Halo 2 Forum > Off-topic > Debate Forum > Religion Debate
 
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
low strife
Ask Z for $50
low strife's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tech Support
Posts: 21,269
Subtract from low strife's ReputationAdd to low strife's Reputation low strife is a novice
#11
09-10-2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cursed Lemon View Post
If you can find me one...ONE thing in this universe that you can reasonably assert did not come from the eternal drift of cause and effect, I will convert to Christianity immediately.
That is my belief on religion and stuff exactly.

There is a logical reason for everything. However, 5,000 years ago, we didnt know as much as we did now, and therefore god was created to explain that.
↓↓Download all Montage Contest 2 Videos in one location!↓↓

↓↓Download a massive collection of Halo videos here!↓↓

TooMuchButtHair
Satisfying women
TooMuchButtHair's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California!
Posts: 3,659
Subtract from TooMuchButtHair's ReputationAdd to TooMuchButtHair's Reputation TooMuchButtHair is a novice
Send a message via AIM to TooMuchButtHair
#12
09-10-2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by low strife View Post
That is my belief on religion and stuff exactly.

There is a logical reason for everything. However, 5,000 years ago, we didnt know as much as we did now, and therefore god was created to explain that.
The cause and effect relationship has been around for a long time. The cause for a lot of stuff in the natural world was just thought to be god(s). Now, our understanding of the world is...advanced.

The beautiful thing about philosophy is that it trancends time. The greatest philosophers of the ancient world still say things that are as amazing and relavent now, as they were when they were said. The same cannot be said for anything else.
The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.
-Thomas Paine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prowl View Post
. . .
Chimpanzee (our closest living relative) is a well known homosexual animal.. . .
NG
poo-tee-weet?
NG's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 30,044
Subtract from NG's ReputationAdd to NG's Reputation NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom
Send a message via AIM to NG
#13
09-10-2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TooMuchButtHair View Post
I've found that if I explain something with the assumption that the end user has the necessary fundamental knowledge about what I'm talking about, it goes right over their head. This is...mostly my fault. Sometimes I assume 'fundament' means they know way more than the average joe. On this forum, I assume the people I'm responding to are highschool and college kids (like most of us), and a few younger and older ones - not PhD's (hehe, excluding Marked). Over explaining something is better than losing someone in rush to the end of the post. The part that gets me is that Cursed is able to do all that, in way less words. The only concise thing about me are the insults I make.

I don't really mind making long posts either. In reality, I'm sitting in a living room with collegues running through the thousands of flash cards we've made during the course of the week. It's actually very relaxing.
I find myself in the same situation as you; I enjoy making longer posts, and given that the reader pays attention and reads the entire thing, they'll have a better, more developed understanding of a concept I'm trying to express. Since we are in a community populated with our teenage generation, many of them still in high school, and many more of them not used to or motivated to think critically, it's very helpful for guys like you and me to elaborate and explain things. I intend on being a teacher, and teaching is one of my passions -- especially with young minds; on my ride home from MLG Dallas I taught three 15 year olds (Edit When Done being one of them) philosophy for an hour and a half. Edit said I changed his life, which was very satisfying for me to be able to expand and educate a young mind to have a more developed perspective on the world around him. It was also good exercise for myself.

I think the members of this forum, those willing or at least susceptible to learning, are fortunate to have an older, perhaps wiser (even though, epistemelogically, we know nothing) members like MarkedAchilles, yourself and (to step outside my humility) myself. Just the same, Marked, yourself and myself are fortunate to have each other around -- otherwise this place would be very unstimulating.

In response to philosophy being transcendent to time is probably the most true statement said about philosophy. While there have been great philosophic minds spawned at the start of the first century, such as Locke, Kant, Mill, Hume, and the great American philosophers like William James and John Rawls (who recently passed), there have never been greater minds than the three Titans of philosophy -- Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Socrates especially, still raises questions and presents reasoning to many things relevant to our society. Socrates would have a field day with America. A fuckin field day.
Busy, busy, busy
E Nomini Patri
Level 21
E Nomini Patri's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
Subtract from E Nomini Patri's ReputationAdd to E Nomini Patri's Reputation E Nomini Patri is a novice
Send a message via MSN to E Nomini Patri
#14
09-10-2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colby View Post
Here is something my father told me, you guys have got me going atheist.

He said... "imagine living 200 years ago, you're walking a through a forest and you see this computer. It's just sitting there, you've never seen anything like this before. You turn it on, its working, you notice all the usb ports and plugs on the side. You think to yourself it must of took a really smart guy to create this machine. Now look at the universe, at all the planets, imagine who created all of this."

It was something along those lines.

Explain?
And a smarter guy said ( ) :

Saying the universe must be designed because you don't know how it's current state could have arrived by well-known and thoroughly documented physical laws is an Argument from Ignorance and a catastrophic failure in logic when coupled with dogma and a large impressionable population. Anything complex that was designed requires an even more complex designer. If the universe was designed then the creator is necessarily more complex which in turn requires the creator to have an even more complex designer ad nauseum.

This occurs because you just used your reasoning to conclude that something complex you see must have had to be designed, but because a designer must be necessarily more complex, it requires an even more complex designer as well due to the exact reasoning used to conclude the object needed a designer in the first place. i.e. not logical, not parsimonious, gets razed by Occam.


Livin in the ATX sonnnn...
Graphic Design Portfolio | GT: RVG E Nomini | Youtube Channel
THE_oldy
Level 17
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: WA, Australia
Posts: 384
Subtract from THE_oldy's ReputationAdd to THE_oldy's Reputation THE_oldy is a novice
Send a message via MSN to THE_oldy
#15
09-11-2007
Default

You can understand how they came up with the watch analogy back in the day, but today when evolution, cosmology and all that good stuff are much more well know, its surprising how often similar analogies pop up. Any one had the misfortune to watch a "Way of the Master" episode before? Man, I've never heard that many versions of the watch analogy used to many times in one half hour before.
davobrosia
Ask Z for $50
davobrosia's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 22,593
Subtract from davobrosia's ReputationAdd to davobrosia's Reputation davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to davobrosia
#16
09-11-2007
Default

There are several ways to defuse the teleological argument.
"Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself." - George H. Smith

This one is my favorite (no surprise since I'm an English major).
Spoiler!
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off