The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I understand what you're saying, Matt. But he admitted there that he's a troll. Do you think a troll is going to change?
Don't we ban trolls?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I understand what you're saying, Matt. But he admitted there that he's a troll. Do you think a troll is going to change?
I understand what you're saying, Matt. But he admitted there that he's a troll. Do you think a troll is going to change?
My pleasure, friend! But build high and strong the walls of contempt lest they fall.
Hammbone -
Welcome to the site. Prepare to be dazzled by the amazing ability of one or two of our members to compeletely ignore reason and logic.
It's like a roller coaster ride that never ends.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd almost swear that I detect a note of sarcasm ...doppelgänger;1215538 said:This is such an awesome thread. For years I'd been wondering what it is that atheist's do not grasp, and more importantly, why. And here it is spread out through this thread with uncommon clarity and conviction.
Can I have one more cheer for obscure, inane references to unrelated philosophical conundrums?doppelgänger;1215538 said:And the biggest hip hip hooray for maybe dead cats!
Because you asked so nicely:Can I have one more cheer for obscure, inane references to unrelated philosophical conundrums?
Come on - just one more.
doppelgänger;1215557 said:Because you asked so nicely:
"Hip, hip, hooray for monism being unable to account for the dualistic nature of experiential being!"
And I guess while I'm at it: "Hip, hip hooray for people completely lacking a capacity for humor or self-reflection!"
I don't understand why you feel the need to cheer for these types of things. I am saddened by all of the things you are cheering for. To each his own, though.
The cheers are sarcasm, mball. They are not intended to be actual cheers as if we are in support of these things.
Wow! I'm surprised you of all people took that seriously. I guess I should have added in the . I was just playing off of his last cheer for a lack of sense of humor.
[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, serif]I'm not questioning the validity of mystical experience without God, only its relative completeness and philosophical consistency--which, by the way, you did not address.
And how pray tell am I to do that?But, philosophically, a religion without God is like gathering fruit without trees because you cannot have effects without causes. A religion without God is little more than an emotional ceremony.
[FONT=Georgia, serif]As for not stepping into the shoes of the atheist...sorry, but I've been there.
LOL - I apologize for missing it. I should have known that you were playing along. This one is on me.
For what it's worth, I much prefer to read a post without all of those emoticons. Every now and then, they are useful, but some people seem to be addicted to them.
Man may indeed create his earliest religions out of his fears and by means of his illusions. Later religions are in response to inner urgings to find meaning and direction, an innate or preexisting urge to serve an ideal that he deems as of supreme importance to himself and all mankind. The symbols of the ideal, beliefs, may be either good or bad just to the extent that the symbol does or does not displace the original worshipful ideal. But symbolism must not be confused with direct idolatry wherein the material object or idea is directly and actually worshiped.To say mind emerges from matter explains nothing. Logically, if one believes mind is an emergent property of mechanistic mathematical probabilities and whatnot, consistency demands that he or she also believe that everything that emerges from mind is of like character. Mechanism does afford a universe frame of thought, howbeit one in which, to be consistent, the impossible must be done: the observer must be separated from the observed. Without a concept of preexisting mind, the rationalist must face the insurmountable task of explaining how something that is independent of the mechanism can arise from mechanism: as it were, he must be able to explain the motive-power of electricity in terms of the construction of a motor. Failing in this, the rationalist must admit that he has no more claim to truth than the theist, any more than there can there be a question of the phenomenon of a bird being more true or meaningful than the phenomenon of a rock.
This is fun...and funny. The atheists here just don't get it. The concept of God affords a more consistent universe frame for original thought, but in true religion it is not the object directly and actually worshiped.
Yes, I'm a troll whose weapon has been reason. And rather than responding with alternative explanatory ideas, atheists generally (though certainly not always) respond with contempt. Why they would thus surrender their power to me, you'll have to ask Dr. Phil.I understand what you're saying, Matt. But he admitted there that he's a troll. Do you think a troll is going to change?