Count the religious talking points...
YOU RESPOND:
---------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Pete
Date: Dec 6 2006 3:18 PMfirst of all, I'd like to say that John Lennon was not an atheist. He believed in everything. He would knock ideologies, but he also believed in everything.
Secondly, I think abolishing the possibility of god or gods because pathocrats have used religion to control a large percentage of the people is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Richard Dawkins is a good talker, but in the end it's just some fancy renaming of consciousness phenomenon. Darwinian evolution is just a theory and quite frankly it is full of holes. So is religious dogma. The reason being we are trying to bite our own teeth. The ultimate realization is that all life springs from consciousness, not the other way around. That is definitely irrational according to our old world way of thinking. I suggest you extrapolate from quantum physics. If I can affect quantum simply by observing does that mean I have prior knowledge of how the quantum field will behave, there is some sort of inextricable communication between all things, or I am creating it all?
I believe the answer is all of the above. Now how is THAT for irrational???sincerely,
pete
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
mmm I'm pretty sure he was lacking a god belief from his song "God."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_%28John_Lennon_song%29
Well that isn't what I do and I'm sure few at RRS do. I would only cross a god idea off the long list of god ideas if it can't logically exist or if it is a thing or idea like a chair or love. Now if you are going say religious violence doesn't count even if they actively use religion and refer to god I would call that a no-true-scotsman. However I'm not completely sure that is exectly what you are doing but you are still basically saying it doesn't matter if religious do bad things...
Full of holes? What holes are their? I'm sure all scientists would like to know what they got wrong so they can fix it. Of course you might want to talk a look at this index first.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Uh that sounds like a bad version of "the chicken and the egg" or "if a tree falls" question. First you need to define consciousness and then show how there is no way for things to exist without it.
I don't know a whole lot about quantum physics, but I'm pretty sure people don't think physics into reality...
Yes, I would say that is irrational, but more from the claims being irrational.
Voiderest, I love you. I was hoping someone would see through his strawman.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient