13 Aug 03
Originally posted by eddie andersHow does playing in what must be one of the weakest leagues in Europe (2 mediocre and 10 useless teams) qualify any one to be called a god? Ronald de Boer is on the same level as Ronald Mcdonald
yes there sure is he goes by the name of ronald de boer and he plays for glasgow rangers.😀
13 Aug 03
Originally posted by Montaguesi think you are in need of a footballing lesson rangers are the greatest team to grace this earth no team will stop us we will be champions of europe so give your self a shake montathingy😛
How does playing in what must be one of the weakest leagues in Europe (2 mediocre and 10 useless teams) qualify any one to be called a god? Ronald de Boer is on the same level as Ronald Mcdonald
13 Aug 03
Originally posted by eddie andersLast time I gave my self a shake i was watching a Christine Aquilera video!
i think you are in need of a footballing lesson rangers are the greatest team to grace this earth no team will stop us we will be champions of europe so give your self a shake montathingy😛
13 Aug 03
Originally posted by dfm65This is a misconstrual of atheism, as Comrade Rwingett has pointed out in these threads innumerable times. The atheist does not make the claim "There is no God" but, rather, "Since there is no compelling evidence for the existence of God, and since there is overwhelming evidence against the existence of God (e.g., the existence of preventable suffering) it is not rational to believe in God." This is hardly a metaphysical claim, unless you broaden the scope of what counts as a metaphysical statement to the point where all statements are similarly metaphysical.
I don't think a conclusion either way can be justified on the basis of reason and/or experience. The atheist makes as unjustifiable a metaphysical claim as does the true believer.
13 Aug 03
5 edits
Originally posted by bbarrI think there ARE atheists who make the metaphysical claim 'there is no God' (what else would you call people who make this claim?). It is this kind of atheist my remarks were intended to apply to.
This is a misconstrual of atheism, as Comrade Rwingett has pointed out in these threads innumerable times. The atheist does not make the claim "There is no God" but, rather, "Since there is no compelling evidence for the existence of God, ...[text shortened]... ment to the point where all statements are similarly metaphysical.
After all, Omnislash didn't ask 'do we have rational grounds for believing in God?'. He asked 'Is there a God?', which appears to be a question of metaphysics.