When do we cross the line from 'animal' to 'person?'

[Tonus]

So in this way i am sure that you will find very hard to understand the meaning of going over the PHYSICAL REALTY.

Ignoring the typo (too easy), I just want to point out that your comment was essentially a restatement of your earlier comment. And so I'll reiterate my point-- anyone can refer to things that are "beyond physical reality" and create and design whatever they wish. No one can disprove your fantasy, no one can detect it and you can shape and reshape it as you please, then wave off any dissenting opinion because it comes from "physical reality."

I think that we can more easily determine the issue by removing the word "physical" from that phrase. In which case, yes... I do find it difficult to understand the meaning of anything that is outside of reality.

[Angrboda]

I'm guessing that, like the human reborn as a walrus, somebody's ass was reborn as your mouth, and vice versa. Holy moksha!

[Muslim Scholar]

[quote='Esquilax' pid='431050' dateline='1365866638']
I'm an atheist. Always have been. To me, the gods of every extant religion have not met their burden of proof and thus, functionally, don't exist. Since I can't access religious experiences that other people have, nor have I ever had one of my own, I feel safe in tagging those religious experiences as fantasy. It's not that I'm not open, just that I haven't found anything there.
[/quote
I gave you a proof of God existence, they your choice of being an Atheist is illogical!
Either you need to refute the proof of be a Muslim

[Esquilax]

I'm an atheist. Always have been. To me, the gods of every extant religion have not met their burden of proof and thus, functionally, don't exist. Since I can't access religious experiences that other people have, nor have I ever had one of my own, I feel safe in tagging those religious experiences as fantasy. It's not that I'm not open, just that I haven't found anything there.

I gave you a proof of God existence, they your choice of being an Atheist is illogical!
Either you need to refute the proof of be a Muslim

I'm not going to get into that here, because that thread itself is full of refutations of your putative proof, and even a cursory glance reveals the stunning, unsupported leaps of logic you've had to make to get to a creator, let alone your pet one, but somehow I doubt you'll even listen.

I will say this though: I don't react well to people telling me what I need to do. Least of all regarding ridiculous propositions like yours. Go and collect your nobel prize, then well talk about what I need to do, genius.

[Muslim Scholar]

I gave you a proof of God existence, they your choice of being an Atheist is illogical!
Either you need to refute the proof of be a Muslim

I'm not going to get into that here, because that thread itself is full of refutations of your putative proof, and even a cursory glance reveals the stunning, unsupported leaps of logic you've had to make to get to a creator, let alone your pet one, but somehow I doubt you'll even listen.

I will say this though: I don't react well to people telling me what I need to do. Least of all regarding ridiculous propositions like yours. Go and collect your nobel prize, then well talk about what I need to do, genius.

It seems that most of you are having Atheism as a religion
Just refusing any thing against it
Can you point where the proof fails? don't think so

[Little Rik]

So in this way i am sure that you will find very hard to understand the meaning of going over the PHYSICAL REALTY.

Ignoring the typo (too easy), I just want to point out that your comment was essentially a restatement of your earlier comment. And so I'll reiterate my point-- anyone can refer to things that are "beyond physical reality" and create and design whatever they wish. No one can disprove your fantasy, no one can detect it and you can shape and reshape it as you please, then wave off any dissenting opinion because it comes from "physical reality."
I think that we can more easily determine the issue by removing the word "physical" from that phrase. In which case, yes... I do find it difficult to understand the meaning of anything that is outside of reality.

The reality is the driver not the driver and the car as a whole thing.
What i try to explain is that most of the materialistic people think that the driver and the vehicle are a unique reality when in realty is not the case.
The body is a vehicle that one day will get sick and rot away but the creature is a separate thing and will not rot away.
As the driver of the rotten car will take possession of an other vehicle in order to continue the journey also the creature will take possession of a new body that will allow him-her to continue the journey towards the goal.
So going over the PHYSICAL REALTY is when you understand that your body is a vehicle not the real you.
If you think this is a fantasy then you should demonstrate that body and mind are connected together for ever and are a unique realty.

[Tonus]

If you think this is a fantasy then you should demonstrate that body and mind are connected together for ever and are a unique realty.

Errr, no. You are telling me that the body is a vessel for an entity that can (and does?) escape it at some point. You have to demonstrate that this is the case. I am going to assume that you cannot, and that you will explain that you cannot by claiming that it's not part of "physical real(i)ty." And we'll be back at square one.

[Esquilax]

It seems that most of you are having Atheism as a religion
Just refusing any thing against it
Can you point where the proof fails? don't think so

The part where you leap from "time has a beginning" to "therefore it must have a creator, and it must be MY pet creator god!" despite not knowing a damn thing about the circumstances of a pre-time universe, not of anything beyond the planck time barrier. Your ignorance of things does not require a god jammed into the gaps; you don't know, so don't pretend like you do.

Just calm down, sit tight, and wait for science to do the work you've so arrogantly proclaimed doesn't need to be done because you've got all the answers in a thousand year old book of fairy tales. I guarantee the shit science will produce from that knowledge will be a billion times cooler than what you've got.

[Muslim Scholar]

The part where you leap from "time has a beginning" to "therefore it must have a creator, and it must be MY pet creator god!" despite not knowing a damn thing about the circumstances of a pre-time universe,

I got that you accepted that time had a start
the need for a creator is very obvious, as the state before time must be static and after time is dynamic
Static is the opposite of dynamic
A doer must involve to change it

If you are going to reject that, then you need to prove that logic may not apply
i.e. a logical paradox may exist.
Until you do that, you have no argument.

Just calm down, sit tight, and wait for science to do the work

There is no science involved in the proof, it is by logic which is much stronger than science.

[Esquilax]

The part where you leap from "time has a beginning" to "therefore it must have a creator, and it must be MY pet creator god!" despite not knowing a damn thing about the circumstances of a pre-time universe,

I got that you accepted that time had a start
the need for a creator is very obvious, as the state before time must be static and after time is dynamic
Static is the opposite of dynamic
A doer must involve to change it

Shall we play "spot the presupposition?" How do you know time was static before the big bang? Can you do what real scientists cannot, and give a measurable reading of the singularity? If no, then you have no way of proving your assertion, and therefore your entire construct collapses before it's even gotten off the ground.

BONUS PRESUPPOSITION: This "doer," even if I am to accept your initial flawed premise, need not be the muslim god. It could be Cthulhu, and I'd have an equal amount of proof for that as for anything else. Cthulhu F'tagn!

If you are going to reject that, then you need to prove that logic may not apply
i.e. a logical paradox may exist.
Until you do that, you have no argument.

You would need to apply some logic before you have an argument. As it stands, you've got baseless crap.

There is no science involved in the proof, it is by logic which is much stronger than science.

Cool, thanks: I needed a new post for the hall of shame.