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

The worst thing about religion

Page 9 of 33 [ 517 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 33  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2008, 11:19 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quote:
Why have religion? You can't prove it exists? What benefits does it have?

The reason to have religion is because we choose to have religion. A number of theists claim that there are proofs, such as the standard proofs such as the cosmological argument, archaeological proofs from the time of Christ pointing to his existence, and lastly the presuppositional argument that the existence of God is a necessary fact to fit in our understanding of the universe. Finally, the benefits of religion are clear, a community, some source of internal comfort, and if the claims are correct then the favor of God and a good afterlife.


From Grudem's Systematic Theology, there were 4 main philosophical proofs by these names: cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral. I'm not going to bother trying to explain them, because I have seen it is a waste of time (people who are predisposed negatively will look for any excuse to reject anything of the positive argument, so why bother? I've tried and I've been flamed, so there are some keywords if anyone wishes to research honestly.)



benjimanbreeg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,515

19 Aug 2008, 11:21 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
It really doesn't matter how benjaminbregg says it or what mistakes he makes, his main point is valid.

Well, the issue is that the mistakes undermine the point. If he makes all sorts of mistakes, then we cannot take his point that seriously for he has failed to develop it fully.

Quote:
Why have religion? You can't prove it exists? What benefits does it have?

The reason to have religion is because we choose to have religion. A number of theists claim that there are proofs, such as the standard proofs such as the cosmological argument, archaeological proofs from the time of Christ pointing to his existence, and lastly the presuppositional argument that the existence of God is a necessary fact to fit in our understanding of the universe. Finally, the benefits of religion are clear, a community, some source of internal comfort, and if the claims are correct then the favor of God and a good afterlife.
Quote:
Attack the argument, not the person.

The latter is fun.
Quote:
This thread has failed absolutely in the above and a few of you should be thoroughly ashamed.

Meh, why feel shame?
Quote:
He responded poorly to obvious provocation and insults. That is to be expected.

So did we, that is to be expected. I mean, it is quite arguable that there is a feedback loop between the groups.


did you mean favour or favor?



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 11:22 am

The so-called proofs are all frankly very, very weak arguments. Aquinas should have been embarrassed by his shoddy reasoning. And don't get me started on Blaise Pascal. He makes me sick.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2008, 11:23 am

benjimanbreeg wrote:
did you mean favour or favor?


Have you ever heard of the field of Linguistics?



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

19 Aug 2008, 11:24 am

corroonb wrote:
This thread has failed absolutely in the above and a few of you should be thoroughly ashamed.

On the contrary, this thread is a beautiful caricature of religious debates. The positions of those of us who have been beating up on ben are old news, retread and stale. Frankly, there's nothing left to do but beat the stuffing out of people who are, really, complete ignoramuses on this topic because they have nothing interesting to contribute, yet they feel the need to constantly hype their lucidity. It would be like having to re state the peano axioms every time we debate math; it makes much more sense to demonstrate that the person simply has no clue what they're talking.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2008, 11:25 am

corroonb wrote:
The so-called proofs are all frankly very, very weak arguments. Aquinas should have been embarrassed by his shoddy reasoning. And don't get me started on Blaise Pascal. He makes me sick.


Positive proof of my parenthetical statements. Thanks. :)



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

19 Aug 2008, 11:25 am

benjimanbreeg wrote:
from awseomelyglorious's blog

I have a low emotional IQ and tend to be clumsy so that sounds Aspie-ish. My dream in life is to be powerful, I suppose this is because I have continually believed myself to be weak so therefore in order to compensate for these flaws I feel that I must prove myself to be strong and powerful. I am weird and I know that very well.

wow, sounds like your not perfect after all, thats hillarious :?

I would have deleted that s**t a long time ago, but the damned thing wouldn't allow me. The fact that you brought it up just pisses the hell out of me though.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

19 Aug 2008, 11:26 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
benjimanbreeg wrote:
did you mean favour or favor?


Have you ever heard of the field of Linguistics?

No, he really hasn't. He's a complete and utter linguistic dips**t. A wise man once said, "You can't win an argument with a fool", which appears to be the necessary principle when dealing with the English on issues of language.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

19 Aug 2008, 11:26 am

corroonb wrote:
The so-called proofs are all frankly very, very weak arguments. Aquinas should have been embarrassed by his shoddy reasoning. And don't get me started on Blaise Pascal. He makes me sick.

The proofs have continued since Aquinas. The ontological proof has been restated by both Godel and Plantinga for instance. Blaise Pascal did not use a proof of God, in his Pensees he explicitly denied the value of proofs to engage in a game theoretic argument.



Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

19 Aug 2008, 11:29 am

benjimanbreeg wrote:
wow, your a bit slow.


"Wow, you're a bit slow."

Quote:
Maybe you should actually think before you post, i'm probably guity of that too.


"Guity" of what? Thinking before you post or not thinking before you post? Do you truly not know what the hell you're talking about, or are you unable to articulate it?

Quote:
I didn't capatalize it cause i'm talking down to you, if I was metioning GREAT BRITAIN then I would use capitals.


You're not talking down to me, you're blathering the verbal equivalent of diarrhea and spraying it across the internet.

Quote:
Well, I think you should go round saying it. You deserve a kick-in.


I'll do you one better. I'm going to punch myself if the testicles multiple times until I am completely sterile, that way there isn't a chance, as statistically remote as it may be, that I could have a child as mentally inept and incoherent as you.

Ow. My balls.

See what you made me do?


_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!


corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 11:30 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
benjimanbreeg wrote:
from awseomelyglorious's blog

I have a low emotional IQ and tend to be clumsy so that sounds Aspie-ish. My dream in life is to be powerful, I suppose this is because I have continually believed myself to be weak so therefore in order to compensate for these flaws I feel that I must prove myself to be strong and powerful. I am weird and I know that very well.

wow, sounds like your not perfect after all, thats hillarious :?

I would have deleted that sh** a long time ago, but the damned thing wouldn't allow me. The fact that you brought it up just pisses the hell out of me though.


It does give an insight into your political beliefs however. But seems to be irrelevant in this context.

Everyone should be reminded that attacking individuals is not tolerated on this forum according to the rules. Personal insults, mocking people because of poor grammar etc. would constitute a breech of the rules in my opinion. It doesn't matter who does it, personal insults are out of order.

Attack the idea, not the person.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2008, 11:30 am

twoshots wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
benjimanbreeg wrote:
did you mean favour or favor?


Have you ever heard of the field of Linguistics?

No, he really hasn't. He's a complete and utter linguistic dips**t. A wise man once said, "You can't win an argument with a fool", which appears to be the necessary principle when dealing with the English on issues of language.


I don't know exactly what you mean by that. I don't agree completely, I just think that the intolerance of regional dialects and spelling was petty.



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 11:32 am

twoshots wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
benjimanbreeg wrote:
did you mean favour or favor?


Have you ever heard of the field of Linguistics?

No, he really hasn't. He's a complete and utter linguistic dips**t. A wise man once said, "You can't win an argument with a fool", which appears to be the necessary principle when dealing with the English on issues of language.


This for example is an ad hominem with no value whatsoever. And a blatantly bigoted attack on the English and everyone else who speaks British English.



Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

19 Aug 2008, 11:32 am

Ladygirl wrote:
It was so weird there when the title of the thread mysteriously changed from "The Worst Thing About Religion" to "Let's Focus All Of Our Attention On BenjaminBreeg". That was wondrous. Perhaps even miraculous. Either way.


He started flaming Orwell, then myself when I asked him to desist. I'm surprised a mod hasn't banned him yet.

Orwell wrote:
What you were attacked for was that your arguments made no sense- multiple atheists and agnostics have agreed on that, so it's not just Christians offended at their religion being insulted. You were the one who commenced actual personal attacks.


This is true. Nobody knows what the hell he's talking about.


_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!


corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 11:35 am

I have noticed that a basic sense of decorum is not often maintained in this particular sub-forum.

Responding to insults is not a justification for ad hominem attacks. It is hypocritical to insult people because they have insulted you.

Hypocritical and utterly childish.



benjimanbreeg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,515

19 Aug 2008, 11:35 am

twoshots wrote:
corroonb wrote:
This thread has failed absolutely in the above and a few of you should be thoroughly ashamed.

On the contrary, this thread is a beautiful caricature of religious debates. The positions of those of us who have been beating up on ben are old news, retread and stale. Frankly, there's nothing left to do but beat the stuffing out of people who are, really, complete ignoramuses on this topic because they have nothing interesting to contribute, yet they feel the need to constantly hype their lucidity. It would be like having to re state the peano axioms every time we debate math; it makes much more sense to demonstrate that the person simply has no clue what they're talking.


http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp1116152 ... t=#1116152

lol! look at twoshots posts! he's a bit slow, aww! And just glancing at his posts you can see he's completely obsessed by religion. He's a boring loser who has nothing better to do than insult people on his lonely computer all day. And again, loser, its maths. You'll learn.