I've walked in the Shrek thread I see.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
feck off. Shrek makes infinitely more sense than the bible.
Do you agree with causing as much pain to animals as you desire during their slaughter? I think God's more interested with the heart than the outward appearance.
At any rate, this conversation's gone the way it always does given enough time. I'll leave you to your vices, men. Just know that Kermit is watching.
He only kills children when for glory remember.
You're prepared to completely disregard science (the best current method available for discovering what's true about our environment) in favour of what Jesus supposedly said. Saying 'it's a miracle' is a complete cop out. How can you expect anybody here with a rational, logical mind to have any sympathy with your position? And you're telling us we're the ones talking nonsense?
Herman van Wind-Up Merchant from the City State of Brussels.
It's been gold. Shame we won't have a Hindu nutjob like The King around to have a death match with Herman.
Look at you quoting the Bible and everything
you WUM How long you been keeping this up for? Come on admit it you're a Liverpool fan having a laugh. You're a Catholic arent you? Come on, nobody can be as obtuse as you. You're putting it on surely!
Look at you quoting the Bible and everything
You're a Catholic arent you? Come on, nobody can be as obtuse as you. You're putting it on surely!
You WUM. The threads got your number, the game is up. Although you almost had us
Why would a 'god' need 'man' to write down 'his' word?
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Epicurus
Because it's a great way of making money.
He's brainwashed beyond comprehension level and, like most religious persons, chooses to believe whatever fits his/her core belief.
What about stomach acid in the fish? That can't be good for the one trying to survive inside the fish.
And it's been quite common throughout mankind that nutjobs run around claiming to be a son of god.
And savior of mankind. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/wscs/wscs17.htm
And a god. http://www.godfinder.org/
Hell, we've got people walking around today claiming to be the second coming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus
And look how many of them were either murderers or paedos.
Last edited:
I hope you are not thinking that that was what I believed.
You WUM. The threads got your number, the game is up. Although you almost had us
In that case, given your propensity for trolling, you must be really jealous that I only so much as have to appear in a thread for all the dogs in the neighbourhood to start barking.
Clearly you missed the bit in this thread where Herman proved the faulty logic of the Epicurean argument regarding the problem of evil. God could have a good reason, ergo that's not a troubling line of questioning for Christians.
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
I like this quote: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction"- Pascal
And to do this, they blind themselves from anything that's evidenced based and trust the word of ancient texts written by people that are more ignorant about the way the universe works than my 10 year old daughter.
And to do this, they blind themselves from anything that's evidenced based and trust the word of ancient texts written by people that are more ignorant about the way the universe works than my 10 year old daughter.
People of religion often find themselves having to explain to non-believers that they aren't like the religious extremists on TV. I often find myself having to explain to people of religion that not all the irreligious are like this vile attention seeking pillock.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...moral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...moral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html
It annoys me how popular he is among unbelievers. Back when I was an atheist, I was a big fan of Dawkins until I saw the sort of comments he was encouraging on the forum his website used to host. I started to realise that even his comments about religious people having a form of illness or being in some way insane/wicked were just deeply immoral. It's really hard to remain graceful when it comes to Dawkins because he's seemingly unaware of some of the horrific views he holds.
For all his protests, he is very Darwinian ethically. He differentiates between those with autism and those with DS on the basis of how beneficial they will be to society. Killing the unborn child because they do not meet a certain physical profile is the definition of Darwinian. The guy's an absolute nutter. He thinks of men who marry women who can't have children and the practise of adoption as the consequence of a genetic misfire. Even if I never found Christ, I'd stay a million miles away from this man given what I now know. He doesn't stand for commonly held principles like protecting the poor and championing the defenseless. Meanwhile, his gentlemanly accent and demeanour hide the ugly side of him.
So just ignore him, he's a cnut. Like DOTA said, he doesn't represent non-believers, just like ISIS shouldn't represent muslims and Westboro shouldn't represent christians.
I like Dawkins but I don't like how unemotionally attached he is in some of his comments. The DS comment is a prime example. From a scientific point of view, he may be right but not every decission can be made by looking at metrics and measurements. There is a place for emotion and compassion in life altering decissions and he seems to forget that sometimes.
I was gonna say that but figured I'd be ridiculed.
Man screams sociopathy and that doesn't lend itself to trying create moral framework for a broadly empathetic civilisation.
Everyone has seen the Bill Nye Vs. Ken Ham debate right? Ham is a bizarre man. And Nye is a bad ass.
Nearly all creationists are bizarre and end up looking ridiculously foolish when they debate the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Nye et al.
Dawkins was a Labour voter up until the Lib Dems were created, and he despised Thatcher because of her attachment to social Darwinism and her implementation of policies that worked against the poor. So I don't think your assessment is quite correct.
Its more bizarre that Ham is a creationist who is also a "scientist" and that he fully practices all his scientific endeavours wilst believing the fact that the world was created 6000 years ago. Nye uses Ham's own logic to him that if that was the case, and evolution existed in a world only 6000 years old, we'd find 16 + new species everyday.
I don't know why you're trying to one-up me in this way. I can't watch that video in the UK, anyway.
As for your comments about creationists, by technical definition, John Lennox is a creationist and I certainly don't think he looked foolish when he debated Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. The debate between Ham and Nye was very poorly put together. Nye was allowed to attack ham's views for the entire duration, with Ham having to provide a defense, rather than actually being allowed to launch his own offensive. There was no cross examination. You can't debate seriously with that kind of format. The central issue of Darwinian evolution vs design very rarely comes up in these debates.
How wrong can you possibly be? Ham had the entire crowd of creationists supporting him. it was basically Nye speaking to a deaf audience and Ham just trying to make jokes at his expense. It was poorly put together only because the crowd were an ignorant herd of cows who'd rather laugh at a brilliant mind than listen to what he had to say.
Except the format for the debate was trash and the subject essentially became Ken Ham's views on creation.
I'd debate any of these guys, anyway. Put the venue together and see if you can get Nye or Dawkins to take the offer.
In that sense, the format wasn't excellent. I thought they talked for too long at the beginning and then too little at the end. But the atmosphere was shambolic and the crowd was poor.