Ship of fools

[squirtyflower]

Making the text bigger was to show you where I wrote that I didn't need you, not others you self delusional bag of shite.

I know you'll probably take this amiss, but I'll pray for you Squirty. Forgive me.

what? to the pixies at the bottom of the garden you idiot?

 

[johnny crossan]

I thought I covered it in my reply to you and Matty some time ago. I personally believe that the existence of God cannot be proved or refuted empirically but there are some who do and one of the most persuasive is Alvin Plantinga. His argument follow Godel, Liebniz and ultimately Anselm.

so let me get this right you believe something that cannot be proved, has no concrete evidence for...why?
i find that oh so strange,
so glad i am a fool

Depends what you mean by "concrete evidence" of course. My belief in God is as the abiding presence of light (intelligence, even mathematics) in all things, and as the source of the (to us) inscrutable order, power, and majesty of nature. Almost all human beings in history have shared in it. I find it strange that you find it strange.

 

[squirtyflower]

Your unreasoning behaviour was endorsing Dawkins' atheology and the virulence is his mimetic term for your and my beliefs. Simple as that.

My original discussion of Dawkins was not an endorsement. It was in another thread where i suggested someone should read it, I said it would make him think! That makes me far from unreasonable, just the opposite in fact.
What has been proved in this thread though, by all the other posters, is that it is you who is actually the unreasonable one.

 

[johnny crossan]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you can substantiate a single lie from me anywhere in this thread or any others I will unreservedly apologise. Making the text bigger doesn't help to make a point BTW, the force of an argument comes from its form not its content.

I was going to ignore you,as I feel debate is pointless,but that really is a classic.
"The force of an argument comes from its form,not its content".
This pearl of wisdom from someone who has singularly failed to answer any meaningful question regarding the existence of god in this whole debate.
Someone who answers in either cliched soundbite quotes,nonsensical algebraic formulae or condescending,patronising gibberish.
Someone who starts a divisive thread attacking people for no reason.
That,even by your level,is hypocrisy of epic proportions.
Carry on trying to flog your discredited biblical snake-oil Johnny - you are the best recruiting sergeant for atheism I have ever seen.

Yes, you keep saying that, then back you come, even more outraged. Bit like the conversion of St Augustine be careful!

 

[Skip Donoghue]

I was going to ignore you,as I feel debate is pointless,but that really is a classic.
"The force of an argument comes from its form,not its content".
This pearl of wisdom from someone who has singularly failed to answer any meaningful question regarding the existence of god in this whole debate.
Someone who answers in either cliched soundbite quotes,nonsensical algebraic formulae or condescending,patronising gibberish.
Someone who starts a divisive thread attacking people for no reason.
That,even by your level,is hypocrisy of epic proportions.
Carry on trying to flog your discredited biblical snake-oil Johnny - you are the best recruiting sergeant for atheism I have ever seen.

Yes, you keep saying that, then back you come, even more outraged. Bit like the conversion of St Augustine be careful!

is god ITK? if he is, ask him if we will get terry

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

OK Johnny - one reasonable question I would like to ask you.
In hindsight,do you honestly think that an unprovoked attack on fellow blues was your finest hour?
Or do you consider listing people as "fools" several people you have never met,never had a cross word with and who have done nothing whatsoever to warrant it to be the actions of a reasonable,level-headed human being?
And a reply in your own words,rather than those of some Wikipedia rent-a-quote,or the algebraic formulae of a rhombus would be appreciated.

 

[squirtyflower]

OK Johnny - one reasonable question I would like to ask you.
In hindsight,do you honestly think that an unprovoked attack on fellow blues was your finest hour?
Or do you consider listing people as "fools" several people you have never met,never had a cross word with and who have done nothing whatsoever to warrant it to be the actions of a reasonable,level-headed human being?
And a reply in your own words,rather than those of some Wikipedia rent-a-quote,or the algebraic formulae of a rhombus would be appreciated.

you're asking too much of him there

 

[Stanley]

Fair question deserves a fair answer.

Also is he a muffin or barm man?

 

[johnny crossan]

Your unreasoning behaviour was endorsing Dawkins' atheology and the virulence is his mimetic term for your and my beliefs. Simple as that.

My original discussion of Dawkins was not an endorsement. It was in another thread where i suggested someone should read it, I said it would make him think! That makes me far from unreasonable, just the opposite in fact.
What has been proved in this thread though, by all the other posters, is that it is you who is actually the unreasonable one.

Your quote was on the unprovocatively titled Elanjo thread "Is Religion A Load of Balls"

What a fantastic book! It changed my life (no exaggeration) by giving me the confidence to say 'bollox' to the organised religion that I'd been brought up with.

That's why I mentioned it. It took me from being a sit on the fence agnostic to a full on atheist. Then lost my job when the company got took over by a bunch of religious zealots who believe the Earth is only 7000 years old. ffs.

not an endorsement a "thinking suggestion" eh?

 

[tonea2003]

so let me get this right you believe something that cannot be proved, has no concrete evidence for...why?
i find that oh so strange,
so glad i am a fool

Depends what you mean by "concrete evidence" of course. My belief in God is as the abiding presence of light (intelligence, even mathematics) in all things, and as the source of the (to us) inscrutable order, power, and majesty of nature. Almost all human beings in history have shared in it. I find it strange that you find it strange.

so because nature is beautiful and powerful and the creatures within it have intelligence is your proof?
if so how come. it dont make sense to me but then i'm just a fool