Jai604 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 This was also done in the Qum'ran community, that is said to be the home of John the Baptist. For women in their time of uncleanness, they are to be put outside the community, and then brought back. It's not a sexist discrimination, it's for health purposes. I disagree with their methods, I think they should be brought up to speed with tampons and what have you, but they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Yeah..... not much more needs to be said. Your thinking is.... backward and medieval. Comments like these only prove to support the arguments made against religion in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Oh sh*t so I should let me wife back in the house...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Yeah..... not much more needs to be said. Your thinking is.... backward and medieval. Comments like these only prove to support the arguments made against religion in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 I know realize that we're not even having a logical debate anymore. You're just preaching now. Anybody could tell you that anybody is the boss. Should you just believe it on blind faith? So.... why do you? See, you've not once been able to provide any evidence at all. You can't explain it..... because there is no credible explanation. The part I bolded is exactly what a religious mind has to think in order to believe in a man-made sky father figure. There's no explanation or evidence, it just is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Go watch some debates between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Let me ask you this, since you brought up William Lane Craig. Which of the two ideas do you think is more fanciful: 1) Out of nothing, a bunch of random gases and elements and compounds started swirling around, and after millions upon millions of years and random events, thing crashed into one another and things were formed. or 2) Out of nothing, a supreme being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, something clearly extremely ordered and advanced and sophisticated, sprang forth? Those who believe in god say that nothing can come of nothing. It must be created, right? Well, that would mean that god also could not come from nothing, and thus would have had to have been made. Then by whom? See how that argument gets you nowhere? William Lane Craig's argument that the universe is finite and thus must have been created is subject to the same problems as the big bang theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 I've watched them. Hitchens isn't the best equipped to take on those kinds of debates because he was not a scientist. He was a journalist. In every debate where the debate is about religion, Hitchens wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Listen to John Lennox explain why it's moot to find the creator of God. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY1uTlaP2Pc&feature=fvwrel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 I think the argument is that if everything must have a beginning, then how can God be exempt from that? It's special pleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fathoms Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 there is no argument to address , and you are not demonstrating anything . prove to me that , there is a god , or prove to me that there is not a god , simple as that . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 What you have failed to do is explain why as an agnostic you have an attitude of deferential preference to one unfalsifiable delusion to the exclusion of all others. All unfalsifiable claims necessarily have an identical amount of explanatory value. Zilch. Therefore as a rational person you should naturally treat all unfalsifiable claims equally. Yet I have never once been accused by an agnostic of being as close minded and faith based as people who believe in Santa Clause because I am able to say "there is no santa clause" with a straight face and without qualification. This how your attitude appears to me... You will probably say that this is not a fair comparison. But my whole point is that all delusions are created equal under the eyes of a rational observer. A dedicated person could come up with a million excuses as to why evidence for the existence of santa clause eludes science. That is the beauty of being able to appeal to the existence of supernatural powers. You can make anything up. Yes, a healthy skepticism to our avowed beliefs or non-beliefs is of course preferable. And yes, a healthy acknowledgment that wecan be proven wrong is of course preferable. But so long as god is defined in a non-sensical fashion and in such a way that the appeal to his existence explains nothing, I will continue to treat the delusion with exactly as much credulity as I treat the claims of six year olds about santa clause. What I see you doing here is pretending that hard-line atheists are as faith-based as believers is engaging in an insufferable amount of pedantry and selective reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fathoms Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Wrong, wrong, wrong. You've clearly identified agnosticism in this fashion to make yourself feel better about your decisions by misconstruing what agnosticism is, and in a straw man fashion, drop agnosticism down to the level of theism. Saying one doesn't know isn't saying one knows anything, it's not this conjured up, veiled, hopeful theism you continuously describe it as, it's none of this garbage you just made up out of your own subjective head's thin air, there's simply no conclusion made about the concept of a creator as it pertains to both logic and science that one shouldn't come to a conclusion they cannot falsify. I await the next hilarious fluff-laden axe-to-grind obfuscation of agnosticism, or at least some falsification of your part of the concept of the universe's creation by a creator. S*** or get off the pot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 I think the argument is that if everything must have a beginning, then how can God be exempt from that? It's special pleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 I think it's slightly different because we know the universe had a beginning at some point in time (The Big Band). The universe can't cause it's self to exist if at one point in time it didn't exist. So something had to be eternal because something can't come from nothing. Either unconscious non living matter or a conscious living spirit/being (which people term god for whatever reason). So then it becomes a question of which one seems most likely to people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 The Big Bang doesn't necessarily have to be the absolute beginning of everything, though. There very easily could have been an infinite amount of time before the rapid expansion of the singularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 14, 2012 Author Share Posted September 14, 2012 The Big Bang doesn't necessarily have to be the absolute beginning of everything, though. There very easily could have been an infinite amount of time before the rapid expansion of the singularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Time is a dimension which began when the universe began(Big 'Bang')....there was no 'time' before it. And I don't think you can have an infinite 'before' something....because there's no 'after' infinity.....it's just infinity and that's it. You could have a very long period of time before something and then have that something, but you can't put infinity before that something and then have the something....infinity wouldn't stop to allow that something to occur following it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 14, 2012 Author Share Posted September 14, 2012 Yeah I think it was William Lane Craig who talked about that in one of his books or on youtube...basically he said there is a difference between say God is eternal (having always existed) and saying He has been around for an infinite period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.