(May 31, 2012 at 4:18 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 4:14 pm)Annik Wrote: Atheists are only people who do not believe in god. Atheism does not beget existentialism, although I found it to be the logical answer.

Have you ever read any Teilhard de Chardin?

I don't understand what this has to do with my post.

(May 31, 2012 at 4:28 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 4:19 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: And with one massively understated sentence, Frankie shows off his awesome potential for subtle yet devastating putdowns.
I shudder to think what would happen if he used this as inspiration for a song but I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to see it happen.

Thus perfectly demonstrating any lack of ability to determine great works of art..A song inspired by calling people names, musical genius..

You haven't heard it yet, you can't possibly comment on how great it is.
It doesn't matter what the inspiration is, it could still end up as a masterpiece.

(May 31, 2012 at 4:11 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 4:01 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Adults accept reality the way it is, not the way they want it to be.

So, correct me if I'm wrong here.

1.Atheists see no meaning in life other than one you give it.
2.Adults accept reality the way it is, not the way they want it to be.

So, assuming the atheist in question is an adult, the meaning each atheist gives to life is reality the way it is.

You spot the obvious problem here?

"reality the way it is" implies an objective truth to reality, that conflicts with finding your own meaning to life, so which is it?

HELLO MCFLY!

We are all entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts.

My personal meaning IS subjective. But gravity and death are FACTS.

I should have said "adults SHOULD accept reality the way it is and not the way they want it to be".

You are being petty and stupid when you know damned well what I am talking about is HOW humans universally determine what facts are.

CONTEXT is what you miss. Our lives are what we make it, that is not in conflict with gravity or the earth rotating around the sun or evolution.

I am talking about scientific facts that are objective, and you are stupidly and pathetically trying to mix it with my admission that my life is my own.

And none of your objections to this argument constitute your pet deity claim being real in any case.

(May 31, 2012 at 4:28 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 4:19 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: And with one massively understated sentence, Frankie shows off his awesome potential for subtle yet devastating putdowns.
I shudder to think what would happen if he used this as inspiration for a song but I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to see it happen.

Thus perfectly demonstrating any lack of ability to determine great works of art..A song inspired by calling people names, musical genius..

A work of art can be great, despite having apparent negative themes. A lot of religious art is about death or dieing ( all the ones depicting the crucifixion, Sodom and Gomorrah ). How are you to know that Frankiej couldn't make an awesome song about calling your points mildly retarded?

(May 31, 2012 at 4:25 pm)frankiej Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 4:19 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: And with one massively understated sentence, Frankie shows off his awesome potential for subtle yet devastating putdowns.
I shudder to think what would happen if he used this as inspiration for a song but I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to see it happen.

I'll write you a song if you want.

I think it'd be hilarious if you waited for a legendarily moronic debate to crop up then wrote an incredibly insulting song about it and recorded it with a band but thats just me.
You know the kind of debate I mean, where both sides are just so thick you could drop IQ points just reading it. The kind that makes you go "Is this for real? Is someone playing a trick on me here?". It'd be like in the style of one of those epic songs like the ones by Tenacious D.
I don't know, its just an idea. lol

(May 31, 2012 at 4:30 pm)Annik Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 4:18 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Have you ever read any Teilhard de Chardin?

I don't understand what this has to do with my post.

Chardin was an existentialist who incorporated evolution into his theology,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

In his posthumously published book, The Phenomenon of Man, Teilhard writes of the unfolding of the material cosmos, from primordial particles to the development of life, human beings and the noosphere, and finally to his vision of the Omega Point in the future, which is "pulling" all creation towards it. He was a leading proponent of orthogenesis, the idea that evolution occurs in a directional, goal driven way, argued in terms that today go under the banner of convergent evolution. Teilhard argued in Darwinian terms with respect to biology, and supported the synthetic model of evolution, but argued in Lamarckian terms for the development of culture, primarily through the vehicle of education

(May 31, 2012 at 4:00 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 3:43 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: er... yes? Science operates on what it *can* prove.
Is that a system thats not quite up to your standard?
Could you give me an example of one that is?

Did you even listen to the clip? Science operates on assumptions.

Science only operates on what can be shown to be true or probable. Religion is the main culprit of operating on assumptions.

(May 31, 2012 at 4:35 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 4:30 pm)Annik Wrote: I don't understand what this has to do with my post.

Chardin was an existentialist who incorporated evolution into his theology,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

In his posthumously published book, The Phenomenon of Man, Teilhard writes of the unfolding of the material cosmos, from primordial particles to the development of life, human beings and the noosphere, and finally to his vision of the Omega Point in the future, which is "pulling" all creation towards it. He was a leading proponent of orthogenesis, the idea that evolution occurs in a directional, goal driven way, argued in terms that today go under the banner of convergent evolution. Teilhard argued in Darwinian terms with respect to biology, and supported the synthetic model of evolution, but argued in Lamarckian terms for the development of culture, primarily through the vehicle of education

Okay... I already read the Wiki on him and determined it still has nothing to do with my post.

(May 31, 2012 at 4:36 pm)Tobie Wrote: Science only operates on what can be shown to be true or probable. Religion is the main culprit of operating on assumptions.

Probability is interesting, have you heard Richard Swinburnes arguments? He argues that the classical proofs fail, but arguments based on probability are more convincing.

(May 31, 2012 at 4:43 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 4:36 pm)Tobie Wrote: Science only operates on what can be shown to be true or probable. Religion is the main culprit of operating on assumptions.

Probability is interesting, have you heard Richard Swinburnes arguments? He argues that the classical proofs fail, but arguments based on probability are more convincing.

The probability of a god is slim... Does that mean no god?