Author Topic: Atheists discriminated against (Read 2754 times)

crowMAW · « **Reply #120 on:** December 30, 2005, 09:37:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
Crowmaw you know better than that...They can't pass a law requiring all guns be turned in. First they would have to ammend the Constitution. You know the feds, then the States by 2/3. Then pass any anti-gun law you
like. An activist Court is one that would ignore the fact that it violated the Constitution. Non activists judges read the Constitution...activist judges get "Vibes" They smoke a doobie and get eminations.

You know better than that...unconstitutional laws do get passed and that is why the SCOTUS exists: to ultimately determine the constitutionality of actions by the Legislative and Executive branches. That's balance of power.

Rotax447 · « **Reply #121 on:** December 30, 2005, 09:43:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
Creating life is impossible not a technical challenge...Creating good tasting American beer is a technical challenge.

With science and technology doubling roughly every eighteen months, one must be very careful these days when one uses the term ‘impossible.’

All life on earth that we know of is based on DNA. DNA is composed of four non-living, organic molecules. We can build these molecules from scratch, and string them together to form a genome. If that genome we build is a copy of a virus, say, phi X, and if it infects cells and reproduces exactly like the original phi X, then we have created a live virus.

Phi X only has 5,000 base pairs in it’s genome. Humans have 3,000,000,000 so it’s going to take awhile before we start cranking out Frankenstein.

Silat · « **Reply #122 on:** December 30, 2005, 10:34:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Silat did you even read the first page of this thread??????

Yes I did.
Someone mentioned the founding fathers as Chrisitians so I posted a response. Is that a problem?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #123 on:** December 31, 2005, 12:10:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
Thats a definition made by someone who believes in a "god".

For example, if I were raised on a desert island, with no teaching of religion, and thus an athiest - how would you describe that? Agnostic maybe? OK... so a christian missionery shows up, tries to sell me the whole god thing, and I walk away laughing you're nuts and don't believe him. Is that faith?

Or how about this, how about I walked into a Church and said your god is actually a creation of my god: Bruce, you should all worship Bruce. If they don't believe me is that an illogical leap of faith?

I do not believe in God, I am an agnostic. My belief is that the logical endpoint of a discussion on theology is that because there is not evidence one way or the other, no logical conclusion can be produced.

Polytheism: the belief in many Gods.

Monotheism: The belief in a single God.

Atheism: The belief in no God.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #124 on:** December 31, 2005, 12:13:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
Creating life is impossible not a technical challenge...Creating good tasting American beer is a technical challenge.

Many things were impossible before they weren't.

Not a big microbrew fan huh?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #125 on:** December 31, 2005, 12:32:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Silat
Yes I did.
Someone mentioned the founding fathers as Chrisitians so I posted a response. Is that a problem?

Well I'd read it again because Octavious posted the same thing you did.

moot · « **Reply #126 on:** December 31, 2005, 12:32:20 AM »

I think it's funny that one permutation of matter is considered sacred, and others not.

Vulcan · « **Reply #127 on:** December 31, 2005, 02:52:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I do not believe in God, I am an agnostic. My belief is that the logical endpoint of a discussion on theology is that because there is not evidence one way or the other, no logical conclusion can be produced.

Polytheism: the belief in many Gods.

Monotheism: The belief in a single God.

Atheism: The belief in no God.

Well I think deep down you do, as shown by your personal definitions. You answered neither of my questions as well.

Thrawn · « **Reply #128 on:** December 31, 2005, 03:46:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Using logic, prove the existance or nonexistance of God.

If you cannot, then your belief in the existance or nonexistance of God is not based on logic.

Here is an example of the use of logic.

By your definition, Faith is "2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"

Yet you provide no evidence or logic to your belief in the nonexistance of God. It is just your gut feeling, or as you say, "I just know that it is not the right answer."

Therefore, even though you say you are faithless, you have a belief that does not rest on logical argument.

You have faith.

Your fallacy is that you are charging an athiest to prove a negative, when the the burden lies with proving the implied positive assertion that there is a god.

Thier could be an invisible purple dragon sitting beside me, but as it has no measureable properties it's lack of presence beside me isn't a matter of faith. It's a matter of it being meaningless whether it is there or not because it has no measurable effect.

Pooh21 · « **Reply #129 on:** December 31, 2005, 05:00:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
Dumba** rednecks... buddha's not a god for gawdsake!

Plus he wasn't fat. Thats just a Japanese thing, buddha was a skinny dude, he went and lived with those Indian Brahman hermits that virtually live off dirt.

So...
- Buddha wasn't a fat guy. He was a well educated skinny Indian prince.
- Buddha wasn't/isn't a god. He is a mere man who reached 'englightenment'

- Buddha doesn't have any "superpowers"

- Buddha didn't try to explain creation with a pile of fairy tales (as such Buddhism can accept Darwins theories quite happily)

Now pass the twinkies.

so he is a scrawny guy who is not a god, who has no superpowers, no heat vision, regeneration, super strength, or any of that fancy marvel crap?

that means I can kick him in the nads with impunity, reincarnate as angelina jolie and play with my titties,drink holsten, and fly ah all day, w00t.

Pooh21 · « **Reply #130 on:** December 31, 2005, 05:03:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Your fallacy is that you are charging an athiest to prove a negative, when the the burden lies with proving the implied positive assertion that there is a god.

Thier could be an invisible purple dragon sitting beside me, but as it has no measureable properties it's lack of presence beside me isn't a matter of faith. It's a matter of it being meaningless whether it is there or not because it has no measurable effect.

I dont know what if the big invisible purple dragon, bit your head off.

you never said he was intangible.

Booz · « **Reply #131 on:** December 31, 2005, 06:13:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pooh21
I dont know what if the big invisible purple dragon, bit your head off.

you never said he was intangible.

Then we'd have evidence of it's existence and you would be morally justified to exclude him from holding public office?

Pooh21 · « **Reply #132 on:** December 31, 2005, 06:16:25 AM »

would you try to exclude an invisble purple dragon from holding office?

Booz · « **Reply #133 on:** December 31, 2005, 07:32:33 AM »

No, thrawn. I think it's acceptable to discriminate against the headless.

Head biting invisiblke purple dragons probably need to be killed.

crowMAW · « **Reply #134 on:** December 31, 2005, 09:33:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Thier could be an invisible purple dragon sitting beside me,

What...the IPU isn't manly enough for you.