quisquose Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Danot is making sopme serious points here. 1. Nobody is an atheist unless he says so 2. Atheists are rubbish and agnostics are much better 3. Just because you have nothing to say doesn't mean you shouldn't spend several hours telling other people they are wrong at great length Sorry. Silly me. Puts tail between legs and walks away .... You did forget about the baby eating thing though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 invoking a god for what? invoking it in a deistic sense, not so much, just a little silly. It may be a little silly, but no more than proclaiming the universe could have always existed without cause. Posted by flamingjimmy Invoking it to explain the origin of man, or any phenomena within this world, yes. But it wouldn't be any more ridiculous than an atheist agreeing to attend church to receive the blessing of God at their wedding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 In the case of Christmas, its not a commemoration at all it is at its most basic a celebration that the days will start getting longer again.Why not just say- 'the birth and re-birth of sun gods'? Posted by flammingjimmy And for easter I'm not exactly sure of the origins but the fact that the word itself is German and not Greek or Hebrew or Latin should tell you that its origins certainly do not lie with Christianity. It's very likely it was a celebration that spring has sprung. 90% of the words we use is German. It's our legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 Well how is that hypocritical?Because it would contradict the things they were saying. Posted by Cyclone You didn't really answer the first question, just gave another example without explaining either. What question was that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 That wouldn't be hypocritical at all, you don't seem to understand the concept of hypocrisy. Yes I do, and I also recognize it when I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 But they're more than welcome to believe that the universe could have always existed without cause? Basically, atheists can proclaim to believe any old rubbish providing it doesn't involve God/s. Of course they can, they can believe in the tooth fairy, witchcraft, alien abductions, teenage mutant ninja turtles... so long as you don't believe in any deities you can believe in it and by definition be an atheist. Now of course in our society at least there's something of a correlation between not believing in gods and not believing in other forms of nonsense be they supernatural or pseudo-scientific, basically in being a skeptic, but the term 'atheist' refers only to a lack of belief in god/s. As I said earlier, I'm discovering that the uncanny similarities between the styles of atheistic and theistic arguing is very refreshing. Please do explain to us all exactly what you imagine these similarities to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 It may be a little silly, but no more than proclaiming the universe could have always existed without cause. . Yes, how silly. Just because quantum physics has demonstrated that human assumptions about time, space and existence become completely inaccurate and irrelevant when applied to the vast majority of phenomena which exists outside the realm of normal human experience, why should we not continue to assume that any explaination for the existence of the univesrse should conform to good ol fashioned human assumptions about time, space and existence? Hiow silly. It's just conmmon sense. When a credible unified theory emerges, it won't come from one of these silly scientists and their daft ideas. It will probably come from a columnist on the Daily Mail with moderate Christian views. If an explaination of the universe doesn't fit in with good old pre-quantum logic, it must be silly. After all, anything we don't understand is just daft. Quantum physics is silly, and if a whole new technological age has been made possible by it, well then those silly physicists were just lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 In the case of Christmas, its not a commemoration at all it is at its most basic a celebration that the days will start getting longer again. Why not just say- 'the birth and re-birth of sun gods'? ......because that's got nothing to do with what Jimmy said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share Posted January 21, 2012 Did you start this thread with the intent of trying to trick some atheists into an inconsistent statement you could then pounce on, or just to call them hypocrites?No. But I bet you're contemplating doing that very thing to me right now. I'll tell you what Cyclone, you couldn't have chosen a more appropriate user name, I can can see you coming a mile off. Posted by Cyclone Do they threaten you with their rejection of sky pixies as the origin of the universe? Not at all. I don't believe that a sky pixie crated the universe anymore than I believe the universe may have always existed without needing a cause. Have I posted anything that might suggest that I do believe in sky pixies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share Posted January 21, 2012 You're not making sense again. Nor are you. Would you either offer an explanation for these criticisms or stop butting in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.