper, forget it man, i gave up a long time ago, it's crazy. I think the thread's name should be changed to something like "Attack the people that believe in God."
If you notice, I nor even QD ever post here anymore. We can't. Every time one of us says anything 5 others come on and try to tear it to shreds. We're out numbered, Period. It ain't happening.
There is way more believers in God that "could" post, and probably even have better arguments than we've provided thus far.
But they don't want to come on here and have 5 people jump on and try to tear apart everything they said.
You know, it doesn't make any difference how logical our statements are or how illogical they're argument about it is. 4 or 5 of them will agree with each other regardless, post ridicules, make fun of, and throw out a little sarcasm and suddenly every thing you said has been made to seem illogical, unfounded and stupid.
Unless you just enjoy being ganged up on and beat down all the time i wouldn't bother even looking at this useless thread anymore.
I mean some of their arguments don

[adrenal1ne]

owned by btf..ouch.

[quadz]

There is way more believers in God that "could" post, and probably even have better arguments than we've provided thus far.
But they don't want to come on here and have 5 people jump on and try to tear apart everything they said.

Indeed.  It's hard to know how to respond because in essence, I would LOVE to have better pro-religion arguments on this thread; but I would also love to try to tear them apart. 

Personally, I think it should be OK to try to deconstruct anyone's argument and try to point out where it fails in terms of logic or reasoning.  But that can all be done without being rude.

You know, it doesn't make any difference how logical our statements are or how illogical they're argument about it is. 4 or 5 of them will agree with each other regardless, post ridicules, make fun of, and throw out a little sarcasm and suddenly every thing you said has been made to seem illogical, unfounded and stupid.

If we could eliminate the sarcasm and ridicule, I wonder if the result would be any different.

 


Sorry Could Not Resist,

quadz

[deft]

Actually I posted that video because I thought it was funny.  Thanks for assuming I posted it to "ridicule"..assuming would be the religious thing to do :>