Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-90 of 90 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2009 10:30:36 PM PST
Sighris says:
M. Lenda,
Your reply/post: "Not knowing God says nothing about love. I know what love is, you moron. Tell me I don't.
You are assuming the existence of a creator in order to prove the existence of a creator. Just... stop." does not add to the discussion... but it sure made me laugh! Thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 10, 2009 8:01:18 PM PST
Good for you, Gideon. Come visit us over at iLoveAtheists(dot)com! I liked your answer.

Todd

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 10, 2009 9:17:06 PM PST
If Gideon's only Achilles heel is his view on the worldwide flood, then he deserves a standing ovation for his arguments! Gideon, check out http:// iloveatheists(dot)com/top_100/challenge_category/Old%20Testament/challenge_answer/136 (following the links at the bottom of the page) and study these articles. I'm convinced the team at reasons.org has it right -- they reconcile faith and science harmoniously with a testable model.

Really enjoying reading this debate, gentlemen! Excellent match.

(The smart money's on Jesus, though!)

;-)

Todd

Posted on Jan 3, 2011 10:28:33 PM PST
It is funny that we have no scientific proof for the existence or scientific meanings to the words; love, hate, good and evil but no one questions if morality or emotions exist! Science has failed to explain any of this yet within the freewill of mankind these words have more meaning and influence on ones self, humanity and society than any science of the physical body. Even criminal law is 99% morality & 1% science. Morality and emotions are evidence of the soul that science has failed to study adequately!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 3, 2011 11:39:55 PM PST
Todd Pitner,

(The smart money's on reason/ math/ science though!)

Just like any casino!

:-)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 3, 2011 11:45:07 PM PST
W.G. Williams,

That science and philosophy have not defined and studied the more ephemeral parts of the human condition to your satisfaction does not allow you to declare victory for your parochial supernaturalist pseudo-philosophy.

Or would you like to defend false dichotomies for all of our pleasure?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2011 7:20:26 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Nov 16, 2011 12:28:31 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2011 10:29:17 PM PDT
Lao Tzu says:
Lol, you might imagine with my name, I am a fan of Taoism. I do reject the points of mysticism in Taoism, such as, I don't think anyone lived 900 years because they became one with the Tao. Yet, Taoism is I think a rational and useful mental training. I am still pretty new with it, but learning. The Tao for me is "the way the universe works". There are implications there for how I should get along with it. Are you a Taoist?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2011 10:43:03 PM PDT
Lao Tzu says:
You know, that was a fairly sedate post. I will do the same. I guess the first thing to build a house of human dignity for you to admire and live in, is that all living things are truth detection machines. Even ants must tell food from poison, friend from foe, mate from rival. Poor truth detectors don't survive to produce offspring. Human are the best truth detectors evolution has yet produced. We can examine the past and plan for the future. We are especially adapted to detect truths in our sense range, plus we have machines to pull other stimuli into our sense range (geiger counters, telescopes, etc).

Science is not a faith. You can call science many unflattering things, but it is not a faith. Faith is the believe in something without evidence. To the degree there is evidence, faith is not required. I am sure this is not your first post, surely you understand this much.

I don't have any faith in the supernatural. If a question is unanswered, I am ok with leaving it unanswered. This is what is SO difficult for Christians, to just admit they don't know. Doubt has always led to better questions than certainty. Your thoughts?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2011 10:49:30 PM PDT
Lao Tzu says:
Lets assume God has spoken to you like a dramatic voice in your head. That is super. It also still leaves the rest of us unconvinced. If something happens in your brain, we cannot know if it is real or just imagined fantasy and wish thinking on your part.

Also, from what I have read so far, people have been pretty gentle and rational with you. Please don't pretend to have been viciously attacked, I've seem some of those posts on amazon, believe me. Secular people can argue passionately. We attempt to destroy arguments, not people, so don't call "hate speech" unless people make mutiple personal attacks.

Posted on Aug 2, 2011 11:11:02 PM PDT
Lao Tzu says:
Gideon, you seem to be a smart guy. What do you say to the idea that you cannot prove a negative? For example, can you prove to me you KNOW there are no Leprechauns? Otherwise you are just playing a word game.

On a separate point, we can discuss the word "know". Do you "know" how to drive a car? Of course you do. In that same practical sense, I "know" there is no Christian God. The reason is because 1) there has been not a shred of evidence that there is one and 2) everything in the universe I know about works without any supervision, from the movement of the planets to the bending of grass in the wind. And logical arguments for God have failed.

There might be a worthwhile argument for god out there, but can you please drop the "disprove a negative" tactic?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2011 11:49:00 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 3, 2011 11:51:36 AM PDT
Sighris says:
I think and feel much like you "Lao Tzu on Amazon" {I doubt anyone lived more than 120 years because they became one with the Tao, "thee Tao" for me = "the way the universe works (and the life forms who occupy the universe, from germs and amoebae to humans and dolphins)" and I agree that "Science is not a faith"}. I believe the world will be a better place (IMO) if more humans cooperate. Science is a double edged sword, it has improved our lives in many ways, and made us humans more powerful, but it has given us the power to destroy our environment in ways never before possible (concentrated chemical pollution, nuclear bombs, etc) and life for humans and other mammals will be nicer if we improve our moral skills as we have improved our engineering skills... and I guess a good first step is to build "temples of human dignity" (metaphorically speaking, ~not~ physical structures) for us humans to "live in" to keep us "spiritually/emotionally healthy" and which allow us to admire where evolution/Thee-Tao/God has brought us... so we can admire the complexity and beauty of life on Earth in this universe.

Posted on Oct 14, 2011 6:29:38 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 14, 2011 6:34:36 AM PDT
might be helpful to spell it correctly..."a-t-h-e-i-s-t", "a" as the negation or denial, "theism" being the view that any being remotely like the god of genesis exists. it seems to me that just to reflect what theism involves confirms david hume's point, that anyone who can believe it must be aware of a miracle in his own person...

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2011 5:24:32 PM PST
The root of the prefix "a" indicates absence, not negation or denial. An atheist lives without a god or gods, while an antitheist actively denies or opposes the assertion that such transcendent beings might exist. The former may be called a practitioner of agnosticism or "soft" atheism, while the latter practices what might be termed "hard" atheism. As for Hume, he was a religious skeptic, and I would go so far as to say that he was agnostic. He utterly dismissed the possibility of proving a negative, and like me, he would respond to the arguments of any religion by asking why its miraculous claims, absent proof, are any more likely than those of any other religion or of those who embrace no religion whatsoever. As Wittgenstein so famously stated: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2012 12:46:37 AM PDT
logic 101 burden of proof , look it up!
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  43
Total posts:  90
Initial post:  Jun 15, 2007
Latest post:  Apr 20, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Victor J. Stenger (Hardcover - January 25, 2007)
3.8 out of 5 stars   (127)