|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Celt
still thinking
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:37 am Post subject: 81 |
 |
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| I don't believe many non-human animals possess intelligence |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:45 am Post subject: 82 |
|
|
I'm going to assume you went for the chewed-up joke, and not for a personal insult.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:54 am Post subject: 83 |
|
|
I've had this image for a while and was waiting for an appropriate time to use it. After the discussion regarding human intelligence, I just couldn't resist.
It's not directed at anyone in particular, although now that I think of it a few names spring to mind... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:55 pm Post subject: 84 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Extro: If consciousness is not objectively observable, how do you know you have it? |
| Fried Egg wrote: |
| He does not objectively observe his own consciousness. He directly apprehends it (in an entirely subjective fashion of course). |
Correct. While I don't objectively observe it, I know it as much as I know anything. (though there are some serious semantic issues here with the word "know" that are being ignored)
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Duh....hence my objection to him trying to prove something objectively with his subjective knowledge. |
An interesting and perhaps valid objection, but I'm not sure I'm doing that. Valid in the sense that an objective proof, I think, should in principle be potentially verifiable by a sufficiently equipped and intelligent robot. Not to go off on some sci-fi tangent, but a machine can make observations with measuring devices, can process information, and can be programmed to know what constitutes a proof. But the fact of my own consciousness can't be observed by anyone but myself, and I can't objectively prove it. The only way to know a thing ("thing" in an abstract sense) has consciousness is to be the thing.
However, while I can't prove to another that I have consciousness, I can lead another through discussion to conclude that he/she/it has consciousness, and thus to accept it as a concrete fact, acceptable as a premise in a proof (implicit is that we come to an agreement on some properties of this thing called 'consciousness').
| Quote: |
| And, no offense, but what does your hijack have to do with atheism? |
None taken. I didn't intend a hijack. Celt was making a point about the origin of the universe being ultimately unexplainable via science, and Mudbuck made gestures to the effect of shining the light of science on the matter (no pun intended) with the overly simplistic "Since when matter and antimatter meet, they both cease to exist. Therefor, the opposite must be true, that out of non-existance matter and antimatter come to exist."
My contention (and that of many researchers recognized as the great thinkers in this field) is that, unlike "the stars, the sun, the moon, the seasons, gravity, etc" (quoting from the other thread), which were once unexplained, but have since had the light of science focused on them and are thus now much better understood, there are things, such as consciousness, which the more one thinks carefully about and brings scientific study to bear on them, the clearer it becomes - not by failure after some effort, but by observing a clear gap that can't be bridged between the thing to explain and the means to explain it - the clearer it becomes that these things can't be explained. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 3:19 pm Post subject: 85 |
|
|
The Matter/Antimatter thing was actually out of Scientific American.
_________________
1000oclock.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt_Guest
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:48 am Post subject: 86 |
|
|
It's actially a little more complicated than that since matter and anti-matter release energy when the come into contact with each other. Energy and anti-energy are also involved, so that within a vacuum a ++ particle and a -- particle appear beside each other due to an oscillation and immediately coalesce back to form a vacuum. Under certain conditions, such as at the event horizon of a black hole, the particles do not coalesce and the ++ particle may be seen as radiation but the -- particle just cancels out some other particle so that the total amount of matter created is zero. Also, a vacuum is not nothing, it has dimensions.
| Celt wrote: |
Sometimes, when I meet someone with a strong religious conviction, I envy them.
They can experience the most horrendous tragedies and brush them aside with "It's God's will" or "We'll meet again soon in a world without pain" or "God will judge them in the end" or some such phrase.
Do you ever envy the non-atheist's comfort they get from believing in a "higher power"? |
Anyone care to answer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aarondalf
the original GL stud
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:53 am Post subject: 87 |
|
|
| Yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fried Egg
Breakfast Cannibal
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:06 pm Post subject: 88 |
|
|
Celt
| Quote: |
Sometimes, when I meet someone with a strong religious conviction, I envy them.
They can experience the most horrendous tragedies and brush them aside with "It's God's will" or "We'll meet again soon in a world without pain" or "God will judge them in the end" or some such phrase.
Do you ever envy the non-atheist's comfort they get from believing in a "higher power"? |
I don't envy it because I don't find the notion of a "higher power" comforting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Digit Ne
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 12:53 am Post subject: 89 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Do you ever envy the non-atheist's comfort they get from believing in a "higher power"? |
No. What comfort they take in a "higher power" or a "world beyond the pain of the mortal realm" or whatever appears to me as a crutch to help them along in life. I don't wish to have something bigger than me to give me cheap comfort, promise me that what I percieve will be mystically changed into nirvana after I die (or before, depending on belief), or blame. Humans are responsible for their own actions in entirety. Why envy the non-atheist's ability to make excuses? Excuses hinder growth and maturity. It is only in taking complete responsibility for a person's actions can they get what they deserve, good or bad.
Also, to live one's life with all their hopes on what happens afterwards just seems to me to be a waste of their own life, and how they could change it for themselves instead of accrediting all happenings to some unreachable higher power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doormouse11
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:50 am Post subject: 90 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I don't find the notion of a "higher power" comforting. |
neither do I. It seems like believing in a higher power would probably complicate stuff if anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eykir
DDR Freak
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:50 am Post subject: 91 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Do you ever envy the non-atheist's comfort they get from believing in a "higher power"? |
No. I derive comfort from believing in something much stronger than a "higher power." I believe in myself. Believe in one's self and one can do anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:07 am Post subject: 92 |
|
|
| Jump any buildings lately? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Digit Ne
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:49 am Post subject: 93 |
|
|
| God help anyone else jump buildings lately? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 6:49 am Post subject: 94 |
|
|
| Fine then. Walk on any water lately? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:14 am Post subject: 95 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Walk on any water lately? |
Not since the last cold spell (unless you count walking on wet ground). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 7:11 pm Post subject: 96 |
|
|
The official FAQ
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OcularGold
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 7:30 pm Post subject: 97 |
|
|
| who/what do you guys believe Jesus was? Did he really exist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 7:45 pm Post subject: 98 |
|
|
I don't think there's unanimity on that, so I'll just speak to what I believe. Jesus was a rabii who for whatever reason believed that he was the prophet foretold in the old testament. I'm really not up on my bible (read it about 20 years ago, haven't since) or bible history so I can't swear by that. He was crucified and did exist, there's a lot of back up for that.
That's when it gets interesting though. I mean, not one book of the New Testament is written by him. It's all written by his followers much later. For example, there's Saul/Paul who traveled to Turkey and encounted the Mithras cult, and some of the symbology just happens to be in the Bible. Pretty coincidental. Did he really say all the things he's attributed to having said? Maybe. Probably not all of them though. Some books were left out of the Bible, and seem to contradict other parts, IIRC.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nopants
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:12 am Post subject: 99 |
|
|
What is the argument against the existence of Thor? Isis? Athena? (insert your god here)?
A religous person must refute every other mythology, past and present, while affirming their own. For me, the only rational posisition is atheism.
How did we get here? Why are we here? I don't know, but let's keep working together to try to find out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:37 am Post subject: 100 |
|
|
How did we get here?
Long ago, somehow the universe began, either by a giant explosion that would destroy everything if there was anything, or by a paradox, which, by nature, allowed you to become your own father, or to kill yourself, and nothing... was still nothing... almost. Subatomic stuff was flowing erratically everywhere. Soon, which was actually after a few billion years, they began to form matter. The first sun was able to establish in B.C. 10 billion odd, which allowed elements other than hydrogen to appear.
These events soon led to the creation of our sun and its planets. All of the planets were at first chaotic, but later settled down into either a chunk of rock or a blob of swirling gas. However, there was always the odd one of the family. A planet covered in liquid, uncommon in much of the known cosmos, began to be energenic. It broke some probability factors and was grounded for 30,000 years.
That erratic activity was actually chemical reactions that happened over time in the ocean, which formed life forms that later developed to cells, the first step of evolution as we know it. Eventually, the cells began to cluster into groups of cells that worked together. When the air had enough oxygen in it, life that were able to breathe above water emerged, continuing evolution, which included the formation of humans, who were grounded for 6000 years for breaking some probability factors.
Why are we here?
No reason other than existing, supposedly.
I don't know, but let's keep working together to try to find out.
That's the spirit!
_________________
1000oclock.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dragon Phoenix
Judge Doom
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:41 am Post subject: 101 |
|
|
| nopants wrote: |
What is the argument against the existence of Thor? Isis? Athena? (insert your god here)?
A religous person must refute every other mythology, past and present, while affirming their own. For me, the only rational posisition is atheism. |
Actually, I think the logical outcome of that statement is agnosticism rather than atheism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:15 am Post subject: 102 |
|
|
| Or better yet, keep an open mind that god may or may not exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eykir
DDR Freak
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:42 am Post subject: 104 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Or better yet, keep an open mind that god may or may not exist. |
Inasmuch as it's a vaguely defined nimbous amorphous definition, sure. I think that there's some slight possibility that Odin is the overlord and that ragnarok will be the time of true judgement.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doormouse11
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:49 am Post subject: 105 |
|
|
Do Atheists ever struggle with why we are here, or do they tend to be more confident in what they believe? Do Atheists tend to see life as meaningless? What value do Atheists see in life? Does "Atheism" absolutely always denote disbelief in God as opposed to just a lack of belief in God? Is there any hard evidence that there is no God?
Is this true?
| Quote: |
The philosophy of Atheism represents a concept of life without any metaphysical Beyond or Divine Regulator. It is the concept of an actual, real world with its liberating, expanding and beautifying possibilities, as against an unreal world, which, with its spirits, oracles, and mean contentment has kept humanity in helpless degradation.
Emma Goldman |
Is life random? I tend to view life as a sort of bell curve, with most people in the middle, living average lives. Then there are a few people on the upper parts and lower parts, living exceptionally fortunate or tragic lives. Would an atheist argue that your actions determine your situation in life? Or is that some other philosophy?
Does dumb luck play a role in life? Are there tragically unfortunate people out there? I tend towards agnosticism; on a few occasions when I've started leaning towards atheism I've found myself hung up on those people who seem to suffer for no reason - I don't think I could personally handle there not being some order or explanation behind their situation. How does an atheist reconcile with all of the shit that happens in the world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:50 am Post subject: 106 |
|
|
First, let me say something about gods in general. Every culture in the world had, and most likely still has, a religion which revolved around an unseen power, usually in the manifestation of a human-like being. What does this have to say about ancients? They all came to conclusions that seemed as the best reason for life in a pre-modern world.
The concept of a god falls well into other theories of the ancient world. For example, take the Greek's beliefs of the four elements (fire, water, earth, and air) and the atom. The four elements made, as they trusted, made all worldly objects. This they came to conclude this through logic and observation. However, modern science has proven, through more accurate logic and observation, that energy and matter, the latter consisting of the Periodic Table of Elements, are really the fundamentals of this world. Similarly, the Greek's view of the atom was that it was the smallest piece of anything that could be achieved by constantly breaking down material. However, they did not expect it to be different from any other grain of powder nor be able to be broken up into even smaller pieces. These unexpected facts were discovered and proven through development of science. See also: the Earth is flat; the Earth is in the center of the universe.
However, as for the explanation of a god or gods, why hasn't there been any proof against it? There isn't a single way that humanity could measure this form of abstract thought. What physical materials could be possibly use? An omnimeter? Much of what we have is only proof that evolution had ever taken place. Math fails here too, since gods suggest branches of math not yet discovered. And finally, there isn't really even anything that we could prove against except that any god couldn't exist at all, since there are many interpretations of the same religion per person. On the other side, there is no fact of supportable proof to prove that there is a god or gods. (Not even Jesus can prove this. The good part of the Old Testament consists of mere legends and lost truth, the former invented by parents to explain to the children how the Earth was created and how they got Israel, the kids in effect believing the lies to be fact. There are also some points of history in the Old Testament, but were likely hyperbolized mouth to mouth and from the heroes themselves. Jesus, within the faults of history, could had easily fallen through such broken truth. Many of his "miracles" were witnessed and noticed by small crowds and his disiples. The actual Jesus could had also been a cultist or a conspiracier against the Roman crown, or, alternatively, non-existant as a legend.)
So, what is the support that people who believe in god or gods which truly they point to? Old books and people had said it to be true. What is the support for those who don't believe in any god? In most cases, the same reason. There is no reasonable explanation for believing the unmodernized ancients in taking call in such complex and sophisticated matters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dog Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:12 pm Post subject: 107 |
|
|
| I do not require the God hypothesis to explain any observable phenomena. That's pretty much what it comes down to for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jja
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:45 pm Post subject: 108 |
|
|
doormouse11 - I'll address one of those questions now and come back to the others in a bit, if no one else beats me to it.
Do Atheists tend to see life as meaningless?
No atheist in my experience would view life as meaningless - if one applies strict materialism (which is not strictly necessary for atheism), life is the only meaning there is for a living creature. By 'life', I mean the total experience of being alive - being with and loving other people, finding out how the universe works, debating ontology, etc.
I've heard some theists claim that life is meaningless unless it's infinite in duration - that our eventual mortality and nonexistence renders every human endeavor empty and futile, so that an afterlife is necessary to validate what we accomplish. My reply to this is "Does a hot dog have to be infinitely long before you can enjoy eating it? Does a mountain have to be infinitely high before climbing to its peak counts for something?"
As an aside, one can believe in an afterlife and still be an atheist, but the concept of an afterlife usually is rejected for much the same reasons that kept the atheist from accepting the existence of gods. Ditto for spiritualism and the concept of a soul.
_________________
JJA
"Sancte," inquit, "quare, quaeso, rapis arborem festam?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:25 am Post subject: 109 |
|
|
| jja wrote: |
| I've heard some theists claim that life is meaningless unless it's infinite in duration - that our eventual mortality and nonexistence renders every human endeavor empty and futile, so that an afterlife is necessary to validate what we accomplish. My reply to this is "Does a hot dog have to be infinitely long before you can enjoy eating it? Does a mountain have to be infinitely high before climbing to its peak counts for something?" |
You might also ask why those human endeavors and accomplishments that are meaningless when set in a finite frame suddenly become meaningful and validated when placed in an infinite frame. Isn't it conceivable that an infinite life could also be devoid of meaning? And who would wish for such a thing?
_________________
Hard work may pay off in the long run, but laziness pays off right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neo
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:42 am Post subject: 110 |
|
|
| Celt_Guest wrote: |
| Celt wrote: |
Sometimes, when I meet someone with a strong religious conviction, I envy them.
They can experience the most horrendous tragedies and brush them aside with "It's God's will" or "We'll meet again soon in a world without pain" or "God will judge them in the end" or some such phrase.
Do you ever envy the non-atheist's comfort they get from believing in a "higher power"? |
Anyone care to answer? |
No. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jja
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:01 am Post subject: 111 |
|
|
| Coyote wrote: |
| You might also ask why those human endeavors and accomplishments that are meaningless when set in a finite frame suddenly become meaningful and validated when placed in an infinite frame. Isn't it conceivable that an infinite life could also be devoid of meaning? And who would wish for such a thing? |
Good point. I suppose a theist might reply, "An infinite life spent in serving god could not be void of meaning." Many theists start with the assumption that a god is what gives existence meaning in the first place. Some might go so far as to define evil or hell as being a lack of meaning.
When I was about eight, I found a book of Arabic riddles in the school library. I remember little about it, save that on one page there was a surrealistic paragraph full of impossible happenings and violence. I turned to the answers page for it, and it said "There is no answer to such a fib." This terrified me to my core. It seemed to touch on a fear that lay deeper than fear of the dark - the fear that, just back of everything, there was the void, and nothing more. I feared that I would find some unresolvable contradiction at the edge of being that would tear the veil of brightness asunder.
This is of course what science has revealed the world to be like - tiny bits of order smeared through stunningly vast expanses of void. While I can feel echoes of that same fear in me today, I no longer think of reason as a fragile thing, but as the very tool to use in understanding the void and even bending it to our convenience.
I find hints of this sort of horror in the works of many writers, including Lovecraft and Chesterton ("Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them... We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense.") Chesterton would likely agree that reason is the best way to conquer the void, but he felt that atheism was the opposite of rationality, as witnessed by the poor treatment of atheists in his stories - grim caricatures of ethically devoid materialists who always come to bad ends.
I may perhaps be prejudiced by having been raised in a very stable society, but I do not see the need for a source of meaning or morality that lies outside of our psyches or what we can learn from the world of being.
I think this rambling diversion partly addresses another of doormouse11's questions - "Do Atheists ever struggle with why we are here, or do they tend to be more confident in what they believe?" Of course we struggle. I think that such struggles are part of maintaining curiosity and intellectual health. At the same time, I think that this exercise of the mind does bestow greater confidence in making ontological judgements, and that while such confidence may not be expressed as loudly as the assertions of the dogmatic, it is much the stronger and more satisfying in the long run.
_________________
JJA
"Sancte," inquit, "quare, quaeso, rapis arborem festam?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr Stoofer
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:37 am Post subject: 112 |
|
|
| What's your take on the point made in The Life of Pi, which is basically, you can choose whether to believe in God(s) or not, but it's more fun to believe than not to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:52 pm Post subject: 113 |
|
|
| Mr Stoofer wrote: |
| What's your take on the point made in The Life of Pi, which is basically, you can choose whether to believe in God(s) or not, but it's more fun to believe than not to? |
This sounds like Pascal's Wager with its dentures removed.
Some theists would disagree that it's more 'fun' to believe in a god - they think of it as earnest service, something like being in the military. I've seen a few that accuse atheists of shirking their duties and responsibilities towards gods so that they can live to please themselves; so from their perspective, unbelievers are the ones who are having the most fun. But you probably find humorless folks like this about as unattractive as I do.
I would respond that, while a life of happiness is indeed a worthy goal, it is not all there is to life. It still comes down to this - am I willing to believe in something simply because it makes me feel better, even if it's unlikely to be true?
Even though I feel that a general lack of rationality is killing our society by degrees, I would not want to force anyone to accept the hard facts over pleasing suppositions. That's one of the decisions sentient beings have to make for themselves. I think most people would agree that the hard facts are preferable, though they would likely be upset if told that their varied imaginings about an invisible benevolent parent living in the sky amounted to 'pleasant suppositions.'
Also, I don't think it would be more fun to be irrational. I think the folks who cured polio and achieved the moon landings through their dedication and knowledge of the universe had a lot of fun, or at least found immense reward in their acheivements. Contrast this with people who prayed for a god to eliminate polio and gave the credit to this god when the deed was finally accomplished, or those whose bitterness with science runs so deep that they seize any poor excuse to claim that the moon landings were a hoax. Those who are engineering the future are hard at work and might not always call their activities 'fun,' but I say that they get a lot more satisfaction from life than the incense burners and thurible swingers.
I'll close with a question for Mr. Stoofer: If an adult came to you and said, "You can choose to believe in Santa Claus or not, but it's more fun to believe than not to," what would be your reply? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jja
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:58 pm Post subject: 114 |
|
|
I posted the above.
_________________
JJA
"Sancte," inquit, "quare, quaeso, rapis arborem festam?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GH
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:45 pm Post subject: 115 |
|
|
| I believe in Santa Claus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jja
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:17 pm Post subject: 116 |
|
|
| GH wrote: |
| I believe in Santa Claus. |
Insofar as 'Santa Claus' refers to the actual Saint Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, I also believe in 'Santa Claus,' as I am willing to credit that Saint Nicholas was an actual person. I will clarify: in my question to Mr. Stoofer, I meant the Santa Claus of popular belief among children, a benevolent spirit who lives in an inaccessible place, who constantly monitors everyone's behavior, and who rewards the good with gifts and punishes the bad with coals. (Any similarity with certain popular deities, living or dead, is likely not coincidental.)
One may substitute the Easter Bunny or the Great Pumpkin for Santa Claus in my question and thereby eliminate this quibble, so I will do so:
Mr. Stoofer: If an adult came to you and said, "You can choose to believe in the Easter Bunny or not, but it's more fun to believe than not to," what would be your reply?
_________________
JJA
"Sancte," inquit, "quare, quaeso, rapis arborem festam?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GH
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:37 pm Post subject: 117 |
|
|
Not that you asked me, but I believe in the Easter Bunny, too. What I don't believe is that he's an actual magical egg-hiding bunny. I also don't believe that Santa Claus is a fat, red-suited, elven slave driver with a sled that defies the laws of physics.
I believe that the Easter Bunny, like Santa Claus, is more of a spiritual force, part of which exists in each of us. If you choose to disregard the concept because you find it "immature," you deprive only yourself.
I believe that God is very much like that, too: He exists in us whether we like it or not, whether we want it or not, whether we choose to accept it or not. Turning our backs on Him or denying His existence makes Him no less real. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Internet Stranger
Paragon of Mafia Hunters
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:34 pm Post subject: 118 |
|
|
I believe in the Giant Cavecumber too and you cant deny that he doesnt exist either.
_________________
"I didn't know she was your sister I swear!"
www.InternetStranger.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jja
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:13 pm Post subject: 119 |
|
|
The canonical example in this regard is the Invisible Pink Unicorn. When atheists pray in foxholes, they're praying to her. I have attached an image of her Unseen Roseate Monohornitude below:
_________________
JJA
"Sancte," inquit, "quare, quaeso, rapis arborem festam?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Internet Stranger
Paragon of Mafia Hunters
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:36 pm Post subject: 120 |
|
|
I like the Giant Cavecumber better.
_________________
"I didn't know she was your sister I swear!"
www.InternetStranger.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
