1. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    10 Oct '11 22:44
    For the lay person God is power - the power behind everything that exists.

    They may not give this power a name like Allah, Jehovah, Govinda or Christ but they recognize the power never the less.

    The atheist does not recognize this power.

    They say that everything that exist does so by random chance.

    It is chance that you and them are alive.

    By observation alone it is evident that power is there - and it is supported by function, design, purpose, intelligence, creativeness, wonder and beauty.

    The atheist concludes that beauty is just and accident.

    That the sweet smelling flowers and their design is an accident.

    That the thousand of varieties of foods are accident.

    That the fine balance of the universe is an accident.

    That the complexity of conscious life is an accident.

    That the laws of physics are an accident.

    That the varieties of life are an accident.

    Clearly an atheist is absolutely mad. ( in the clinical sense) or thoroughly dishonest or both.
  2. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    10 Oct '11 22:49
    The only accident around here is your logic, or lack of it. 🙁

    -m.
  3. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Oct '11 22:52
    Originally posted by Dasa
    For the lay person God is power - the power behind everything that exists.

    They may not give this power a name like Allah, Jehovah, Govinda or Christ but they recognize the power never the less.

    The atheist does not recognize this power.

    They say that everything that exist does so by random chance.

    It is chance that you and them are alive.

    By obs ...[text shortened]... Clearly an atheist is absolutely mad. ( in the clinical sense) or thoroughly dishonest or both.
    As an atheist I can confirm I don't 'recognise' the existence or 'power' of god.

    However all your other statements about what 'atheists say' are false.

    Which makes this entire post a giant strawman fallacy.

    Maybe you should ask (nicely and actually listen to the responses) what atheists
    actually think (although as there are so many different people who qualify your
    answers will be diverse) rather than telling us what you think we think.
  4. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    10 Oct '11 23:38
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    As an atheist I can confirm I don't 'recognise' the existence or 'power' of god.

    However all your other statements about what 'atheists say' are false.

    Which makes this entire post a giant strawman fallacy.

    Maybe you should ask (nicely and actually listen to the responses) what atheists
    actually think (although as there are so many different pe ...[text shortened]... o qualify your
    answers will be diverse) rather than telling us what you think we think.
    Not recognizing this power is clearly not recognizing what you obverse.

    Why do you not recognize what you observe?

    Or why are you blind to what everyone observes.
  5. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    10 Oct '11 23:47
    Originally posted by Dasa
    Not recognizing this power is clearly not recognizing what you obverse.

    Why do you not recognize what you observe?

    Or why are you blind to what everyone observes.
    observing something you don't understand and then making something up to explain it as absolute truth can be viewed as a form of mental illness.
  6. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    11 Oct '11 00:35
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    observing something you don't understand and then making something up to explain it as absolute truth can be viewed as a form of mental illness.
    Not recognizing the power at the foundation of everything is simply madness -and teaching that conclusion is thoroughly dishonest.
  7. Standard membersumydid
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Not of this World
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    38013
    11 Oct '11 00:40
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    As an atheist I can confirm I don't 'recognise' the existence or 'power' of god.

    However all your other statements about what 'atheists say' are false.

    Which makes this entire post a giant strawman fallacy.

    Maybe you should ask (nicely and actually listen to the responses) what atheists
    actually think (although as there are so many different pe ...[text shortened]... o qualify your
    answers will be diverse) rather than telling us what you think we think.
    So Atheists do believe in Intelligent Design? Else, much of what Dasa said has some truth to it.
  8. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    11 Oct '11 00:51
    Originally posted by Dasa
    For the lay person God is power - the power behind everything that exists.

    They may not give this power a name like Allah, Jehovah, Govinda or Christ but they recognize the power never the less.

    The atheist does not recognize this power.

    They say that everything that exist does so by random chance.

    It is chance that you and them are alive.

    By obs ...[text shortened]... Clearly an atheist is absolutely mad. ( in the clinical sense) or thoroughly dishonest or both.
    The atheist does not recognize this power.

    They say that everything that exist does so by random chance.


    Who is it that denies God the power to use random chance?
  9. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    11 Oct '11 09:18
    Originally posted by Dasa
    For the lay person God is power - the power behind everything that exists.

    They may not give this power a name like Allah, Jehovah, Govinda or Christ but they recognize the power never the less.

    The atheist does not recognize this power.

    They say that everything that exist does so by random chance.

    It is chance that you and them are alive.

    By obs ...[text shortened]... Clearly an atheist is absolutely mad. ( in the clinical sense) or thoroughly dishonest or both.
    Why not make one statement to debate rather than preaching a multitude?

    Whatever it is you are trying to achieve is not served by these childish rants.
  10. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    11 Oct '11 09:32
    Originally posted by sumydid
    So Atheists do believe in Intelligent Design? Else, much of what Dasa said has some truth to it.
    No. the fallacy is claiming everything came about by randomness and accident.

    Only someone ignorant of science would claim this.

    However atheism doesn't rely on science for its foundations.

    Being an atheist doesn't require accepting science.

    the two are independent.

    The majority of atheists may very well be strong supporters of science.

    But not all are nor are they required to be so.
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Oct '11 12:40
    Originally posted by Dasa
    Not recognizing this power is clearly not recognizing what you obverse.

    Why do you not recognize what you observe?

    Or why are you blind to what everyone observes.
    This from the person who recently told me he wouldn't believe the moon was the moon even when he was observing it? And also you apparently 'observed' that the moon was a mere 35mm across yet admitted that you do not recognize this observation.
  12. Standard membertalzamir
    Art, not a Toil
    60.13N / 25.01E
    Joined
    19 Sep '11
    Moves
    43935
    11 Oct '11 12:481 edit
    > observing something you don't understand and then making something up to
    > explain it as absolute truth can be viewed as a form of mental illness.

    That as I see it is the difference between religion and science.

    * Both see something we can't explain
    * Both make something up to explain it

    Science remains conditional. There are no definite answers - the best we can do is to make up an explanation that fits all the known facts. Discover new facts or come up with a simpler or more widely applicable theory that fits the known facts, and the explanations adjust to compensate.

    Religion on the other hand is not conditional. The answers are definite, and if new facts don't fit, that doesn't mean religion would necessarily adjust. It is The Truth, and those who say otherwise are by definition wrong.

    Don Quixote de la Mancha knows that sweet Dulcinea is the most perfect woman in existence, and Romeo knows that there is nothing in this world as wonderful as Juliet Capulet. Both could, and enthusiastically would prove it too, by rhyme and verse, personal dedication, logic, or blade. That's the sort of certainty I see in theism.

    I'm sure it is comforting to know something without any doubts at all.
  13. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91530
    12 Oct '11 06:44
    Originally posted by talzamir
    > observing something you don't understand and then making something up to
    > explain it as absolute truth can be viewed as a form of mental illness.

    That as I see it is the difference between religion and science.

    * Both see something we can't explain
    * Both make something up to explain it

    Science remains conditional. There are no definite answer ...[text shortened]... see in theism.

    I'm sure it is comforting to know something without any doubts at all.
    Any religon worth it salt must be willing to adjust.

    The best example off the top of my head is the Hindus accepting Lord Buddha as their avatar.
    Good post dude, 2 thumbs up, as gb would say.

    Oh, and Dasa, have you heard of the contention that there are no accidents? This was one of Willam Burroughs favourite themes.
    And since I have applied this to my life ,(ie.altered my thinking on the subject), I have found this statement to be more true by the day. Do you have anything like that going on?
  14. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    12 Oct '11 06:51
    Originally posted by Dasa
    Not recognizing the power at the foundation of everything is simply madness -and teaching that conclusion is thoroughly dishonest.
    we're discussing the absurdity of your assertions here. you can't claim teaching something is dishonest without knowing anything about what is being taught.

    you keep preaching about honesty, yet the variety of disjointed assertions you made has little if any honesty involved. these things have been pointed out to you repeatedly, yet you continue to repeat the lies as if doing so will make them true.

    this has a couple consequences for you.

    1. your lack of honesty makes you a poor candidate to be preaching the virtues of honesty.
    2. you lack of scientific understanding makes you a poor critic of science and the scientific process.

    in conclusion, you have zero credibility to discuss the topics you love to discuss. you need to get yourself an honest education.
Back to Top