Atheism is retarded...

[Quaalude]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll read the whole article later, but, it appears you are mixing up systems and organisms.

I never said systems (ie. ecosystems) dont get more complex.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had said, "The *general trend* of evolution has been one of increasing complexity." I further stated that the general trend of any evolutionary system, not just biological, is that of increasing complexity.

Here's another link for ya. It also addresses the definition of complexity issue.

-Travas

[Meatmaw]

I'm playing this game and I reached a T intersection. Should I go right? You don't know? You won't commit to saying I should? So I should go left then? You don't know? What? You don't know what game I'm playing or anything about it? You need more details?


Not telling me I should go right doesn't mean you think I should go left. You simply might not know and I should be ok with that. You are not a coward for not deciding. You are recognizing that you don't have the authority to tell me.

[suprblah]

[ QUOTE ]
atheism is primarily a term of privation, it is the lack of a belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

nononono... In the wrod "atheism," the "a-" is a derivational prefix of negation, and not privation.

Compare with the words immoral and amoral. "Im-" is negation, meaning "not moral," while "a-" is privation, meaning "without morals.

Therefore, "atheist" literally means the negative of "theist," i.e. believes there is no god.

"agnostic" literally means "without thought," or, you cannot think (determine) whether there is a god or not.

[suprblah]

The absolute worst cop-out is the theory of "intelligent design," where you discount all religions but say that there must have been "Intelligent Creator," whether it was aliens, or Mohammaed or Celine Dion, who created the universe and everything around us.. Why??? Just cuz it FEELS like it or things don't "add up." That's 100000000000000x worse than agnosticism, where people can spend their whole lives trying to prove or disprove God (in vain). [censored] hippies

[Quaalude]

[ QUOTE ]

nononono... In the wrod "atheism," the "a-" is a derivational prefix of negation, and not privation.

Compare with the words immoral and amoral. "Im-" is negation, meaning "not moral," while "a-" is privation, meaning "without morals.

Therefore, "atheist" literally means the negative of "theist," i.e. believes there is no god.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, "atheist" literally means "without belief in the existence of a god or gods," not "believes there is no god." In its literal sense it is a lack of belief, not a belief in absence.

-Travas

[AthenianStranger]

I didn't read all eight pages; sorry, but it seemed like the same things were being repeated.

The distinction between atheism and agnosticism is born of the fallacious idea that everyone's opinions are important, must be defended, etc. It is the product of an egoistic society. The agnostic is a modern wonder. He starts with himself, as if what he thought about God were the most important thing.

Think about it from the perspective of God, or Being, or the One, whatever metaphysical transcendental unity pervades everything. Does it, does HE admire your agnosticism? Does it matter? No. Think about it this way. If we're talking about God, we might as well adopt the entirety of the language. I mean "grace" and "free will." According to Christian doctrine (and this is a ridiculous simplification), God is offerering grace all the time. It is a gift that it is your choice either to accept or reject. You have free will. This is why evil exists. Without it, faith would not be possible. If we did not doubt God's existence, we would know Him, we would know everything. We cannot know what that would be like.

We are making these distinctions because we have lost the simple and powerful idea of faith. You either have faith or you do not. It is not a matter of mathematical certainty. St. Anselm wrote about "the fool," who could conceive of the existence of an omnipotent first cause but did not have faith in God's existence. At every moment he is aware of divinity but always chooses the certainity of himelf. This is an error. Faith in God is and will always be a rejection of personhood, of personality. It is a renunciation of the self. Both "atheism" and "agnosticism" fall very short of this. Perhaps we should not be talking about God but about ourselves. If you give up self-love, there is room for belief. The desire for certainty is a product of selfish personhood.

St. Thomas Aquinas proved the existence of God in five different ways. Like it matters. If you need certainty about God before believing, you will never believe. One could prove the non-existence of God to a believer and he will still believe. One could prove the existence of God to a non-believer and he still would not believe. The point is, it can be proved either way. Kant showed this in the Antinomies of Pure Reason (in the Critique of Pure Reason). Such questions (free will vs. necessity, God or no God) are at the limit of human reason. Both sides are correct and there is no answer.

So we see, God is more powerful a concept than 'pink satellite orbiting Mars,' or 'Big Foot' or whatever. The idea of God simply is and always will be part of human consciousness. What does it mean for God to exist in this way? The more important questions are, at least for me: How do I want to live my life? Like an atheist, like a believer, what? How should we approach the universe, as cocky bastards, or as reverent stewards of the world?

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
St. Thomas Aquinas proved the existence of God in five different ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL - Well he certainly thought he did. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[jediael]

yes, let's both be solipsists ! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]