Napoleon Ier wrote:1/ Google teleological, ontological, an cosmological arguments, just as you know, a simple crash course starter, before reading page 1 of philosophy for dummies.
And that 'philosophy for dummies' will, in chapter two, tell you in very simple stages (although stages you seem to be unable to grasp, Nappy) how each of those arguments is far from concrete and, indeed, has fairly significant criticisms.
Of course. I'm not denying that, what I am saying is that the Bible isn't "the only shred of evidence" for God. I mean, you're somebody, on an intellectual level, with whom one can(usually) have a reasoned discussion, even if heavily influenced by the Masonic usurpation of politico-mediatic nomenklatura, these cretins however are nothing but lobotomized slaves of this abject secular humanism that gives them their nauseating and pitiful air of conceited supremacy.
Breathtaking inanity.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Napoleon Ier wrote:1/ Google teleological, ontological, an cosmological arguments, just as you know, a simple crash course starter, before reading page 1 of philosophy for dummies.
And that 'philosophy for dummies' will, in chapter two, tell you in very simple stages (although stages you seem to be unable to grasp, Nappy) how each of those arguments is far from concrete and, indeed, has fairly significant criticisms.
Of course. I'm not denying that, what I am saying is that the Bible isn't "the only shred of evidence" for God. I mean, you're somebody, on an intellectual level, with whom one can(usually) have a reasoned discussion, even if heavily influenced by the Masonic usurpation of politico-mediatic nomenklatura, these cretins however are nothing but lobotomized slaves of this abject secular humanism that gives them their nauseating and pitiful air of conceited supremacy.
Napoleon Ier wrote:1/ Google teleological, ontological, an cosmological arguments, just as you know, a simple crash course starter, before reading page 1 of philosophy for dummies.
And that 'philosophy for dummies' will, in chapter two, tell you in very simple stages (although stages you seem to be unable to grasp, Nappy) how each of those arguments is far from concrete and, indeed, has fairly significant criticisms.
Of course. I'm not denying that, what I am saying is that the Bible isn't "the only shred of evidence" for God. I mean, you're somebody, on an intellectual level, with whom one can(usually) have a reasoned discussion, even if heavily influenced by the Masonic usurpation of politico-mediatic nomenklatura, these cretins however are nothing but lobotomized slaves of this abject secular humanism that gives them their nauseating and pitiful air of conceited supremacy.
Breathtaking inanity.
Don't be too hard on poor Guissy.
I imagine he'd be man enough to take it.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Quite apart from the fact it's as ridiculoud as verificationism.
How is verificationism misleading? It's like bringing a guy to court and telling the jury that he commited the crime but left a bunch of misleading evidence leaning towards another person. Verificationism is one of the cores of science.
Napoleon Ier wrote:
Hahahahahah a humeist arguing that a priori reasoning is invalid compared to a posteriori
....
If you knew anything about Hume, you'd also know about Hume's Fork.
A priori proof does not tell us anything about the world.
That's an entirely seperate proposition as to whether or not it is useful as a analytico-philosophical tool.
Quite apart from the fact it's as ridiculoud as verificationism.
Well, I would say that when trying to ascertain the existence or non-existence of any given being, empirical evidence is far more reliable than a priori reasoning.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Correct. Although in fact I'm not sure a priori reasoning is ANY help in ascertaining existence.
I can logically prove the perfect island exists, but it doesn't....
Napoleon Ier wrote:Neutrino, you reject a priori truth. So with the almost non-existant respect due to your person, you're fucking insane.
So priori qualifies, untested, as truth now? Why do scientists bother to laboriously uncover evidence, when they can declare whatever they want to be true through a series of blatantly incorrect assumptions? Napoleon, priori never has and never will qualify as any sort of evidence in any reasonably scientific circles. Why you ever thought it would cut it in our illustrious pseudo-intellectual forum, I will never know.
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes, we own all your generals. Touch us and you loooose...
Napoleon Ier wrote:1/ Google teleological, ontological, an cosmological arguments, just as you know, a simple crash course starter, before reading page 1 of philosophy for dummies.
And that 'philosophy for dummies' will, in chapter two, tell you in very simple stages (although stages you seem to be unable to grasp, Nappy) how each of those arguments is far from concrete and, indeed, has fairly significant criticisms.
Of course. I'm not denying that, what I am saying is that the Bible isn't "the only shred of evidence" for God. I mean, you're somebody, on an intellectual level, with whom one can(usually) have a reasoned discussion, even if heavily influenced by the Masonic usurpation of politico-mediatic nomenklatura, these cretins however are nothing but lobotomized slaves of this abject secular humanism that gives them their nauseating and pitiful air of conceited supremacy.
But you keep trotting those arguments out as truths, Nappy. Time and time again. When people say 'other than the Bible, you have no proof of God' you reply 'ontological, teleological blah blah blah' as if to say 'you've probably never come across these deep philosophical concepts before, but I have... and they end with 'logical' and so that means I'm full of win'. At the end of the day you and I both know there is not a single philosophical proof of God that hasn't been ripped to shreds by philosophers in universities across the world. As for everything after Masonic, you really do excel in making yourself look like a clown when you use such pedantic and ridiculous vocabulary. Seriously.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Neoteny wrote:Jenos, should the Muslim terrorists be blamed for following their religion as you describe it? They were following their own worldview.
Nothing?
Were do you think they got their worldview? From the Koran and Hadith.
I'll have more in the later on.
And where did medieval Christians going on crusades get their world view? Where did protestants and catholics in northern Ireland get theirs? Jenos, you're applying double standards wherever you can, anyone not doing what you think a christian should do is, by your definition, not a christian, even if it can be justified using the biblical verses. Why don't you apply the same logic to Islam and tell us how you think a true muslim should behave?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:tell us how you think a true muslim should behave?
You fail to understand. Islam is, by nature, evil and so a 'true' Muslim is a terrorist.
(insert religiously hypocritical references to pedo warmongering prophets here)
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Napoleon Ier wrote:1/ Google teleological, ontological, an cosmological arguments, just as you know, a simple crash course starter, before reading page 1 of philosophy for dummies.
And that 'philosophy for dummies' will, in chapter two, tell you in very simple stages (although stages you seem to be unable to grasp, Nappy) how each of those arguments is far from concrete and, indeed, has fairly significant criticisms.
Of course. I'm not denying that, what I am saying is that the Bible isn't "the only shred of evidence" for God. I mean, you're somebody, on an intellectual level, with whom one can(usually) have a reasoned discussion, even if heavily influenced by the Masonic usurpation of politico-mediatic nomenklatura, these cretins however are nothing but lobotomized slaves of this abject secular humanism that gives them their nauseating and pitiful air of conceited supremacy.
But you keep trotting those arguments out as truths, Nappy. Time and time again. When people say 'other than the Bible, you have no proof of God' you reply 'ontological, teleological blah blah blah' as if to say 'you've probably never come across these deep philosophical concepts before, but I have... and they end with 'logical' and so that means I'm full of win'. At the end of the day you and I both know there is not a single philosophical proof of God that hasn't been ripped to shreds by philosophers in universities across the world. As for everything after Masonic, you really do excel in making yourself look like a clown when you use such pedantic and ridiculous vocabulary. Seriously.
I believe in these arguments. Now, the fact these cretins don't understand or know of them is beyond my control, so if I sound pretentious or patronizing, that's only an effect created by their sheer ignorance.
You can't seriously believe these clowns when they proclaim
Neoteny wrote:If we reject the Bible, as well as all other religious texts, there is no real reason to believe in god. That's the logic behind it.
MeDeFe wrote:tell us how you think a true muslim should behave?
You fail to understand. Islam is, by nature, evil and so a 'true' Muslim is a terrorist.
(insert religiously hypocritical references to pedo warmongering prophets here)
I'll put this for you in simplistic terms :
Buddhism : an inherently peaceful religion. Don't agree with it myself, but there, I respect it.
Christianity : a religion which acknowledges the need to and has a strong tradition of fighting for Just Causes.
Aryano-mysticism : A violent religion invented for political purposes by an incestuous maniac terrorist
Islam " " pedophilic " "
Understand? Not all religions are "equal".
Not all religions "say the same thing really".
Not all religions "promote teh peece and teh toleranse!
MeDeFe wrote:tell us how you think a true muslim should behave?
You fail to understand. Islam is, by nature, evil and so a 'true' Muslim is a terrorist.
(insert religiously hypocritical references to pedo warmongering prophets here)
I'll put this for you in simplistic terms :
Buddhism : an inherently peaceful religion. Don't agree with it myself, but there, I respect it.
Christianity : a religion which acknowledges the need to and has a strong tradition of fighting for Just Causes.
Aryano-mysticism : A violent religion invented for political purposes by an incestuous maniac terrorist
Islam " " pedophilic " "
Understand? Not all religions are "equal".
Not all religions "say the same thing really".
Not all religions "promote teh peece and teh toleranse!
Fighting for just causes? Are you out of your fucking mind?
Napoleon Ier wrote:
I believe in these arguments. Now, the fact these cretins don't understand or know of them is beyond my control, so if I sound pretentious or patronizing, that's only an effect created by their sheer ignorance.
You are totally out of your fucking mind if you can't understand we know about those arguments but don't believe in them. They don't give a reason to believe in god.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Napoleon Ier wrote:
I believe in these arguments. Now, the fact these cretins don't understand or know of them is beyond my control, so if I sound pretentious or patronizing, that's only an effect created by their sheer ignorance.
You are totally out of your fucking mind if you can't understand we know about those arguments but don't believe in them. They don't give a reason to believe in god.
Fine. You don't believe in them. We have an intellectual conversation concerning their respectove merits. But yo don't come out with crap like "teh Bible is teh only evidence".
I tell you what. Here's a few people to look up, ok snorri. Perhaps you'll have heard of some of them :
Voltaire, Flew, Jefferson, and Einstein. These people were Deists. They didn't believe the Bible, but they still believed in a God...
napoleon....i think the question again is where are you trying to go. If your trying to in some way prove christianity, thats not a great list of people to start with. If you want to prove that people believe in some sort of deity thats all fine and good, but remember where you were trying to get to when your in the middle of the argument.
got tonkaed wrote:napoleon....i think the question again is where are you trying to go. If your trying to in some way prove christianity, thats not a great list of people to start with. If you want to prove that people believe in some sort of deity thats all fine and good, but remember where you were trying to get to when your in the middle of the argument.
My goal is clear and unequivocal : dismantle the ignorant and boorish notion that the Religious texts alone provide reason for belief in a Deity. It has not wavered since whatsit first made that statement a few pages back.
Napoleon Ier wrote:
Fine. You don't believe in them. We have an intellectual conversation concerning their respectove merits. But yo don't come out with crap like "teh Bible is teh only evidence".
You're right. It isn't the only evidence, it's not even evidence.
There are certainly a number of arguments in favour of god, but those are not the same as proof. It's the whole fucking deal with God, in that you need faith and not proof or anything. Shit if it was that simple, explain to me why there are many atheists. And don't give me that shit about them not wanting there to be a god cuz they wanna sin. That's the most retarded thing you can possibly say.
I tell you what. Here's a few people to look up, ok snorri. Perhaps you'll have heard of some of them :
Voltaire, Flew, Jefferson, and Einstein. These people were Deists. They didn't believe the Bible, but they still believed in a God...
Yeah I know. But I'm pretty sure they knew their position wasn't based on anything but faith.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
so then you are only concerned with proving the existence of a deity, and not interested in bringing it eventually to a proof of the Christian God back through the superior quality in your mind of the evidence including the text?
got tonkaed wrote:so then you are only concerned with proving the existence of a deity, and not interested in bringing it eventually to a proof of the Christian God back through the superior quality in your mind of the evidence including the text?
Not even. I'm trying to prove that the case for God does not consist of solely the Bible.
PS. Fair play snorri. I personaly believe God is provable, but so unpersuasively that yeah, it does require Faith. It's something only a Theist would understand. I'd point out, however that the Bible is evidence for God if used as a historical source about Jesus, but that's entering into points of detail.
