(May 31, 2012 at 7:19 am)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 7:13 am)Ace Otana Wrote: And great works of science have come from bright atheist minds

Have you seen the list of famous scientists that were religious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...in_science

The vast majority of these lived prior to the discovery of Evolution and DNA. With no explanation of how things came into existence, the only answer they had was "god did it". What's your excuse?

(May 31, 2012 at 7:48 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: So what's your actual point? I suspect you do not have one. Again.

You said

Quote:religion induces the mind to unquestioning servitude and blind obedience.

That simply is not true. Any intelligent person can see that. Please act like a grown up.

(May 31, 2012 at 7:55 am)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 7:48 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: So what's your actual point? I suspect you do not have one. Again.

You said

Quote:religion induces the mind to unquestioning servitude and blind obedience.

That simply is not true. Any intelligent person can see that. Please act like a grown up.

Really? Then what is faith?

Oh, StatCrux, you really do irk me some days. You come here, with a seemingly innocent question, while failing to recognise its nonsensical and therefore unanswerable. You fail to accept your mistake or be intellectually honest about your position, and then resort to semantic games by insinuating that those who lack faith have faith, which is asinine and completely foolish of you. You're basically looking for ways to make as many cheap shots against us hoping that one of your baseless assertions will stick, but of course they don't.

You're seeking confirmers for your presuppositions and misconceptions about atheism, and that's why you fail at debating people.

We don't have faith. In anything. You don't "need faith to have no faith" (I can't believe you'd say something so absurd).

Life has no objective meaning, other than to live. What you do or don't do in your lifespan is entirely up to circumstance, cause and effect, and your own ability.

We use our imagination, our creativity, our brains, same as you, and the observable world around us to inspire us to create art, literature, music, poetry, technology, and so on. The passion and drive to create comes from us. Belief in a metaphysical fucking entity that has no inherent form, a non-entity lacking a clear positive ontology, is obviously not going to inspire anyone, or accomplish anything at all, you oblivious-to-your-own-god-concept-twit.

The only thing we lack is the belief in your magic man.

Get fucking over yourself.

(May 31, 2012 at 7:50 am)Mosrhun Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 7:19 am)StatCrux Wrote: Have you seen the list of famous scientists that were religious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...in_science

The vast majority of these lived prior to the discovery of Evolution and DNA. With no explanation of how things came into existence, the only answer they had was "god did it". What's your excuse?

Dear me, are you serious? These people still had the same arguments that atheists use today but chose to remain believers. Anthony Flew knew about evolution and dna...I don't see how evolution or dna conflicts with the existence of god anyway?

Atheism does not inspire artworks, nor does theism. Mythologies certainly do... and that would include Christian mythology, as well as high fantasy, Greek gods, and King Arthur.

(May 31, 2012 at 7:59 am)Welsh cake Wrote: Oh, StatCrux, you really do irk me some days. You come here, with a seemingly innocent question, while failing to recognise its nonsensical and therefore unanswerable. You fail to accept your mistake or be intellectually honest about your position, and then resort to semantic games by insinuating that those who lack faith have faith, which is asinine and completely foolish of you. You're basically looking for ways to make as many cheap shots against us hoping that'll your baseless assertions will stick, but of course they don't.

You're seeking confirmers for your presuppositions and misconceptions about atheism, and that's why you fail at debating people.

We don't have faith. In anything. You don't "need faith to have no faith" (I can't believe you'd say something so absurd).

Life has no objective meaning, other than to live. What you do or don't do in your lifespan is entirely up to circumstance, cause and effect, and your own ability.

We use our imagination, our creativity, our brains, same as you, and the observable world around us to inspire us to create art, literature, music, poetry, technology, and so on. The passion and drive to create comes from us. Belief in a metaphysical fucking entity that has no inherent form, a non-entity lacking a clear positive ontology, is obviously not going to inspire anyone, or accomplish anything at all, you oblivious-to-your-own-god-concept-twit.

Look stay on track, just the basics first. If you say life has "no meaning" objective or otherwise, the original argument was "no meaning" objective or subjective was not mentioned. You cannot then create your own meaning without being delusional, to create a meaning when you have just stated there isn't one is contradictory. If you then "believe" your own meaning that is faith in your own self admittedly delusion. Just stick with this, can you have meaning and no meaning at the same time? Yes or No?

What's funny is that theists have in fact made up their own meaning without actually knowing it. The irony.

(May 31, 2012 at 7:59 am)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 7:50 am)Mosrhun Wrote: The vast majority of these lived prior to the discovery of Evolution and DNA. With no explanation of how things came into existence, the only answer they had was "god did it". What's your excuse?

Dear me, are you serious? These people still had the same arguments that atheists use today but chose to remain believers. Anthony Flew knew about evolution and dna...I don't see how evolution or dna conflicts with the existence of god anyway?

It gives an alternative to a creation scenario. With no alternative, god must have done it and therefore they are theists. Are you really that dense?

(May 31, 2012 at 7:50 am)StatCrux Wrote: The subject of the painting doesn't need to be religious, the mind of the artist remains religious in its way of understanding reality. In the same way a monk cleaning his cell is continuously in union with God, his life becomes continual prayer, so the mindset of the artist doesn't stop being religious if they paint a non religious subject.

You appear to be begging the question/circular argument on this one.

You're claiming that the artist creates great art because he is inspired by religion. He is inspired by religion, because he paints great art.

You haven't quantified this statement, merely asserted it.

I used Da Vinci for a very good reason, because the faith attributed to him is Roman Catholic, yet his views, whilst occasionally referencing a God, were distinctly heretical in nature, and most certainly focused on "an empirical approach to every thought, opinion, and action and accepted no truth unless verified or verifiable, whether related to natural phenomena, human behavior, or social activities."*
Sounds more like an empirical viewpoint rather than a transcendental one to me.

*Source: Leonardo - Marco Rosci (1976)