Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Are there any atheist's are on here?

Page 6 of 7 [ 102 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Jun 2011, 7:57 pm

dionysian wrote:
I am an atheist's.


That is plural, yes?

ruveyn



Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

02 Jun 2011, 8:00 pm

ruveyn wrote:
dionysian wrote:
I am an atheist's.


That is plural, yes?

ruveyn

No, it means he belongs to an atheist.


_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.


Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

02 Jun 2011, 8:00 pm

So - you doubt God because of the dearth of skeleton warriors.

Funny - I believe because after I solved the problem of aspect in Po-donq I was transported to the 14th heaven and shown the library. Never occurred to me to ask about skeleton warriors while discussing the relationship of Middle Ce to Glavite.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Jun 2011, 8:01 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
If God was omnipotent would he be able to summon an army of skeleton warriors that throw fire?

Better question:
If God is omnipotent, why HASN'T HE summoned an army of skeleton warriors that throw fire?


Why would God want to? Granted omnipotence axiomatically, God could very well do such, but even so it is also a question of not only capability but also volition. Also, whether any action is best for God's purposes should be a consideration as well. Could, would, should, you know? Being capable of doing something does not automatically require that something will be done or must be done.

.... BECAUSE IT'S FRIGGIN' AWESOME!! !! !

Gee whiz, don't you understand what "Greatest possible being" means? I see either you don't or you aren't an Anselmian ontological argument kind of guy.


For the primarily philosophical arguments, I prefer the cosmological and teleological ones. Ontology is a bunch of wordsmithing, but the argument from causation and the argument of engineering suggesting an engineer actually relates to reality and not merely to philosophy alone.



dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

02 Jun 2011, 8:22 pm

Lecks wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
dionysian wrote:
I am an atheist's.


That is plural, yes?

ruveyn

No, it means he belongs to an atheist.

Correct.


_________________
"All valuation rests on an irrational bias."
-George Santayana

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Jun 2011, 8:30 pm

Philologos wrote:
So - you doubt God because of the dearth of skeleton warriors.

Funny - I believe because after I solved the problem of aspect in Po-donq I was transported to the 14th heaven and shown the library. Never occurred to me to ask about skeleton warriors while discussing the relationship of Middle Ce to Glavite.

I always knew you were a bit crazy. How could you NOT noticed the lack of skeleton warriors?? It's just... so obvious that you HAD TO ask, if you were sane at least. :P :P



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

02 Jun 2011, 8:41 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
I am honestly not certain whether hierarchical reductionism or some form of non-mystical emergence most accurately describes my stance.

I believe that all the substrates in this world reduce to physical entities. The interactions between these fundamentally physical entities result in the whole wondrous world we see, filled with consciousness, moral sense, and societal structures. I believe that these later qualities ultimately spring from the interactions of physical entities, but that the interaction between the entities gives these, I suppose, “emergent entities” properties not ascribable to their physical components.

In the same way that interaction between hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms results in a molecule (water) whose properties are more than just the combined properties of hydrogen and oxygen, so too, is consciousness, moral sense, and societal structure (among other entities traditionally investigated by the “social sciences”) more than just the sum of the raw physical components from which they emerge.

Good, you have *certainly* thought intelligently about your position.

I just wanted to make certain that you weren't just a naive materialist.


Even my future frenemies have recognized my intellect for over 2 years.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Jun 2011, 8:42 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Even my future frenemies have recognized my intellect for over 2 years.

I said you thought about it. Not that you weren't an idiot. :P



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

02 Jun 2011, 8:42 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Even my future frenemies have recognized my intellect for over 2 years.

I said you thought about it. Not that you weren't an idiot. :P


Thought *intelligently*!


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Jun 2011, 8:45 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Thought *intelligently*!

I still think you had help. :P :P



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

02 Jun 2011, 8:49 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Thought *intelligently*!

I still think you had help. :P :P


Sure. Hours of reading about the Philosophy of Mind definitely helped.

Boy, how nostalgic this thread is! Froma bygone era, a time when WP wasn't supersaturated with Far-Right Extremists.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Jun 2011, 9:00 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Sure. Hours of reading about the Philosophy of Mind definitely helped.

Boy, how nostalgic this thread is! Froma bygone era, a time when WP wasn't supersaturated with Far-Right Extremists.

Eh.... not really. Didn't you see the Ragtime reference? We've always had some number. Now we have less racists in that population.



BurntOutMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 502
Location: Oregon, USA

02 Jun 2011, 9:01 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
If God was omnipotent would he be able to summon an army of skeleton warriors that throw fire?

Better question:
If God is omnipotent, why HASN'T HE summoned an army of skeleton warriors that throw fire?


Why would God want to? Granted omnipotence axiomatically, God could very well do such, but even so it is also a question of not only capability but also volition. Also, whether any action is best for God's purposes should be a consideration as well. Could, would, should, you know? Being capable of doing something does not automatically require that something will be done or must be done.

.... BECAUSE IT'S FRIGGIN' AWESOME!! !! !

Gee whiz, don't you understand what "Greatest possible being" means? I see either you don't or you aren't an Anselmian ontological argument kind of guy.


FRIGGIN' AWESOME, yes! But bone can burn... Perhaps it was tried and they simply incinerated, hence no proof this ever occurred.....And no eye witness accounts because they were successful in eliminating their targets (as God's warriors certainly would be)

Maybe God is trying to find something more efficient for His skeleton armies to throw that won't cause them to self destruct.

Hmmm maybe He wanted them to self destruct. It adds to the mystery of God, and what are you going to do with a bunch of flammable skeletons hanging out waiting for the next assignment? Why do that when you can so easily just summon more?

It makes perfect sense. There surely has to have been flame-throwing skeletons at some point in time.
:wink:



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Jun 2011, 7:36 am

Master_Pedant wrote:

Boy, how nostalgic this thread is! Froma bygone era, a time when WP wasn't supersaturated with Far-Right Extremists.


That is when it was saturated with pinko stinko welfare loving commie liberals.

ruveyn



Thom_Fuleri
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 849
Location: Leicestershire, UK

03 Jun 2011, 11:16 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Better question:
If God is omnipotent, why HASN'T HE summoned an army of skeleton warriors that throw fire?


Why would God want to? Granted omnipotence axiomatically, God could very well do such, but even so it is also a question of not only capability but also volition. Also, whether any action is best for God's purposes should be a consideration as well. Could, would, should, you know? Being capable of doing something does not automatically require that something will be done or must be done.

.... BECAUSE IT'S FRIGGIN' AWESOME!! !! !

Gee whiz, don't you understand what "Greatest possible being" means? I see either you don't or you aren't an Anselmian ontological argument kind of guy.


This just shows how utterly dull the Christian God is. Those Greco-Roman ones - they'd raise an army of burning undead just for s**ts and giggles. They were always getting up to mischief. Judeo-Christian God just makes vague threats about the afterlife and ignores us. Bring back Zeus!



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

03 Jun 2011, 11:29 am

Thom_Fuleri wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Better question:
If God is omnipotent, why HASN'T HE summoned an army of skeleton warriors that throw fire?


Why would God want to? Granted omnipotence axiomatically, God could very well do such, but even so it is also a question of not only capability but also volition. Also, whether any action is best for God's purposes should be a consideration as well. Could, would, should, you know? Being capable of doing something does not automatically require that something will be done or must be done.

.... BECAUSE IT'S FRIGGIN' AWESOME!! !! !

Gee whiz, don't you understand what "Greatest possible being" means? I see either you don't or you aren't an Anselmian ontological argument kind of guy.


This just shows how utterly dull the Christian God is. Those Greco-Roman ones - they'd raise an army of burning undead just for s**ts and giggles. They were always getting up to mischief. Judeo-Christian God just makes vague threats about the afterlife and ignores us. Bring back Zeus!


Really? Just vague threats about the afterlife and nothing such as Ezekiel 38 or Zechariah 12 or 14? Nothing specific about, say the rise and decline of empires such as in Daniel? Or the destruction of a particular city state such as the Phoenician city of Tyre which Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city of and Alexander scraped up the rubble from the mainland city's ruins to make a road to the island fortress off the coast of the former city?