A
aperture
Guest
I honestly cannot tell whether you’re being sarcastic or not.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The central contradiction running through the arguments of many of those new atheists authors
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
K
kk23wong
Guest
True Love depends on our actions.Ahhhh, yes. The old “stimulate the pleasure centers of the sheeple by promoting love-less promiscuous sex and drugs to take romantic True Love and Church out of the lives of the sheeple. Keep em high and sexed. Then, they’ll lust for the brain pleasure. Kids and marriage will only get in the way of selfish physical and chemically-induced brain pleasure, so abortion will be needed. Reproduction rates drop and the polluted earth is saved from those dirty humans. It’s already working in Europe, U.S. is next.” Sound about right? Isn’t that the Grand Design? Or was it supposed to be a secret?
Accordingly, abortion would be needed if the world’s population keeps going.
Otherwise, we are soon running out of resources.
Religions have merits and I admit that they are valuable heritages.
However, we have to ask the churches to come into real actions.
Instead of empty talks on souls, we have to put our efforts on environmental problems.
By the way, you have to understand where the drugs come from.
We both assume that the God (a subject that manipulate everything) exists.
Then, where do the drugs come from?
Free Wills would not give you the drugs.
If we have sins, the sins are both.
We all know the truth. It is something you can see.
Teru Wong
M
ManOnFire
Guest
Religion is outlawed in China. It takes every adult couple to have 2.1 kids just to keep the population stable, since not all children will reproduce. So why has the population in China exploded in the past few decades if you are a proponent of very little religion?True Love depends on our actions.
Accordingly, abortion would be needed if the world’s population keeps going.
Otherwise, we are soon running out of resources.
Religions have merits and I admit that they are valuable heritages.
However, we have to ask the churches to come into real actions.
Instead of empty talks on souls, we have to put our efforts on environmental problems.
By the way, you have to understand where the drugs come from.
We both assume that the God (a subject that manipulate everything) exists.
Then, where do the drugs come from?
Free Wills would not give you the drugs.
If we have sins, the sins are both.
We all know the truth. It is something you can see.
Teru Wong
C
ContegoFides
Guest
Abortion kills an innocent life. Therefore, by your reasoning, killing innocent life in the name of population control is good and is loving. Therefore, by your reasoning, we should kill whomever we deem to be weak or useless or simply do not like - in the name of love. Accordingly, the genocide in Rwanda, in which people were bloodily hacked limb from limb with machetes, was not only good, but loving.True Love depends on our actions.
Accordingly, abortion would be needed if the world’s population keeps going.
Otherwise, we are soon running out of resources.
I respectfully submit that on its face your reasoning leads to extreme objective evil and is therefore flawed.
The solution to population issues is not to kill the innocent and the helpless, but to find create solutions for supporting large populations.
There appears to be an assumption here that all religions fail to address environmental problems.Religions have merits and I admit that they are valuable heritages.
However, we have to ask the churches to come into real actions.
Instead of empty talks on souls, we have to put our efforts on environmental problems.
Paragraph 2415 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
One can see the Catholic Church requires good stewardship of the environment, and even considers waste or abuse of the environment to be sinful. Here’s a couple of websites for review: conservation.catholic.org/catechism.htm catechismoncall.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/the-catholic-church-and-the-environment/2415 “The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.”
By the way, you have to understand where the drugs come from.
We both assume that the God (a subject that manipulate everything) exists.
Then, where do the drugs come from?
I apologize, but I do not understand what you are trying to say. Is this a reference to evil in the world, and the argument that the presence of evil excludes a good God?Free Wills would not give you the drugs.
If we have sins, the sins are both.
K
kk23wong
Guest
Accordingly, it “seems to be” a global issue. I repeat, religions are one of the obstcales. They stops many people from realizing the facts that we are facing the risk of a mass extinction. It is obviously a threat to human beings as well.Abortion kills an innocent life. Therefore, by your reasoning, killing innocent life in the name of population control is good and is loving. Therefore, by your reasoning, we should kill whomever we deem to be weak or useless or simply do not like - in the name of love. Accordingly, the genocide in Rwanda, in which people were bloodily hacked limb from limb with machetes, was not only good, but loving.
I respectfully submit that on its face your reasoning leads to extreme objective evil and is therefore flawed.
The solution to population issues is not to kill the innocent and the helpless, but to find create solutions for supporting large populations.
There appears to be an assumption here that all religions fail to address environmental problems.
Genocide?
If the world’s population continues to grow, it would be a genocide to all children.
In the name of love, we have no choices but to use every measure to strictly adopt birth control. Real love is an intention from bottom heart. It is not a decoration for prayers. The glorified image (i.e. the God) cannot cover our bloody history.
If the truth has been revealed in the past, we should not hesitate to admit her physical presence.
A lie lasted for the rest of life
A liar refuses confess is guilty forever
A religion lies on soul
How many people have to be suppressed before it is already too late?
We all know that the Earth is our only resort.
Dead bodies are eye-catchy.
However, souls are invisible.
catechismoncall.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/the-catholic-church-and-the-environment/[Paragraph 2415 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
One can see the Catholic Church requires good stewardship of the environment, and even considers waste or abuse of the environment to be sinful. Here’s a couple of websites for review: http://conservation.catholic.org/catechism.htm
I apologize, but I do not understand what you are trying to say. Is this a reference to evil in the world, and the argument that the presence of evil excludes a good God?
The God is good, only if the lie (on souls) survives.
If the God has refused to confess the past mistakes, it is not a matter of good and evil.
It is the matter of time.
It is a countdown to the mass extinction (as mentioned above).
It is a matter of our children.
The public failed to understand the physical presence (a conscious earth) of the God, which acts as a very serious pre-warning for everyone of us. No one can survive in the coming century.
I understand my words are very offensive. I don’t affraid it would affect my real life because I realize that we have not much time left.
(1) **Look at the satellite: **http://www.flashearth.com
(2) Search for the keywords such as “desertification” and “water and food supply”.
(3) Look at your children (you will soon find out that we have no alternatives but to support abortion and birth control).
Teru Wong
B
buffalo
Guest
To those who embrace scientism:
Blinded by Scientism
…Yet if science must depend upon philosophy both to justify its presuppositions and to interpret its results, the falsity of scientism seems doubly assured. As the conservative philosopher John Kekes (himself a confirmed secularist like Derbyshire and MacDonald) concludes: “Hence philosophy, and not science, is a stronger candidate for being the very paradigm of rationality.”
more…
Blinded by Scientism
…Yet if science must depend upon philosophy both to justify its presuppositions and to interpret its results, the falsity of scientism seems doubly assured. As the conservative philosopher John Kekes (himself a confirmed secularist like Derbyshire and MacDonald) concludes: “Hence philosophy, and not science, is a stronger candidate for being the very paradigm of rationality.”
more…
A
AntiTheist
Guest
The “presuppositions” of science, as they are – that there is a stable universe that works according to regular laws – begins as an assumption that becomes verified over time as the results of science demonstrate that there must be truth to the assumption in order for it to work the way that it does.Yet if science must depend upon philosophy both to justify its presuppositions
Science isn’t grounded in faith or philosophy in any sense of the those two terms as they are commonly understood. Science is results based and rooted in evidence, not faith.
K
kk23wong
Guest
*Truth *is something you can see.The “presuppositions” of science, as they are – that there is a stable universe that works according to regular laws – begins as an assumption that becomes verified over time as the results of science demonstrate that there must be truth to the assumption in order for it to work the way that it does.
Science isn’t grounded in faith or philosophy in any sense of the those two terms as they are commonly understood. Science is results based and rooted in evidence, not faith.
*Minds *generated from brain.
*Faith *is heritage.
*Science *is everything around you.
*Philosophy *must be based in truth.
*Religions *have merits only if you can put them into practices.
Without the earth, we have nowhere to go.
We are only a “survival ball” floating in the endless universe.
We have plenty of gods, but not food and water.
Admit that “the earth is a supreme being”
It is a logical way of science.
It is the very first step.
Teru Wong
M
ManOnFire
Guest
Teru, why would you expect your plan for less religion to work when China’s population has grown so fast with little religion?Religion is outlawed in China. It takes every adult couple to have 2.1 kids just to keep the population stable, since not all children will reproduce. So why has the population in China exploded in the past few decades if you are a proponent of very little religion?
Q
Quid_estVeritas
Guest
It looks like this Atheist and naturalist philosopher Alex Rosenberg makes more or less the same argument that I did in the opening post, while STILL arguing for atheism. He just thinks all of our beliefs are really non-existent! see link;
subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2010/12/alex-rosenberg-powerful-metaphysical.html
subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2010/12/alex-rosenberg-powerful-metaphysical.html
A
AntiTheist
Guest
Why in the world would you resurrect a half-year-old thread on which I thoroughly trounced your arguments?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.